Latest news with #MadsChristensen
The Guardian
04-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
‘Legal bullying': global protest rights on line in Dutch court case, say activists
The outcome of a court case in the Netherlands could shape the right to protest around the globe for decades to come, campaigners have warned, as figures show a dramatic rise in legal action taken by fossil fuel companies against activists and journalists. Greenpeace International is using a recently introduced EU directive to try to reclaim costs and damages it incurred when a US jury decided it should pay the oil pipeline corporation Energy Transfer more than $660m in damages earlier this year. The case, which opened on Wednesday in Amsterdam, is the latest round in an increasingly bitter dispute between activists, journalists and free speech groups and big corporations – which campaigners claim are using more and more aggressive legal tactics to try to silence them. Mads Christensen, the executive director of Greenpeace International, said that after losing the argument in the 'court of public opinion', fossil fuel corporations were increasingly 'weaponising courtrooms' in an attempt to silence their critics. He added that this week's case was the start of a 'fightback' by civil society groups determined to defend the democratic right to protest and free speech. Experts say these so-called Slapp [strategic lawsuits against public participation] cases are on the rise across the board. The Coalition Against Slapps in Europe (Case) has found a year-on-year rise in such cases over the past decade and has identified more than 1,000 such cases between 2010 and 2023. 'A ruling informed by the new EU anti-Slapp directive may set a precedent that could turn the tide on legal bullying and provide a legal shield for campaigners now and in future,' said Christensen. 'Something absolutely vital is at stake here: people's ability to hold fossil fuel giants to account for the devastation they're causing.' Greenpeace says it has faced five major legal challenges from oil companies over the past two years in Europe and the US, which it claims were aimed not necessarily at winning in court, but rather at draining resources and crushing dissent. Charlie Holt, the European lead for Global Climate Legal Defense (CliDef) and member of Case, said these cases were having a chilling effect not just on individual campaign groups but on the wider democratic process. 'These cases have a dual impact,' he said. 'On the one hand, they have a devastating effect on the individual campaigner, reporter or organisation, but also they have this systemic impact on democracy because they work to block accountability and shut down information about corporations, politicians or other powerful individuals or groups.' Holt said the rise of the cases over the past decade was due in part to an increased polarisation in society. 'Previously a large-scale civil lawsuit would have been viewed as ill-advised for big corporations because it was understood to risk a major reputational backlash, whereas I think in an era of intense polarisation, it's easier to discredit and isolate the target of the attack.' He said the trend also reflected the growing power of corporations in the global economy. 'The costs and the sheer scale of these cases are enormous but giant corporations are able to absorb that … these cases feed off the wider imbalance between the corporate claimant and the defendant – the wider that imbalance, the more effective they will be.' The hearing in Amsterdam is the start of what experts expect to be a long legal process. Sign up to Down to Earth The planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essential after newsletter promotion Greenpeace is asking for all costs and damages from the case in North Dakota – which is ongoing – to be paid by Energy Transfer Partners, a Dallas-based oil and gas company worth almost $70bn. It had sued Greenpeace alleging defamation and orchestrating criminal behaviour by protesters at the Dakota Access pipeline in 2016 and 2017, claiming the organisation 'incited' people to protest by using a 'misinformation campaign'. Energy Transfer did not respond to a request for comment but following the jury's decision in the North Dakota case the company thanked the judge and jury and said: 'While we are pleased that Greenpeace has been held accountable for their actions against us, this win is really for the people of Mandan and throughout North Dakota who had to live through the daily harassment and disruptions caused by the protesters who were funded and trained by Greenpeace. It is also a win for all law-abiding Americans who understand the difference between the right to free speech and breaking the law. That the disrupters have been held responsible is a win for all of us.' Trey Cox, Energy Transfer's counsel for the case, said the jury's verdict was 'resounding' and showed Greenpeace's actions had been unlawful. 'It is also a day of celebration for the constitution, the state of North Dakota and Energy Transfer,' he said. Activists from more than 30 free speech and civil society groups gathered outside the court in Amsterdam at the start of the hearing to call on governments across the EU to honour the new directive and transpose it into national law. Christensen said: 'We didn't let legal threats or arrests … and we won't let corporate lawyers stop us now. We're ready to fight back, and this groundbreaking legal case is just the beginning.'
