Greenpeace under attack, denied Miami berth, sued in court

The administration doesn't take kindly to rabble-rousers and seem to have set their sights on Greenpeace. I may not always agree with Greenpeace tactics but their frequent exercise of 1st ammendment rights, should always be supported and appreciated. But now under the scrutiny of the administration, attempts are being made to curtail Greenpeace's activities.

This is a discouraging development as activists begin to prepare for the election cycle. What other 1st ammendment circumventions may they try?

The environmental activist group Greenpeace is accusing the Port of Miami-Dade of violating its free speech rights by refusing to grant dock space to one of its ships later this month.

Greenpeace applied for a one-week berth for its 237-foot vessel Esperanza, which is scheduled to reach Miami on Oct. 26. But Port Director Charles Towsley denied the request, citing security issues.

Greenpeace spokeswoman Nancy Hwa said the group believes it has been singled out because of its political perspective, which would be unconstitutional.

www.miami.com...

In court papers, the organization's lawyers warned that the prosecution "could significantly affect our nation's tradition of civil protest and civil disobedience, a tradition that has endured from the Boston Tea Party through the modern civil rights movement."

The group is charged with vi olating an obscure 1872 law intended for proprietors of boarding houses who preyed on sailors returning to port. It forbids the unauthorized boarding of "any vessel about to arrive at the place of her destination." The last court decision concerning the law, from 1890, said it was meant to prevent "sailor-mongers" from luring crews to boarding houses "by the help of intoxicants and the use of other means, often savoring of violence."

www.infoshop.org.../10/11/6854002

While I'm on the subject of discontent, this Bush quote seems appropriate.

US President George Bush has declared that he doesn't mind if Australian MPs turn their backs on him during his official visit to Canberra next week.

"It means that democracy's alive and well - if somebody feels like they want to express discontent, that's OK. That's democracy," he told the Nine Network in a pre-trip interview aired last night.

www.theage.com.au...

Green peace is nothing but a pussy whipped hippy reject annoying group of bad hemp smokers that have no basis of reality. I say send them all back to hell where they can worship Jauques coustou and jerry garcia.

damn hippies.

Ohh..now fury, before you get your panties in wad...greanpeace is simply exercising their right to free-speech. Surely you don't want the U.S. to turn totally fascist?

you are mistaken Fury...

I am NOT in Greenpeace...

Originally posted by kukla
Ohh..now fury, before you get your panties in wad...greanpeace is simply exercising their right to free-speech. Surely you don't want the U.S. to turn totally fascist?

Only to those tree hugging, pachuli scented, french whine sippers.
every other org is fine.

Some of the # they do is absolutly stupid and asinine.

I watched some video's of them chasing Japanese whalers out of Antarctica. Thats dedication, it's cold down there.

yep, you ever seen a video of a spiked tree taking a logger's arm off?

# green peace.

Originally posted by Fury

Originally posted by kukla
Ohh..now fury, before you get your panties in wad...greanpeace is simply exercising their right to free-speech. Surely you don't want the U.S. to turn totally fascist?

Only to those tree hugging, pachuli scented, french whine sippers.
every other org is fine.

Some of the # they do is absolutly stupid and asinine.

That much I think we can agree on. Too much time in the clouds and you might never come down..

Good to have you back Fury

I agree with you about greenpeace. They are on the verge of being terrorists. Anyone caught spiking a tree should get a spike in the head!

They may harbor a few eco-terrorists in their ranks, but does this mean that they should be denied a birth at the marina for fear that they'll lure sailors into the bowls of their ship with illicit "hemp?"

Sounds kind of stupid to me. Let the activists land! Don't like their tactics? Protest! Don't hide behind some 130 year old law that hasn't been used in 113 years

I'm sure the Marina is simply under pressure from some of the other commercial traffic, and is just cooperating by yanking their chain a bit... They'll be a little bit of posturing, etc. but in the end, it will all work out...they're just hassling them... Greenpeace should be used to it by now... Hippie terrorists...

Originally posted by Fury

Originally posted by kukla
Ohh..now fury, before you get your panties in wad...greanpeace is simply exercising their right to free-speech. Surely you don't want the U.S. to turn totally fascist?

Only to those tree hugging, pachuli scented, french whine sippers.

Hmmm...Haven't you seen that, historically speaking, anytime any single group of people is selected to be oppressed, the facist oppressors *always* expand to other groups?
Such oppression only expands until either *everybody* winds up oppressed or the oppressed groups rise up & destroy the oppressors.
If you let facist-minded oppressors start on Greenpeace, then the next thing you know, *you* will be found as a member of a group that will be oppressed as well.

...How do you feel about numbered tattoos on your forearm, as what happened to the Jews in WW II Germany?...Enforced Verichip insertion sound any better to you? How about having your citizenship revoked (as what the Patriot Act was written for) so you can be held (or even tortured & killed) without any Rights at all?


[Edited on 17-10-2003 by MidnightDStroyer]

Originally posted by insite
They may harbor a few eco-terrorists in their ranks, but does this mean that they should be denied a birth at the marina for fear that they'll lure sailors into the bowls of their ship with illicit "hemp?"

