If activists can't be shot like chaotic boars, how would that Confederate MP want? Richard Wilk, fuel giants are looking for another ways to deal with their critics. They are increasingly looking forward to the not entirely fresh SLAPP method – that is, filing strategical lawsuits against engagement in public affairs.
According to the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, in specified proceedings the main nonsubjective is to reduce or penalise public debate, which uses the imbalance of forces – financial, social – between the parties. So if the trial against Greenpeace by Energy Transfer does not look like a textbook example of SLAPP, then I don't know what it is.
Dirty business on Sioux lands
What is it? 10 years ago in North Dakota, the Sioux of the Standing stone tribe began protests against the construction of Dakota Access Pipeline. According to the fresh York Times, native residents have pointed out that a fragment of the pipeline moving under Lake Oahe, which is located on national land close their reserve, causes restrictions on access to water and violates places considered sacred in their ancestral territory.
Blockages and demonstrations brought together 100,000 opponents of the investment carried out by the American fuel company Energy Transfer. During the demonstration, police and private services utilized force, which turned into dangerous, over a year of confrontation.
The first oil transfer was somewhat delayed and, as the company's lawyers say, exposed them to additional costs (possibly related to PR support and safety measures) and failure of part of the funding. That is why present they are demanding their return from Greenpeace, which was active in the protests and was to "plan, organize and finance them", as well as "inciting" demonstrators to riot.
A $300 million damages suit went to court a while ago, and now the trial has begun. typical Greenpeace Everett Jack Jr. repudiates the charges, indicating that the organization acts without violence, and its task was to support demonstrators by providing them with knowledge, training or equipment. The chronology of the events presented by the lawyer besides contradicts the Greenpeace's plan for the protests.
Manifestations were to begin long before green activists joined them. The accusations of liability for losses of Energy Transfer in the form of loans from banks besides seem exaggerated. The company's proxy believes that the letter signed by Greenpeace and another organizations was the direct reason why any of the Energy Transfer lenders withdrew their support. I would like to believe that open letters have specified power, but reality in a large and dirty business is usually completely different.
Also, the intentions of those active in the jury selection may not be pure. Many of them are accused of being unbiased due to their connections with local law enforcement authorities and the fuel manufacture in the region.
Listen to the author's podcast:
"It is now more clear than always that the Greenpeace defendants will not receive a fair and impartial trial in the region where the protests took place," they wrote in their motion to change the venue or change the composition of the ruling representatives of the organization. However, the court rejected this request, which any see as a bad luck for the environmentalist.
Will the trial dare oilmen?
If Energy Transfer were to win, Greenpeace would be facing bankruptcy, and the organization in the United States would surely end. Why should we care about this in Europe to the same extent? Among another things, due to Greenpeace's active efforts to publicize human rights and nature violations, but above all, due to the hazard of daring another polluters of the planet to follow American oilers.
"Besides the influence this suit may have on Greenpeace, the most disturbing in this case is that it can set a dangerous precedent. It will turn out that any individual active in the protests will be able to be held liable for the actions of others participating in the protest. You can imagine that this would have a serious freezing effect for any individual who wants to engage," explains Deepa Padmanabha, an American elder legal advisor for Greenpeace.
The trial takes place in Morton County, where Donald Trump won against Kamala Harris with a crushing advantage. Knowing the anticlimatic views of the U.S. president and the large support declared in the past for the construction of the gas pipeline in Dakota, it is hard to anticipate that the case will bring only good information to activists.
However, Kristin Casper, Greenpeace International's legal advisor, is of good thought and promises not only victory, but besides a conflict to recover the costs incurred as a consequence of the Energy Transfer lawsuit. "We are grateful for the support we receive from all over the planet due to the fact that erstwhile the movement works together – we win," Casper says.
