Greenpeace International Begins Groundbreaking Anti-SLAPP Case To Protect Freedom Of Speech
The multi-billion-dollar company brought two back-to-back SLAPP suits against Greenpeace International and Greenpeace in the US, after Greenpeace showed solidarity with the 2016 peaceful Indigenous-led protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline. The first case was dismissed, but the Greenpeace organisations continue to defend against the second case, which is ongoing, after a North Dakota jury recently awarded over 660 million USD in damages to the pipeline giant.Activists from Greenpeace International and allies were present outside the courthouse in Amsterdam for the first hearing in the case with a banner reading " ENERGY TRANSFER, WELCOME TO THE EU - WHERE FREE SPEECH IS STILL A THING". Mads Christensen, Executive Director, Greenpeace International, says:"Energy Transfer's attack on our right to protest is an attack on everyone's free speech. Greenpeace has been the target of threats, arrests and even bombs over the last 50 years and persevered. We will continue to resist all forms of intimidation and explore every option to hold Energy Transfer accountable for this attempt at abusing the justice system. This groundbreaking anti-SLAPP case against Energy Transfer in the Netherlands is just the beginning of defeating this bullying tactic being wielded by billionaires and fossil fuel giants trying to silence critics all over the world. Something absolutely vital is at stake here: people's ability to hold corporate polluters to account for the devastation they're causing."
Russel Norman, Executive Director, Greenpeace Aotearoa, says:"The timing of this case is particularly poignant given that we are about to mark the 40th anniversary of the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior by agents of the French Government here in Auckland. The bombing was an act of desperation by the French Government in the face of our successful, people-powered campaign to end nuclear testing in the Pacific.
"Forty years ago, we showed that we could not be intimidated. Greenpeace only grew stronger, and together with the nuclear-free Pacific movement, we put a stop to nuclear testing. Now, as Greenpeace International goes to court in Amsterdam, Energy Transfer would also like us - and all climate activists - to be afraid and to shut up - but once again, we will show that we will not be silenced."The lawsuit is an important test of the European Union's Anti-SLAPP Directive, adopted in April 2024.[2] The Directive is designed to protect journalists, activists, civil society organisations, or anyone else speaking out about matters of public concern, from Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) - unfounded intimidation lawsuits brought by powerful corporations or wealthy individuals seeking to suppress public debate.[3] Since Greenpeace International is a Netherlands-based foundation and the damage caused by Energy Transfers's US SLAPP suit is occurring in the Netherlands, both Dutch and EU law apply.
Amy Jacobsen, Senior Legal Counsel, Greenpeace International, says,"This case paves the way for protections from bullying lawsuits being implemented throughout Europe and beyond. The lawsuits that Energy Transfer have brought against Greenpeace International are the perfect example of the kind of abusive legal proceedings that the anti-SLAPP Directive is designed to protect against. By calling upon the EU anti-SLAPP Directive's protections, Greenpeace International refuses to allow the bullying tactics of wealthy fossil fuel corporations like Energy Transfer to compromise our fundamental free speech rights."
Following a dawn ceremony on the 10 July 2025 in Auckland, the Rainbow Warrior will be open to the public for tours and talks with the crew on the weekends of 12 July and 19th July.
Notes:
[1] The new EU rules are aimed at addressing the growing number of abusive lawsuits against journalists, media outlets, environmental activists and human rights defenders.
In February 2025, Greenpeace International initiated the first test of the European Union's anti-SLAPP Directive by filing a lawsuit in Dutch court against Energy Transfer. Greenpeace International seeks to recover all damages and costs it has suffered as a result of Energy Transfers's back-to-back, meritless lawsuits demanding hundreds of millions of dollars from Greenpeace International and the Greenpeace organisations in the US.
[2] EU Member States have until 7 May 2026 at the latest to transpose the rules into their national laws, but the Dutch government has indicated that the Directive's protections can already be applied under existing Dutch legal frameworks.
[3] Big Oil companies Shell, Total, and ENI have also filed SLAPPs against Greenpeace entities in recent years. Some of these cases have been successfully stopped in their tracks. This includes Greenpeace France successfully defeating TotalEnergies' SLAPP on 28 March 2024, and Greenpeace UK and Greenpeace International forcing Shell to back down from its SLAPP on 10 December 2024. Greenpeace Romania was being sued by the energy company Romgaz in 2025 - with the aim of dissolving the organisation, but their claims were withdrawn and they were forced to pay the court expenses to Greenpeace Romania. Greenpeace Italy and Greenpeace Netherlands are facing the Italian oil giant Eni in an ongoing court case in Italy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
3 hours ago
- RNZ News
Fiji's ex commissioner 'universally corrupt'
The head of Fiji's damning commission of inquiry admits to publically calling the anti-corruption agency commissioner "universally corrupt" while investigating her appointment.
Scoop
20 hours ago
- Scoop
Cuts Set Toi Ohomai Up To Fail
Te Hautū Kahurangi | Tertiary Education Union is devastated by today's news of massive job losses proposed at Toi Ohomai Institute of Technology. The institution is proposing to disestablish the jobs of 166.7 full time equivalent staff with a total net loss of over 60 jobs after new roles have been filled. The cuts will effect campuses in Rotorua, Tauranga and Whakatāne; and most disturbingly threaten the closure of the Tokoroa and Taupō campuses. The proposal identifies the 2023 change of government and the current Minister's requirement for ITPs to demonstrate ongoing viability if they want to become standalone entities as a key driver of the cuts. Te Pou Ahurei | National Secretary Sandra Grey describes the proposal as 'outrageous' and lays the blame squarely at the feet of the National-led government. 'Education is not a business. It operates, for the most part, on government funding. National, ACT and New Zealand First are trying to pull the wool over the public's eyes by refusing to adequately fund polytechs before forcing them to slash and burn their way to oblivion because they have been labelled 'unviable'. Toi Ohomai's TEU (Rotorua) branch Kaiarataki Takirua | Co-leaders Ashton Ledger and Santana Ammunson say 'these proposed changes pose a significant risk to our regional campuses – especially Taupō and Tokoroa - and undermine the government's stated intentions to shape a regionally-responsive and sustainable vocational education and training system.' 'It's also ironic to note that these proposed changes will slash support for international students – an area the government expects us to grow to make up the shortfall of their underfunding. We are being set up to fail.'
Scoop
20 hours ago
- Scoop
An Economy Of Genocide: Israel And The Albanese Report
It makes for stark and dark reading. The report for the UN Human Rights Council titled From economy of occupation to economy of genocide makes mention of 'corporate entities' who have been enriched by 'the Israeli economy of illegal occupation, apartheid and now genocide.' Authored by the relentless Francesca Albanese, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, it is unflinching in its assessments and warnings to companies doing business with Israel. What makes the investigative undertaking by Albanese useful is its examination of the corporate world and its links to the colonial, settler program of removing and displacing a pre-existing population. The machinery of conquest of any state necessarily involves not only the desk job occupants in civilian bureaucracies and high-ranking military commanders, but those in the corporate sector, eager to make a profit. 'Colonial endeavours and associated genocides,' writes Albanese, 'have historically been driven and enabled by the corporate sector. Commercial interests have contributed to the dispossession of Indigenous peoples of their lands – a mode of domination known as 'colonial racial capitalism'.' Eight private sectors come in for scrutiny: arms manufacturers, tech firms, building and construction entities, those industries concerned with extraction and services, banks, pension funds, insurers, universities and charities. 'These entities enable the denial of self-determination and other structural violations in the occupied Palestinian territory, including occupation, annexation and crimes of apartheid and genocide, as well as a long list of ancillary crimes and human rights violations, from discrimination, wanton destruction, forced displacement and pillage to extrajudicial killing and starvation.' Advertisement - scroll to continue reading Central to the multifaceted economy of genocide, the report charges, is the military-industrial complex that forms 'the economic backbone of the State.' Albanese cites a stellar example: the F-35 fighter jet, developed by US-based Lockheed Martin, in collaboration with hundreds of other companies 'including Italian manufacturer Leonardo S.p.A, and eight States.' Since October 2023, the process of colonisation and displacement has assumed an air of urgency, aided by the private sector. In 2024, US$200 million was advanced for 'colony construction'. Between November 2023 and October 2024, 57 new colonies and outposts were established 'with Israeli and international companies supplying machinery, raw materials and logistical support.' Examples include the maintenance