Sounds kind of stupid to me. Let the activists land! Don't like their tactics? Protest! Don't hide behind some 130 year old law that hasn't been used in 113 years

oh i dont know.....some people think a criminal toting a gun is enough to believe that ALL gun owners are criminals and that all guns should be banned. since this is mostly leftist thinking from the anti gun lobby why cant this same leftist logic be used on leftists???

i also fail to see how denying them berth is violating their freedom of speech. they can complain long and loud about being denied but its not a right to to want to park your ship anywhere you want. owning a boat is a priviledge, not a right. had it been a right it would have been specified in the constitution. thats like saying if i cant have the closest parking spot to the entrance of the stores i frequent i should be able to sue them for freedom of speech violations! its ludicrous. greenpeace does things to irritate people first, make a point second. while greenpeace has some good ideals those who actually implement them i have to give a second thought to. they're similar to peta, while they have this great idea that no animals should be harmed peta breaks the law and releases minks that wind up getting run over on a highway or get killed by predators in the immediate area. so while claiming to be protecting mother earth that chug around in a diesel powered ship. really good example that isnt it?

if they want to really make a point they should try leading by example and cut holes in the side of the ship so they can ROW it around and show the world they dont need solar panels to power thise ship (solar panels requires a factory to build them and that produces waste and garbage, not very enviromentally friendly is it?)

i'm not bashing greenpeace but i do question their actions 99% of the time. i question their REAL motives, not that crap they scream when the cameras show up, i want to know their true intentions for doing such things as i suspect their real motives and reasons dont exactly match up to what spew to the media.

now i dont agree with them leaning against some outdated law which in my mind doesnt seem to hold water but i also feel that they should be able to deny port to anyone they wish, its not a right to own a boat after all and its isnt stopping them from saying what they want, they're just stopping them from docking where they want.


i also find it most ironic that some people scream about their constitutional rights are being violated while wanting to take other constitutional rights away from others....its enough to make me want to puke laugh and cry all at the same time.

and denying berth isnt even close to the verichip or tattooing jews from WWII. that analogy is rather far fetched and somewhat offensive to me as jews suffered through real horrors. how is being denied berth a horror that even comes close to being tattooed or cooked in a oven? better yet dont answer it, the connection between the two is so distant its ridiculous.

owning a ship=not a right
docking your ship where ever you damn well please=also not a right

neither is covered under the constitution and their accusation that its because of their political beliefs maybe true but denying them berth doesnt prevent them from saying what they want, it just keeps their ship out of harbor.

boohoo! lets all shed a tear for the horribly opressed greenpeace. give me a break!

Originally posted by Fury
yep, you ever seen a video of a spiked tree taking a logger's arm off?

# green peace.

Why don't you give us damn hippies a link to one??

Not video, but examples of hippie justice.....

From the CDFE:

www.cdfe.org...

Lets get some facts straight.

Greenpeace is not Earth First!(ers).
Greenpeace is not Earth Liberation Front.

Show me a video or pic of Greenpeace activists spiking trees and I'll look.

But so far I see EF and ELF complaints.
All of which can be conveniently blamed on Edward Abbey.

If you didn't happen to see it, Greenpeace was the only organization cleaning up
radioactive material after the invasion. Their drum replacement program stopped a small
tragedy in its tracks.

production.greenpeace.org...

Here's what's at risk:

Ongoing government monitoring, if sentenced to probation, would make Greenpeace's role as a watchdog and advocacy group difficult, to say the least. But it is the legal precedent that could be most damaging for Greenpeace and other advocacy groups in the US.

www.greenpeace.org...

Kukla,

as someone that has worked for greenpeace I can say that they have done good things. I am leary of their fundraising agenda at times and in regards to where some of the money goes.

This organization is also very left wing and some people in it are hardened marxists, I know I argued with them. It was hilarious to see them canvassing in some of the richest neighbourhoods in the country and see people give them money for the 'ecology cause' and not knowing that they had a left wing agenda.

All that said they had done good things around the world. I know personally about the good work they have done in the Amazon slowing and stopping the clear cutting.

The thing that concerned me the most about their stunts (and anywhere they congregate there will be one for sure, for example around that ship that is trying to port at Miami), is that they put certain people in their organization in great personal jeopardy. These people willingly do this but there only recently was efforts to make stunts more safe and provide protection to participants engaged therein eg. insurance.

I knew the people for example that climbed up the CN tower here in Toronto. A few years back.

I like the idea of an organization out to clean up the Earth from humans trashing it. Too bad most of the "green" groups have ridiculous tactics that get them nowhere. Lets save the world by protesting violently and lighting some cars on fire. These people can be called terrorist and with dubya's patriot act they got to be careful or they will be locked away and lose their inalienible rights.

THENEO,

Glad you could respond here. I thought I remembered you saying something about working for Greenpeace. It sounds like they�ve started to change their tactics and hopefully this will ease the pressure some.

In regards to Enron inclinations in fundraising schemes, it's hard to find a group that doesn't have funny books. The Nature Conservancy is in deep, deep doo-doo over some Ken Lay-type activities.

It also doesn�t surprise me to hear of Marxists leanings within the inner workings of Greenpeace. Like any other organization, there will be individuals that will test the communal boundaries and Greenpeace is no different. EF is actually a splinter of Sierra Club. And ELF is actually a splinter of EF.

While I'm concerned about this deliberate attempt to curtail Greenpeace, I'm more concerned about the repercussions it could have for other advocacy groups.