Greenpeace, ordered to pay $660 million in damages: "This can't happen"
Greenpeace issued a statement on the 21st, saying that this ruling would be a serious threat to the activities of civic groups, after a North Dakota court in the United States ruled that the international environmental group Greenpeace must pay approximately 660 million dollars (approximately 967.89 billion won) in damages.
In 2016, Greenpeace protested against the construction of a pipeline in the Dakotas, and the jury found that Greenpeace had damaged the company's reputation during the process.
This lawsuit stemmed from protests against the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) in 2016. At the time, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe launched a strong opposition movement, citing concerns about water contamination and infringement on their sovereignty. Tens of thousands of people, including approximately 300 Native American tribes in North America, joined in solidarity. Greenpeace also actively participated in this movement.
As the conflict intensified, then-President Barack Obama temporarily halted the construction of the pipeline, but the first-term administration of Donald Trump later re-authorized the pipeline, which was completed in 2017.
Greenpeace pointed out that this ruling could set a precedent for big oil companies to suppress dissent through legal action and could discourage the activities of local communities and civil society groups to respond to the climate crisis. Greenpeace
was awarded $660 million in damages by a U.S. court for defaming a certain company. Greenpeace issued a statement saying, "This ruling will be a serious threat to silence civil society groups." [Photo = Greenpeace]
Greenpeace International strongly protested immediately after the ruling, saying, "This ruling is an attempt by the company to suppress freedom of expression and the right to peaceful protest."
Sushma Raman, Greenpeace USA and interim executive director of the Greenpeace Fund, pointed out that "this lawsuit is a prime example of strategic blockade lawsuits in which companies use the courts to suppress dissent."
He continued, "These lawsuits undermine the fundamental spirit of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects freedom of expression and peaceful protest," and emphasized, "While fossil fuel companies can suppress civic groups, they cannot stop the global climate movement."
Mars Christensen, Executive Director of Greenpeace International, pointed out, "The climate crisis is worsening, environmental inequality is deepening, and fossil fuel companies are continuing to prioritize their profits over the health and sustainable future of all people." He then directly criticized, "The Trump administration has rolled back environmental protection policies during its first four years in office, and its allies are attempting to suppress civil society."
Greenpeace defined this lawsuit as a representative example of a strategic blocking lawsuit (SLAPP). SLAPP is considered one of the strategies to silence dissenting voices by pressuring nonprofit organizations and activists with legal lawsuits.
In recent years, major fossil fuel companies such as Shell, Total, and Eni have filed similar lawsuits.
Greenpeace plans to respond to this. On 28 March 2024, Greenpeace France dismissed the SLAPP lawsuit filed by Total Energy. On 10 December of the same year, Greenpeace UK and Greenpeace International succeeded in having Shell withdraw the SLAPP lawsuit.
"This ruling is not the end," said Christine Kasper, legal counsel at Greenpeace International. "We are continuing our anti-SLAPP lawsuit against ETP's oppression and will continue our legal action in the Dutch court in July."
Greenpeace International added that it will continue legal proceedings to recover all damages and costs incurred as a result of ETP's repeated and groundless lawsuits.
https://www.inews24.com/view/blogger/1825580
In 2016, Greenpeace protested against the construction of a pipeline in the Dakotas, and the jury found that Greenpeace had damaged the company's reputation during the process.
This lawsuit stemmed from protests against the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) in 2016. At the time, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe launched a strong opposition movement, citing concerns about water contamination and infringement on their sovereignty. Tens of thousands of people, including approximately 300 Native American tribes in North America, joined in solidarity. Greenpeace also actively participated in this movement.
As the conflict intensified, then-President Barack Obama temporarily halted the construction of the pipeline, but the first-term administration of Donald Trump later re-authorized the pipeline, which was completed in 2017.
Greenpeace pointed out that this ruling could set a precedent for big oil companies to suppress dissent through legal action and could discourage the activities of local communities and civil society groups to respond to the climate crisis. Greenpeace
was awarded $660 million in damages by a U.S. court for defaming a certain company. Greenpeace issued a statement saying, "This ruling will be a serious threat to silence civil society groups." [Photo = Greenpeace]
Greenpeace International strongly protested immediately after the ruling, saying, "This ruling is an attempt by the company to suppress freedom of expression and the right to peaceful protest."
Sushma Raman, Greenpeace USA and interim executive director of the Greenpeace Fund, pointed out that "this lawsuit is a prime example of strategic blockade lawsuits in which companies use the courts to suppress dissent."
He continued, "These lawsuits undermine the fundamental spirit of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects freedom of expression and peaceful protest," and emphasized, "While fossil fuel companies can suppress civic groups, they cannot stop the global climate movement."
Mars Christensen, Executive Director of Greenpeace International, pointed out, "The climate crisis is worsening, environmental inequality is deepening, and fossil fuel companies are continuing to prioritize their profits over the health and sustainable future of all people." He then directly criticized, "The Trump administration has rolled back environmental protection policies during its first four years in office, and its allies are attempting to suppress civil society."
Greenpeace defined this lawsuit as a representative example of a strategic blocking lawsuit (SLAPP). SLAPP is considered one of the strategies to silence dissenting voices by pressuring nonprofit organizations and activists with legal lawsuits.
In recent years, major fossil fuel companies such as Shell, Total, and Eni have filed similar lawsuits.
Greenpeace plans to respond to this. On 28 March 2024, Greenpeace France dismissed the SLAPP lawsuit filed by Total Energy. On 10 December of the same year, Greenpeace UK and Greenpeace International succeeded in having Shell withdraw the SLAPP lawsuit.
"This ruling is not the end," said Christine Kasper, legal counsel at Greenpeace International. "We are continuing our anti-SLAPP lawsuit against ETP's oppression and will continue our legal action in the Dutch court in July."
Greenpeace International added that it will continue legal proceedings to recover all damages and costs incurred as a result of ETP's repeated and groundless lawsuits.
https://www.inews24.com/view/blogger/1825580
Comments
Post a Comment