and expansion of the Jerusalem Light Rail Red Line, the construction of the new Green Line, encompassing 27 kilometres of new tracks and 50 stations in the West Bank. The infrastructure has proven to be invaluable in linking the colonial project to West Jerusalem. Despite some companies withdrawing from the project 'owing to international pressure', an entity such as the Spanish/Basque Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles has been a keen participant, along with suppliers of excavating machinery (South Korea's Doosan and Sweden's Volvo Group), and providers of materials for the light-rail bridge (Germany's Heidelberg Materials AG). Beyond the structural and physical program of construction and displacement, all designed to extinguish any semblance of self-determination on the part of the Palestinians, come other features of the colonial project. A prominent feature of this, Albanese notes, is that of 'surveillance and carcerality'. Repressing Palestinians has become a 'progressively automated' affair, with tech companies feeding Israel's voracious security appetite with 'unparalleled developments in carceral and surveillance devices', some of which include closed-circuit television networks, biometric surveillance, advanced tech checkpoint networks, drone surveillance and cloud computing. Palantir Technologies Inc., a specialist in software platforms, comes in for a special mention. 'There are reasonable grounds to believe Palantir has provided automatic predictive policing technology, core defence infrastructure for rapid and scale-up construction and deployment of military software, and its Artificial Intelligence Platform, which allows real-time battlefield data integration for automated decision making.' With the report released, the dance of dissimulation began. Lockheed Martin told the Middle East Eye that foreign military sales were not their preserve as far as accountability or cause of concern was, a lofty, business-like attitude unshackled from a moral compass. Such sales took place between governments, meaning that the US government would be best placed to answer any questions. Hand washing and deferrals of guilt is a private sector speciality after all. In a more direct fashion, both Israel and the United States have continued their 'Hate Albanese' campaign, boringly reiterating old accusations while adopting novel interpretations of international law. Given the obvious loathing of international human rights conventions by Israeli officials and their US backers, this is decidedly rich, even more so given such jurisprudence as that of the International Court of Justice's Advisory Opinion of July 2024, and the International Criminal Court arrest warrants for Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. (These developments figure prominently in Albanese's assessment.) According to the ICJ, all States were under an obligation to 'cooperate with the United Nations' on ensuring 'an end to Israel's illegal presence in the Occupied Territory and the full realization of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination'. Israel's continued presence in the OPT was illegal. 'It is a wrongful act of a continuing character which has been brought about by Israel's violations, through its policies and practices, of the prohibition on the acquisition of territory by force and the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people.' From Israel came the view that the report was 'legally groundless, defamatory and a flagrant abuse of [Albanese's] office.' A June 20 letter to UN Secretary-General António Guterres from the Trump administration obtained by The Washington Free Beacon took issue with Albanese's supposed record of 'virulent antisemitism and support for terrorism', bitchily sniping at her legal qualifications. Little is actually mentioned of international law in the bilious missive by US Ambassador Dorothy C. Shea, acting representative to the UN, other than a snotty dismissal of UN General Assembly resolutions and advisory opinions by the International Court of Justice as lacking any binding force 'on either States or private actors'. Shea claims Albanese 'misrepresented her qualifications for the role by claiming to be an international lawyer despite admitting publicly that she has not passed a legal bar examination or been licensed to practice law.' A fabulous accusation, given the surfeit of allegedly qualified legal members working in the Israeli Defense Forces and other offices executing their program of displacement, starvation and killing. The accusations against various corporate entities, notably over 20 US entities, were 'riddled with inflammatory rhetoric and false accusations', making such daring claims of 'gross human rights violations', 'apartheid' and 'genocide'. These charges, ventured through letters of accusation, constituted 'an unacceptable campaign of political and economic warfare against the American and worldwide economy.' It comes as little surprise that the security rationale – one that says nothing of the Palestinian right to self-determination, let alone rights to life and necessaries – marks the entire complaint against Albanese's apparent lack of impartiality. 'Business activities specifically targeted by Ms. Albanese contribute to and help strengthen national security, economic prosperity, and human welfare across the Middle East, North Africa, and Europe.' Just don't mention the Palestinians.
