Greenpeace has to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation to the American energy company Energy Transfer. The jury of a court in the US state of North Dakota ruled on Wednesday, reporting international media, including The New York Times and The Guardian.
The case revolved around the role of Greenpeace in what is known as the ‘Standing Rock protests’ of 2016 and 2017. It was large-scale demonstrations against the construction of a large oil pipeline by Energy Transfer. The protests were largely peaceful, but at times degenerated into vandalism. According to Energy Transfer, Greenpeace would have played a key role in the costs that the company has incurred around the protests. The organization is said to have ‘fueled’ the demonstrations with a ‘misinformation campaign’.
Greenpeace, who is the lawsuit against, among other things The Guardian describes as “an attack on the right to peaceful demonstrations,” these allegations denies. “They donated things, such as hot sleeping bags for the activists and gave money to train campaigners to demonstrate non -violent,” a lawyer from Greenpeace International said earlier NRC.
‘Continuation of Greenpeace USA threatened’
During the lawsuit, a group of observing lawyers was present, consisting of prominent lawyers who were concerned about, among other things, the composition of the jury. Out research by The Guardian It turned out earlier that a majority of the jury had ties with the fossil industry. During the sessions, Greenpeace tried to object to the composition of the jury, for fear that they would not be impartial.
One of the observing lawyers, Marty Garbus, said to The Guardian That this is “one of the most important things in American history” with possibly major consequences for the “freedom of demonstration” in the country.
What exactly the consequences for Greenpeace will be, it still has to be apparent. According to the lawyer of Greenpeace International Die NRC Earlier, the case said ‘the survival’ of the American branch of the environmental organization would be at stake.
Experts qualified the case as an STrategic Lawsuit Against Public Partipation (Slapp), a legal proceedings filed by a private party, against journalists, human rights defenders or (climate) activists, for example. The aim of these types of cases is to put pressure on, intimidate or even silence them through dragging legal proceedings and with disproportionate financial claims so that they stop their activities.
Read also
Suddenly a flood of claims; Journalists and activists are more often confronted with slapps