Greenpeace ruled to be a political advocacy group not a charity

It has been obvious for years that many environmental groups such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and even the World Wildlife Fund have been hijacked by “activists” to become political advocacy groups. They have all done some good in the past in the name of protecting the environment, and some of their individual projects are still admirable but for the most part they have lost sight of humans within the environment. They have all generally crossed the line and gone over to trying to impose their world view onto others. Alarmism and prohibition and “authoritarianism” rather than persuasion have become their main tools. Good science has often been replaced by scare-mongering.

But in New Zealand there is a small glimpse of sanity returning and for these political  advocacy groups being seen for what they are. The New Zealand Herald reports:

Greenpeace loses charity status case

Greenpeace New Zealand’s political activities mean it cannot register as a charity, the High Court has decided.

Greenpeace appealed against a 2010 ruling by the Charities Commission which found its promotion of “disarmament and peace” was political rather than educational and while it did not directly advocate illegal acts, Greenpeace members had acted illegally.

In his judgment Justice Paul Heath found the commission was correct in its judgment and turned down the Greenpeace appeal.

“Non-violent, but potentially illegal activities (such as trespass), designed to put (in the eyes of Greenpeace) objectionable activities into the public spotlight were an independent object disqualifying it from registration as a charitable entity,” the judge said.

Greenpeace’s pleas for disarmament and peace could be seen as an independent purpose and its political activities were not necessary to educate members of the public on the key issues of Greenpeace, Justice Heath said. Greenpeace’s lawyer Davey Salmon argued all of the organisation’s primary purposes were charitable and the engagement of charities in political advocacy was more acceptable now in 21st century New Zealand. comments:

In a story making headlines in the New Zealand Herald (May 10, 2011) climate skeptics around the world will now be consulting lawyers in their respective countries to assess whether similar legal challenges may be made against the disgraced former charity.

In the U.S and Britain environmentalist activists have for decades sought to influence policymakers by a swath of unlawful protests often involving criminal damage and trespass. Several prominent UN climatologists have long aligned themselves with and been apologists for the radical and unlawful acts of these environmentalists. 

As a consequence of the shock New Zealand ruling Greenpeace’s political activities mean it will be de-registered as a charity and thus lose the prestige and tax advantages associated with that status. 

NASA’s problematic climatologist, James Hansen, flew to London to be an ‘expert witness’ to testify in the defense of climate activists prosecuted for such crimes. Hansen flew to the UK in the case of the “Kingsnorth Six”, who had climbed up E.ON’s coal plant. The six had used Greenpeace’s climate change defence – that their actions were designed to prevent immediate harm to human life and property from climate change – and were acquitted.

Tags: , , , , ,

2 Responses to “Greenpeace ruled to be a political advocacy group not a charity”

  1. Lee Says:

    Well done to the New Zealand legal authorities – I wish people here in England would realise what the true nature of this organisation is.

  2. frizztext Says:

    greetings by

  3. David Lourie Says:

    The fascists are coming out of the woodwork. It is about time they revealed their true colours so we can actively sideline them. For an organisation that attempts to save the the planet from the total destruction caused by the moronic dogma neoliberal lapdogs regurgitate while sucking up to global corporations that make billions of dollars profit from western taxpayers funding, to murder hundreds of thousands of people, so the same corporations can loot the resources and income streams of countries trying to develop their own economies independent of foreign intervention.
    Why, because the trailer trash that loiters around in the white house and the pathetic degenerates that that aspire to their ‘values’ have refused for the past four decades to support effective policy measures on population, energy, transport, housing and environmental protection because that would involve regulation. The US is now trapped in a murderous dependency on the rapidly deminishing resource of oil just so they can survive the freezing winters and drive to work. But we have a reprieve, gas fraccing that is likely to comtaminate aquifers and surface waters all over the world.
    Restraint in consumption would effect profits and the poor spoilt little darlings are not accostomed to being told what do do by other people, so they have a little tantrum and dont want to share the toys. They want the state assets all to themselves dispite the neighbours parents and grandparents worked hard to provide these for everybody to share, and they want the natural resources, and the crown land, and the water supplies and the income streams from infrastructure and the casualisation of the workforces, and the destruction of the unions and destroy the notion of public service, otherwise the little diddums will hold their breathes till they go blue in the face and throw their toys out of the cot and bite and scratch and kick and scream.
    Responsible people need to demonstrate to these little tykes that their behaviour is not acceptable in a civilised society.
    If Greenpeace is not a charity because it has a political dimension, and members illegally climb up on privately owned structures to unfurl banners, oww this is much more terrible than bombing developing countries with tanks , drones and jets and rockets.
    Why, because Greenpeace may show a corporation in a bad light which could effect share prices and profitability, where as an illegal war drives up share prices, generates military supply contracts, profitability, jobs and they are only killing thousands of people that nobody cares about in countries that nobdy identifies with and it is always a just war because we say it is.
    So from a fascist perpective we can understand how Justice Paul Heath arrived at his weighty decision.
    Trespassing to hang a banner from a building? – bad
    Murdering hundreds of thousands of people for a good cause? – not as bad
    Trespassing to hang a banner from a building? – bad.
    It is most important that the weak and vulnerable are not protected otherwise they might develop a sense of entitlement and nothing is as weak and vulnerable right now as our environment.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: