Power Transfers Lawsuit Towards Greenpeace Is an Try and Drain Our Sources and Silence Dissent — World Points
Apr 04 (IPS) –
CIVICUS speaks with Daniel Simons, Senior Authorized Counsel Strategic Defence for Greenpeace Worldwide, concerning the lawsuit introduced by an oil and gasoline firm in opposition to Greenpeace and its broader implications for civil society. Greenpeace is a worldwide community of environmental organisations campaigning on points similar to local weather change, disarmament, forests, natural farming and peace.
What prompted Power Switch to take authorized motion in opposition to Greenpeace?
The route of the Dakota Entry Pipeline crosses beneath the Missouri River a brief distance from the reservation of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. In April 2016, tribal members arrange prayer encampments to specific their opposition to the development. They apprehensive that websites of cultural significance could be broken, and that the pipeline would possibly contaminate the river, the Tribe’s water supply.
Power Switch took quite a lot of provocative actions. It sued the Tribe’s chairperson and different members within the Indigenous resistance, and never lengthy after, bulldozed an space lower than 24 hours after the Tribe had filed a declaration in court docket stating there have been burial grounds and sources of cultural significance within the space. These occasions coincided with an enormous development in consideration for and attendance on the camp.
Power Switch alleges that the Greenpeace defendants have been someway the masterminds, coming in and secretly organising all the pieces that occurred in the course of the Standing Rock protests, and that this included trespassing, property harm and creating public nuisance. The corporate additionally accuses the Greenpeace defendants of defamation, complaining about 9 statements particularly. Moreover, Power Switch claims Greenpeace’s actions delayed the refinancing of the pipeline’s building mortgage, inflicting monetary hurt to the corporate.
What was Greenpeace’s precise involvement within the protests and its relationship with Indigenous communities?
Greenpeace – together with Greenpeace Inc and Greenpeace Fund, each primarily based within the USA, and Greenpeace Worldwide, a Dutch basis – performed solely a restricted function within the protests. Greenpeace Inc had some connections to the Indigenous communities at Standing Rock; as I perceive it, the connection was respectful however not in depth.
Greenpeace Inc supported the protests by funding 5 trainers from an impartial Indigenous community to supply coaching on non-violent direct motion for 2 weeks, conducting provide drives for the camps, offering short-term workers primarily to assist with getting ready the camp for winter and donating some lock bins that protesters might use to kind a human chain, though no proof suggests they have been ever used. It additionally printed articles and co-signed two letters to banks containing the 9 statements Power Switch now claims are defamatory. These statements had already been extensively reported by media and United Nations our bodies earlier than Greenpeace’s involvement.
In keeping with an Indigenous activist who testified in court docket, Greenpeace Inc was current however adopted the lead of individuals on the bottom. Its involvement was so minimal that the majority tribal nations at Standing Rock wouldn’t even have been conscious of it. The activist described claims that Greenpeace managed the resistance as ‘paternalistic’ and emphasised that many Indigenous leaders had the power to run a posh motion and interact with media themselves.
Greenpeace Worldwide’s solely related motion was signing an open letter led by the Dutch civil society organisation BankTrack, alongside 500 different organisations. In the meantime, Greenpeace Fund had no involvement within the Standing Rock resistance, but Power Switch argues that sharing sources similar to workplace house and call particulars with Greenpeace Inc makes it liable.
How is Greenpeace defending itself and what impression has the lawsuit had on its operations?
We argue that Power Switch has vastly exaggerated our function within the protests and is trying to recuperate prices which can be all unrelated to our actions. There may be simply no proof of any hyperlink between the Greenpeace defendants’ actions and the damages the corporate claims. And there’s definitely no hyperlink to any act of violence or property harm.
Greenpeace Worldwide has additionally taken authorized motion within the Netherlands, utilizing the brand new European Union anti-SLAPP directive for the primary time to problem what we view as an try to empty our sources and silence dissent. Defending ourselves has required vital monetary and personnel sources. Whereas Greenpeace has the capability to struggle again, there are issues that such lawsuits might deter smaller or much less skilled organisations from difficult the highly effective US oil and gasoline trade – which seems to be one of many targets of this case.
What are the following steps within the authorized proceedings and the way do you see this case resolving?
Whereas the jury has reached a verdict that determined the Greenpeace defendants should pay US$666 million for defamation and the opposite claims, the decide nonetheless must enter a remaining judgment. There are apparent points with jury verdict and we’re within the strategy of difficult these. Greenpeace Inc and Greenpeace Fund have already introduced they may enchantment to the North Dakota Supreme Courtroom. In the meantime, Greenpeace Worldwide is pursuing its case in opposition to Power Switch within the District Courtroom of Amsterdam, with the primary procedural listening to scheduled for two July.
The battle is much from over. Greenpeace is decided to defeat these claims and maintain Power Switch accountable for submitting repeated SLAPP fits. This struggle extends past Greenpeace – it issues the safety of freedom of expression. An assault on one is an assault on all, and we hope civil society will stand with us.
SEE ALSOItaly: ‘Authoritarian tendencies manifest themselves in efforts to regulate info and stifle dissent’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Ilaria Masinara 22.Jun.2024
Europe: ‘Members states should introduce nationwide anti-SLAPP laws to guard public watchdogs’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Francesca Borg Constanzi 21.Mar.2024
How SLAPPs undermine democracy: a case examine of the USA CIVICUS 02.Jul.2018
Comply with @IPSNewsUNBureau
Comply with IPS Information UN Bureau on Instagram
© Inter Press Service (2025) — All Rights Reserved. Unique supply: Inter Press Service
