Steven Donziger was an observer at the recent Greenpeace trial in North Dakota. Greenpeace were accused of being responsible for losses incurred by the Energy Transfer Pipeline Company. That company wanted to build their Dakota Access pipeline partially across ancestral land owned by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. The pipeline was intended to carry crude oil from the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota, to Patoka in Illinois. The Standing Rock Sioux and environmentalists were concerned about the strong possibility of contamination to water courses. Greenpeace were briefly consulted about organising peaceful opposition to the pipeline. After what some expert observers have described as "the most unfair trial ever initiated", Greenpeace have been fined $667 m. Energy Transfer Pipeline Company executives have effectively admitted that the trial was a SLAPP. They claim they were sending a message to Greenpeace. A 'Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation' is a device used by rich companies/individuals, to effectively deter their opponents by threatening them with bankruptcy. This dubious ruling has been described as "a direct attack on the climate movement, indigenous peoples and the first amendment" (the right to free speech). SLAPPs have been used to try to prevent journalists revealing the truth about rich folk. This appears to be a really bad case of their current effectiveness (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/28/greenpeace-verdict-pipeline-north-dakota). It's strange how opponents to the climate movement are very selective in their interpretation of the US's first amendment. The law shouldn't be used to encourage them. Legal costs and the lengths of trials, however, make it a very effective device. Perhaps the practice of law needs to change?
No comments:
Post a Comment