The Guardian
04-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
‘Legal bullying': global protest rights on line in Dutch court case, say activists
The outcome of a court case in the Netherlands could shape the right to protest around the globe for decades to come, campaigners have warned, as figures show a dramatic rise in legal action taken by fossil fuel companies against activists and journalists. Greenpeace International is using a recently introduced EU directive to try to reclaim costs and damages it incurred when a US jury decided it should pay the oil pipeline corporation Energy Transfer more than $660m in damages earlier this year. The case, which opened on Wednesday in Amsterdam, is the latest round in an increasingly bitter dispute between activists, journalists and free speech groups and big corporations – which campaigners claim are using more and more aggressive legal tactics to try to silence them. Mads Christensen, the executive director of Greenpeace International, said that after losing the argument in the 'court of public opinion', fossil fuel corporations were increasingly 'weaponising courtrooms' in an attempt to silence their critics. He added that this week's case was the start of a 'fightback' by civil society groups determined to defend the democratic right to protest and free speech. Experts say these so-called Slapp [strategic lawsuits against public participation] cases are on the rise across the board. The Coalition Against Slapps in Europe (Case) has found a year-on-year rise in such cases over the past decade and has identified more than 1,000 such cases between 2010 and 2023. 'A ruling informed by the new EU anti-Slapp directive may set a precedent that could turn the tide on legal bullying and provide a legal shield for campaigners now and in future,' said Christensen. 'Something absolutely vital is at stake here: people's ability to hold fossil fuel giants to account for the devastation they're causing.' Greenpeace says it has faced five major legal challenges from oil companies over the past two years in Europe and the US, which it claims were aimed not necessarily at winning in court, but rather at draining resources and crushing dissent. Charlie Holt, the European lead for Global Climate Legal Defense (CliDef) and member of Case, said these cases were having a chilling effect not just on individual campaign groups but on the wider democratic process. 'These cases have a dual impact,' he said. 'On the one hand, they have a devastating effect on the individual campaigner, reporter or organisation, but also they have this systemic impact on democracy because they work to block accountability and shut down information about corporations, politicians or other powerful individuals or groups.' Holt said the rise of the cases over the past decade was due in part to an increased polarisation in society. 'Previously a large-scale civil lawsuit would have been viewed as ill-advised for big corporations because it was understood to risk a major reputational backlash, whereas I think in an era of intense polarisation, it's easier to discredit and isolate the target of the attack.' He said the trend also reflected the growing power of corporations in the global economy. 'The costs and the sheer scale of these cases are enormous but giant corporations are able to absorb that … these cases feed off the wider imbalance between the corporate claimant and the defendant – the wider that imbalance, the more effective they will be.' The hearing in Amsterdam is the start of what experts expect to be a long legal process. Sign up to Down to Earth The planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essential after newsletter promotion Greenpeace is asking for all costs and damages from the case in North Dakota – which is ongoing – to be paid by Energy Transfer Partners, a Dallas-based oil and gas company worth almost $70bn. It had sued Greenpeace alleging defamation and orchestrating criminal behaviour by protesters at the Dakota Access pipeline in 2016 and 2017, claiming the organisation 'incited' people to protest by using a 'misinformation campaign'. Energy Transfer did not respond to a request for comment but following the jury's decision in the North Dakota case the company thanked the judge and jury and said: 'While we are pleased that Greenpeace has been held accountable for their actions against us, this win is really for the people of Mandan and throughout North Dakota who had to live through the daily harassment and disruptions caused by the protesters who were funded and trained by Greenpeace. It is also a win for all law-abiding Americans who understand the difference between the right to free speech and breaking the law. That the disrupters have been held responsible is a win for all of us.' Trey Cox, Energy Transfer's counsel for the case, said the jury's verdict was 'resounding' and showed Greenpeace's actions had been unlawful. 'It is also a day of celebration for the constitution, the state of North Dakota and Energy Transfer,' he said. Activists from more than 30 free speech and civil society groups gathered outside the court in Amsterdam at the start of the hearing to call on governments across the EU to honour the new directive and transpose it into national law. Christensen said: 'We didn't let legal threats or arrests … and we won't let corporate lawyers stop us now. We're ready to fight back, and this groundbreaking legal case is just the beginning.'
