The venerated trade magazine Publishers Weekly posted an article on June 16 about recent attempts by Greenpeace to intimidate the publishing industry. The misleading tactics described in the piece are in line with a years-long pattern by Greenpeace of public misrepresentations about our forestry practices.
Our dedication to responsible practices also extends to our many stakeholders – not least our business customers – and especially the communities where we work and live and our conscientious employees. By its own accounting, Greenpeace cheerfully claims it has caused more than $100 million in economic damage. They have also admitted to falsifying staged photos and video about our forestry practices.
When finally pressed to justify itself now that we have brought them to court, Greenpeace conceded that its claims about Resolute “do not hew to strict literalisms or scientific precision” and instead are “non-verifiable statements of subjective opinion and at most…rhetorical hyperbole…not intended to be taken literally.” That sounds like what a publisher might call “fiction.”
Here are several points that give additional context to the reporting by Publishers Weekly:
Greenpeace’s claims about free speech ring hollow since Greenpeace has been enthusiastically on the side opposing free expression in the two biggest legal cases in U.S. courts in recent years. That position stands against the ACLU, Free Speech Defense & Education Fund, Institute for Justice, AFL-CIO, California First Amendment Coalition, and dozens of groups across the political spectrum.
Readers would be right to ask how Greenpeace squares this apparent contradiction. One answer comes right from the group’s own website, where they justify their stance by declaring, “Freedom of speech does not apply to misinformation and propaganda.” Apparently, Greenpeace does not believe this applies to its own conduct.
Even as Greenpeace is expending its vast resources cajoling leading publishing houses, they haven’t been able to muster the simple integrity of meeting with the ordinary people in boreal communities they know are being harmed.
In one example among many, thousands of citizens in the boreal town of Saint-Félicien, Quebec marched in the streets to protest the impact of Greenpeace’s conduct. “We extend a hand” for the activists to dialogue, the town’s mayor, Gilles Potvin, said at the gathering. Like countless others in communities across the boreal, they never heard from Greenpeace.
We invite readers to learn more about our commitment to sustainability and how we are setting the record straight on Greenpeace’s attempts to mislead the public. Here is a link to our blog post refuting their latest misleading report.