This past week the fundraising advocacy group STAND began circulating a hyperbolic petition “condemning” Resolute for exercising our right to bring a civil complaint against the group in a court of law.
What the STAND petition conspicuously omits, however, is that our litigation has a completely sound basis in law. As Washington Post legal analyst Jonathan Adler wrote about our case, “I see no reason why [RICO] can’t be used against environmentalist groups as well, particularly if some groups are deliberately fabricating evidence.”
Also unmentioned is the fact that STAND itself both initiates and supports lawsuits involving public discourse on environmental issues. In fact their co-defendants, Greenpeace, routinely brings suit against all manner of parties, including under RICO statutes. Greenpeace even sent libel notices to Resolute well before this current litigation ever began. NRDC, which signed STAND’s petition, has a full-time legal department that also regularly files lawsuits on environmental issues. So apparently STAND isn’t opposed to litigating disputes over environmental advocacy – they just don’t like it when they are the defendants.
Here are some of the many news outlets and stakeholders that have praised Resolute for seeking to hold the defendants accountable:
“Even Resolute competitors are privately cheering on the company and we’re happy to do so publicly. For the sake of workers and shareholders everywhere, let’s hope that American executives will follow Mr. Garneau’s example.”
Wall Street Journal Editorial Board (3/18/16)
“For too long, environmental activist organizations have unfairly inflicted huge economic harm on businesses by spreading misinformation and unfounded fearmongering. They are engaging in economic warfare on an international scale. An outstanding example of how unfairly-attacked companies should respond is Resolute Forest Products, the world's largest producer of newsprint. It has courageously and boldly led the charge in fighting back through the courts. Others should follow suit.”
Steve Forbes Investor’s Business Daily (9/16/16)
"The pressure on businesses to fold in the face of environmental scare campaigns can be enormous... After Greenpeace’s long history of distortions on environmental issues, we may find out if it has any credibility left to attack."
Editorial Board in The Wall Street Journal (6/19/16)
“Shoe, meet other foot.”
Glenn Reynolds in InstaPundit (6/1/16)
"I wish more companies had the backbone to stand up to Greenpeace’s extortion tactics. Until they do, when I need forest products, I’ll be purchasing from retailers that buy from Resolute, and I’ll advise my friends to do the same."
H. Sterling Burnett in The Washington Times (6/26/16)
"How has the press allowed this deeply unethical NGO behavior to occur? Greenpeace has been wantonly deceiving the public and hoaxing the press, with zero accountability in the U.S. If any private-sector company behaved like this, there would be a deafening outcry."
Brandon Phillips of the National Fisheries Institute in The Wall Street Journal (6/23/16)
“They’ve been claiming this is all about bullying by Resolute. But its not. It is about truth and justice and the fact that Greenpeace has been damaging Resolute’s business and destroying jobs, and that shouldn’t be allowed. It amazes me that that has been allowed to go on for so long.”
The Financial Post’s Peter Foster on Marita Noon (6/9/16)
"Resolute has just taken another bold step to defend itself against the green bully's attacks."
Marita Noon in Townhall (6/6/16)
"One company that has not caved in and started to appease Greenpeace in the hope of ending the harassment, is Resolute itself, led by its CEO Richard Garneau."
Professor Jaana Woiceshyn in Profitable and Moral (6/5/16)
“Rarely if ever has a corporate executive dared to call an ENGO shakedown what it is. Richard Garneau is thus almost unique among executives. In a corporate world dripping with bogus “business ethics,” Garneau, a quiet and modest man who lives in the Boreal, has demonstrated some true moral backbone, refusing to bow to what he sees as lies and intimidation. And while his fellow corporate executives are missing in action, more and more Northern communities. aboriginal groups and unions are beginning to stand up against the anti-brand bullies.”
Peter Foster in Financial Post (7/22/16)
“I see no reason why [RICO] can’t be used against environmentalist groups as well, particularly if (as Resolute alleges) some groups are deliberately fabricating evidence as part of their media and fundraising campaigns. This last point is important, for Resolute is not merely disputing Greenpeace’s rhetorical claims or disputing its conclusions (though it does this). Resolute also maintains that Greenpeace officials and affiliates deliberately falsified evidence (such as by doctoring photographs).”
Jonathan H. Adler in The Washington Post (5/31/16)
“By standing up to Greenpeace, Resolute Forest Products is doing the world a favor…It’s inspiring to see a business fight back against the green bullies — to protect the truth, its employees, and its customers. Victims of Greenpeace’s false attacks should shout them down, loudly, for what they are.”
Amy Payne in the National Review (4/20/16)
"Resolute can’t be blamed for doubting whether Greenpeace is really seeking solutions, or at least ones that it is prepared to live by for very long. That, after all, might hurt its fundraising."
Konrad Yakabuski in The Globe and Mail (12/31/15)