Scoop
02-07-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Greenpeace International Begins Groundbreaking Anti-SLAPP Case To Protect Freedom Of Speech
In a landmark test case of the European Union's new legislation to protect freedom of expression and stop abusive lawsuits, Greenpeace International has overnight challenged the US oil pipeline company, Energy Transfer, in court in the Netherlands.[1] 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 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.
Scoop
19-06-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
8 In 10 People Support Taxing Oil And Gas Corporations To Pay For Climate Damages, Global Survey Finds
Bonn, Germany A vast majority of people believe governments must tax oil, gas and coal corporations for climate-related loss and damage, and that their government is not doing enough to counter the political influence of super rich individuals and polluting industries. These are the key findings of a global survey, which reflect a broad consensus across political affiliations, income levels and age groups.[1] The study, jointly commissioned by Greenpeace International and Oxfam International, was launched today at the UN Climate Meetings in Bonn (SB62), where government representatives are discussing climate policies, including ways to raise at least US$ 1.3 trillion annually in climate finance for Global South countries by 2035. The survey was conducted across 13 countries, including most G7 countries. Mads Christensen, Executive Director of Greenpeace International said: 'These survey results send a clear message: people are no longer buying the lies. They see the fingerprints of fossil fuel giants all over the storms, floods, droughts, and wildfires devastating their lives, and they want accountability. By taxing the obscene profits of dirty energy companies, governments can unlock billions to protect communities and invest in real climate solutions. It's only fair that those who caused the crisis should pay for the damage, not those suffering from it.' The study, run by Dynata, was unveiled alongside the Polluters Pay Pact, a global alliance of communities on the frontlines of climate disasters. The Pact demands that – instead of piling the costs on ordinary people – governments make oil, gas and coal corporations pay their fair share for the damages they cause, through the introduction of new taxes and fines. The Pact is backed by firefighters and other first responders, trade unions and worker groups, and mayors from countries including Australia, Brazil, Bangladesh, India, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Nigeria, and South Africa, the US, and plaintiffs in landmark climate cases from Pacific island states to Switzerland. The Pact is also supported by over 60 NGOs, including Oxfam International, Avaaz, Islamic Relief UK, Asociación Interamericana para la Defensa del Ambiente (AIDA), Indian Hawkers Alliance, Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, Jubilee Australia and the Greenpeace network. The survey's findings published today reveal broad public support for the core demands of the Polluters Pay Pact, as climate impacts worsen worldwide and global inequality grows. Key findings of the survey include: 81% of people surveyed would support taxes on the oil, gas, and coal industry to pay for damages caused by fossil-fuel driven climate disasters like storms, floods, droughts and wildfires. 86% of people in surveyed countries support channeling revenues from higher taxes on oil and gas corporations towards communities most impacted by the climate crisis. Climate change is disproportionately hitting people in Global South countries, who are historically least responsible for greenhouse gas emissions. When asked who should be taxed to pay for helping survivors of fossil-fuel driven climate disasters, 66% of people across countries surveyed think it should be oil and gas companies, while just 5% support taxes on working people, 9% on goods people buy, and 20% favour business taxes. 68% felt that the fossil fuel industry and the super-rich had a negative influence on politics in their country. 77% say they would be more willing to support a political candidate who prioritises taxing the super-rich and the fossil fuel industry. Amitabh Behar, Executive Director of Oxfam International, said: 'Fossil fuel companies have known for decades about the damage their polluting products wreak on humanity. Corporations continue to cash in on climate devastation, and their profiteering destroys the lives and livelihoods of millions of women, men and children, predominantly those in the Global South who have done the least to cause the climate crisis. Governments must listen to their people and hold polluters responsible for their damages. A new tax on polluting industries could provide immediate and significant support to climate-vulnerable countries, and finally incentivise investment in renewables and a just transition.' The Polluters Pay Pact demonstrates popular support for the campaign to make polluters pay. The campaign is being waged throughout 2025 in countries worldwide and in critical international forums, including the 4th International Conference on Financing for Development (FFD4), the UN Climate Change Conference (COP30), and negotiations for a UN tax convention that could include new rules to make multinational oil and gas companies pay their fair share for their pollution. Notes: [1] The research was conducted by first-party data company Dynata in May-June, 2025, in Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Kenya, Italy, India, Mexico, the Philippines, South Africa, Spain, the UK and the US, with approximately 1200 respondents in each country and a theoretical margin of error of approximately 2.83%. Together, these countries represent close to half the world's population. Statistics available here. Additional background information, including further reactions to the survey results from Ali Mohamed, Special Envoy for Climate Change, Kenya available here. [2] Learn more about the Polluters Pay Pact: [3] Additional quotes here from people around the world who are backing the Polluters Pay Pact, including first responders, local administration, youth, union representatives and people bringing climate cases to courts
Scoop
03-06-2025
- General
- Scoop
French Authorities Block Greenpeace Ship From Participating In UN Ocean Conference
French authorities have blocked Greenpeace International's ship Arctic Sunrise from entering the port of Nice, where the "One Ocean Science Congress" and the UN Ocean Conference are being hosted. This was retaliation against Greenpeace France, highlighting the weaknesses of the French network of Marine Protected Areas last month in the Mediterranean Sea, in an expedition on board the Arctic Sunrise. Greenpeace International will write a formal letter of complaint to the United Nations, deploring the behaviour of the hosting French government. Civil society participation is a core element of the UN Ocean Conference. The presence of the Arctic Sunrise in Nice would coincide with the 40th anniversary of the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior by French secret services in Auckland. Greenpeace Aotearoa spokesperson Ellie Hooper says, "It's ironic that so close to the 40th anniversary of the French Government's attempt to silence Greenpeace here in Auckland by bombing the Rainbow Warrior, the French Government is again trying to shut us down by blocking our ship from entering Nice." "But just like we were not silenced then, neither will we be silenced now. Climate change, ecosystem collapse, and accelerating species extinction pose an existential threat, and our work has never been more important." The Arctic Sunrise had been invited by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs to participate in the "One Ocean Science Congress" and in the Ocean wonders parade taking place right before the UN Ocean Conference. Greenpeace International had intended to deliver the messages of three million people calling for a moratorium on deep sea mining to the politicians attending the conference. The ship's entry to Nice has now been blocked. Mads Christensen, Greenpeace International's Executive Director, says, "The French authorities' attempt to silence fair criticism ahead of this UN Ocean Conference is clearly a political decision and is utterly unacceptable. Greenpeace and our ships have been working peacefully to protect the oceans for decades. The Arctic Sunrise highlighted the failure of the French government to properly protect its Marine Protected Areas - where bottom trawling is still permitted - and now we are being punished. "France wants this to be a moment where they present themselves as saviours of the oceans, while they want to silence any criticism of their own failures in national waters. We will not be silenced. We believe the voices of the three million calling for a stop to deep sea mining must be heard in Nice. Greenpeace and the French government share the same objective to get a moratorium on deep sea mining, which makes the ban of the Arctic Sunrise from Nice even more absurd." Millions of people around the world have joined Greenpeace's campaign to stop deep sea mining from starting. In 2023, the Arctic Sunrise crew took action at sea to bear witness to the threat of the deep sea mining industry. They peacefully protested against The Metals Company, which had been publicly accused of "environmental piracy" by the French government a few weeks ago, given their attempt to bypass international law by requesting an exploitation permit through President Trump's administration. Right now, the Rainbow Warrior is in the Tasman Sea to expose the damage being done to ocean life there and will be in New Zealand to mark the anniversary of the bombing in Auckland on 10 July. Onboard photographer Fernando Pereira died in the attack, which came soon after Operation Exodus, in which the Greenpeace flagship had evacuated victims of American nuclear tests on Rongelap Atoll and was preparing to oppose French nuclear tests on Mururoa Atoll. Following the first-ever deep sea mining licence application by The Metals Company to the United States, Greenpeace says that now is the time to resist and stop this industry from starting. This UN Ocean Conference will be a key moment to galvanise support ahead of the July meeting of the International Seabed Authority, the UN regulator.
