You Won’t Believe Greenpeace’s Latest Hypocrisy in Canadian Case

In a recent filing in our case against them in Canada, Greenpeace’s lawyers have made another astonishing and hypocritical assertion – namely, that Resolute’s attempts on this blog to inform the public about Greenpeace’s failure to comply with a court order is somehow “disparaging” to their organization.[1]  

Our public statements about their use of legal maneuvering and delay tactics are entirely accurate. The deadline set by the court passed, more than 10 weeks ago. Resolute delivered its affidavit of documents disclosing more than 20,000 documents; Greenpeace continues to defy the court order and has not produced an affidavit of documents, although they’ve had more than 2 years to do so. Yet it is “disparaging” for us to point out these facts and question the reasons why? 

Let’s not forget that for years, Greenpeace has “disparaged” Resolute, calling our company “Forest Destroyers” among other false and misleading claims. In reality, our company has been internationally recognized for our stellar environmental record.[2] Among other things, we have planted over a billion trees in the boreal forest, significantly cut our carbon footprint, invested in renewable energy, and have improved the forest’s ability to absorb greenhouse gases using methods recognized and encouraged by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

In one report that has been cited repeatedly throughout their campaign, Greenpeace doctored photos to falsely assert that Resolute had developed roads and was harvesting in restricted areas.[3] Despite retracting and admitting their statements were false, Greenpeace continued to make inaccurate and deceptive allegations months later.

Greenpeace’s claims about our company are not just disparaging, they are false and defamatory.

Further, we pointed out to the court that defiance of the law is a common practice for Greenpeace, specifically referring to comments made by Greenpeace Canada Director Joanna Kerr. In an interview, Kerr told the Journal Pioneer newspaper she “would knowingly break the law as a ‘tactical or strategic’ move to draw attention to a cause.”[4] In this latest filing, Greenpeace lawyers claimed her remarks were “about civil disobedience in general” and that “Greenpeace respects both the court and its processes.” So by their own account, Greenpeace will break the law when it pleases but not in this instance? Does that seem trustworthy?

But we know that Greenpeace has a long track record of disregarding both legal and cultural boundaries. Greenpeace is reported to have hired “vandals” to destroy farmers’ crops in Thailand;[5] sentenced for breaking into a nuclear power plant in France and setting off fireworks to simulate a “malicious attack”;[6] were accused of “burglary, vandalism, trespassing and inducing panic” in Cincinnati;[7] were cited by the government of India for “financial fraud and falsification of data”;[8] were labeled part of a “growing security threat” by national law enforcement in Canada; inflicted long-term harms on the Inuit economy with their campaigns;[9] and were charged and fined by the Peruvian government after admitting to irreparably damaging the historic Nazca lines.[10]