- McSpotlight -

McLibel and lack of Greenpeace back-up

Posted by: Michel Klijn ( Australia ) on February 23, 19100 at 12:58:44:

I saw the documentary about the trial yesterday on Australian TV. I am very impressed with the difference that these two people (try to) make. I also support Greenpeace but wonder why Greenpeace did not give additional (financial) support. I reckon a few million (Greenpeace) dollars for legal advice and propaganda could have resulted in an even better verdict, more media exposure and most important of all possibly a real difference. If Greenpeace is serious about making a difference it can't afford to miss another opportunity like this. It's my humble opinion that corporate scum through the use of capitalist principles. It's time to incorporate a Greenpeace law firm and a Greenpeace propaganda firm which will assist people in their fight against corporate dictatorship.

McSpotlight: Greenpeace International and Greenpeace (London) are two entirely seperate groups; that's why Greenpeace International weren't involved.

Basically, when the original Green Peace idea floated around a number of 'Greenpeace' groups sprang up, of which Greenpeace (London) and Greenpeace (Vancouver) were just two groups. In the 1970s, Vancouver Greenpeace started getting ambitious and started to co-ordinate and merge groups all across North America, then Europe, eventually becoming Greenpeace International; a corporate entity a fair whack removed from its Green roots - when was the last time you heard a Greenpeace International spokesperson getting involved with pacifist causes?

Greenpeace (London) kept true to the original aims and intents of the green peace idea; stayed radical, green and pacifist in outlook and stayed small in numbers. That's why you have a large multinational company called Greenpeace International and a small radical group named London Greenpeace.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup