Latest news with #SLAPP
Zawya
5 days ago
- Politics
- Zawya
The Verdict is in and Greenpeace Won't Accept Justice
Environmental hate group Greenpeace has once again launched an attack on the African Energy Chamber ( and Africa's energy sector, citing the continent's efforts to accelerate development as a coordinated attack on the right to dissent. Using the example whereby a jury in North Dakota issued a landmark ruling, ordering Greenpeace to pay $660 million in damages for malicious interference with the Dakota Access Pipeline, the organization has declared that companies such as the African Energy Chamber (AEC) utilize Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation - SLAPP suits - to intimidate and silence critics. Let us be clear: lawsuits like the example above are not tactical weapons to intimidate: it is a clear example of justice being served to organizations attempting to dismantle global development and community empowerment. The examples shared by Greenpeace are not 'corporate weaponization of the law to dismantle civil society opposition' - it is a clear example of justice. Greenpeace has proven time and time again that it does not in fact care about people; it operates under a mandate to attack the energy industry. The AEC has been consistent in its calls, advocating for justice, inclusive development and equitable investments. On the other hand, Greenpeace has been consistent in its attacks, targeting projects that stand to make a difference in the world. As we have said before, the organization's methods go beyond protesting – they involve a calculated strategy of misinformation, disruption and direct interference with energy infrastructure. When faced with the consequences of their actions – in this case, $$660 million worth – the organization blames investors, they blame the justice system and they blame the energy sector. Africa is so close to unlocking significant economic development. With 125 billion barrels of crude oil, 620 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and abundant renewable energy potential, the continent is working hard to bring tangible benefits to its communities. Africa is not pursuing ambitious projects with the aim of exporting. Africa is accelerating development with the aim of creating greater value from its oil and gas resources – resources that western nations have long-benefited from. Organizations such as Greenpeace claim to stand on behalf of 'concerned citizens,' yet they so carefully ignore the very citizens set to benefit from Africa's oil and gas resources. We have said it time and time again, with over 600 million people living without access to electricity and over 900 million people living without access to clean cooking solutions, Africa cannot afford to leave these resources in the ground. This very statistic has led the citizens of Africa – not only corporations – to rally behind the call to 'make energy poverty history.' And it is large-scale oil and gas projects that will achieve this goal. From Namibia's Orange Basin to Libya's Sirte to Angola's Kwanza and Mozambique's Rovuma, Africa's oil and gas basins will transform the continent. Major investments stand to do more than extract resources, they create jobs, develop infrastructure, boost skills development and give hope to millions of Africans. These projects are being developed in close coordination with environmental groups. Take the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP), a vital infrastructure project set to connect Uganda's oilfields with Tanzania's Port of Tanga. EACOP developer TotalEnergies has placed environmental protection and community engagement at the very heart of development. The project is being developed through specialized measures geared towards protecting the environment as well as the rights of local communities. Environmental and Social Impact Assessments were carried out in compliance with the standards of the International Finance Corporation, third-party reviews were conducted, regular engagement with impact communities is deployed. Right from the design phase of these projects, special attention has been paid to information, consultation and consensus-building with all stakeholders. Over 70,000 people were consulted for the ESIAs and more than 20,000 meetings have been held to date with the populations concerned and civil society organizations. The project is an example of how oil companies are in fact working in close partnership with environmental authorities. Greenpeace's attacks on the industry go beyond infrastructure. The organization strongly opposes oil and gas exploration, disrupting seismic data acquisition and drilling. Campaigns have been launched against Shell in South Africa, and as a result, the country has been unable to understand the wealth of resources it has offshore. Greenpeace is seeking donations to support its efforts to block development in South Africa, calling 'To Hell with Shell.' Similarly, the organization is opposing Africa Oil Corp as it strives to unlock new development opportunities in South Africa. Greenpeace is appealing an Environmental Authorization received by Africa Oil Corp to conduct exploration. In Mozambique, Greenpeace has called for investors to stop financing vital projects, including major LNG developments that could transform southern Africa into an energy hub. By accosting funders, they have impacted developments in the Rovuma basin, leaving millions in energy poverty without a second thought. But the question is, why Africa? Greenpeace are fiercely opposing African exploration efforts but ignoring projects in other regions such as the Middle East. This is an intentional attack on the continent. Greenpeace is right. The lawsuit against it is not an isolated event – it is a demonstration of how Greenpeace continues to blame others for the damages it causes. Organizations such as the AEC have tried again and again to work with environmental groups, but they are not interested in partnerships. They only want disruption. Sustainable development is about people, it is about inclusivity and it is about democracy. We should ask ourselves: will we allow environmental groups to dictate what Africa deserves? Will we allow these groups to attack projects, prevent growth and disrupt the livelihoods of people? Or will be make energy poverty history and transform the lives of African people? Distributed by APO Group on behalf of African Energy Chamber.
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.
The Hill
01-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Trump refiles lawsuit against Iowa pollster in state court
Attorneys for President Trump refiled a lawsuit against the Des Moines Register and Iowa pollster J. Ann Selzer in state court Monday after moving to drop their complaint in federal court. The complaint filed in Polk County is nearly identical to the one Trump attorneys first brought against Selzer and the newspaper in December, alleging they had violated Iowa's consumer fraud laws by releasing a poll days before the November election that showed former Vice President Harris winning Iowa by 3 percentage points. Trump ended up carrying the Hawkeye State by 14 points. Bob Corn-Revere, the chief counsel of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), which is representing Selzer, called the move to state court 'procedural gamemanship.' 'This maneuver was not in response to any settlement and is a transparent attempt to avoid federal court review of the president's transparently frivolous claims,' Corn-Revere said in a statement. The Monday move came a day before a new Iowa law was set to take effect to curb lawsuits intended to chill public speech by burdening respondents with legal fees, commonly known as a SLAPP suit. Attorneys for Selzer, the Des Moines Register, and Gannett, the Iowa newspaper's parent company, are now attempting to keep the suit in federal court. 'President Trump's present Notice of Voluntary Removal would effectively escape the jurisdiction of the federal courts in time to restate his claims in Iowa's state court without being subject to Iowa's anti-SLAPP law,' they wrote in a motion to strike Trump's dismissal in federal court. Trump had sought several times to move the suit to state court. That was where the suit was initially filed, before attorneys for Gannett successfully moved it to have it heard in federal court instead. Trump then attempted to have the case returned to a state venue, filing an amended complaint that added two Iowa plaintiffs, Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-Iowa) and former Iowa state Sen. Brad Zaun (R). A judge denied the motion on May 23 and dismissed Zaun and Miller-Meeks as plaintiffs. Trump's lawyers first appealed that ruling on May 30. Then, on Monday, they voluntarily dismissed the federal suit altogether. The complaint filed in Iowa state court the same day includes Zaun and Miller-Meeks as plaintiffs.
Irish Independent
01-06-2025
- Politics
- Irish Independent
Jim O'Callaghan plans to reform defamation legislation in aftermath of Gerry Adams's High Court victory
A law lecturer in Trinity College Dublin said no defence under Section 26 of the Defamation Act 2009 — which allows publishers to argue publication was fair and reasonable and in the public interest — has ever succeeded in this country. It comes as Gerry Adams was last week awarded €100,000 in damages after being defamed in a BBC documentary and news article. The jury last week rejected defences put forward by the BBC that the allegation was published in good faith and that it was fair and reasonable to do so. Section 26 of the Defamation Act 2009 outlines the possible defence of fair and reasonable publication, citing the need for the publication to be in good faith and for the public benefit. 'As our legal team made clear, if the BBC's case cannot be won under existing Irish defamation law, it's hard to see how anyone's could,' said the head of BBC Northern Ireland Adam Smyth, speaking after the jury's decision. Defamation reforms passed committee stage in the Dáil at the end of April and are being passed 'as a matter of priority' Eoin O'Dell, a law lecturer in Trinity College Dublin, said that no Section 26 defence has ever succeeded in this country. He said the Adams case 'shows how limited a defence it is for media'. He said the defence needs to be simplified, as had happened with defamation law in England. The Department of Justice confirmed that Jim O'Callaghan intends to bring forward an amendment 'to provide for a clearer and simpler defence of fair and reasonable publication in the public interest'. The Government has also promised to pass defamation law reforms with safeguards against strategic lawsuits against public participation, also known as SLAPP suits. Defamation reforms passed committee stage in the Dáil at the end of April, and are now being passed 'as a matter of priority', said the spokesperson at the Department. Sinn Féin sources this weekend said that even though they believe the former party leader's reputation has now been restored, he will not be running in the race for the Áras later this year. Sinn Féin members have been asked by party headquarters for their ideas on how the party should approach the presidential election.
Miami Herald
29-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Miami Herald
Smokey Robinson files defamation suit against sexual assault accusers
May 29 (UPI) --Smokey Robinson and his wife, Frances Robinson, filed a defamation suit against a group of women who have accused him of sexual assault. The cross-complaint suit claims the sexual assault allegations by four former housekeepers, filed on May 6, were "fabricated" in order to support an "extortionate scheme." The suit contends that the Robinsons did not harm or abuse the former housekeepers and seeks to force the women who filed their suit using "Jane Doe" names to be publicly identified. It also alleges they first demanded $100 million before filing the suit. "When the Robinsons resisted the extortionate demands, plaintiffs filed this lawsuit," attorney Christopher Frost wrote. The suit further alleges that John Harris, an attorney for the housekeepers, and his firm Harris and Hayden, defamed Robinson by referring to the singer as a "serial and sick rapist" who must be stopped. Harris and Hayden said in a Wednesday statement they will file a motion to strike down Robinson's suit based on California's law on "strategic lawsuits against public participation," or SLAPP. The law was designed to prevent harassing lawsuits filed by wealthy celebrities and corporations intended to silence free speech and intimidate accusers. To succeed in legally striking down a SLAPP lawsuit, defendants must show they are being sued for "any act ... in furtherance of the person's right of petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue." "The cross-complaint ... is nothing more than an attempt to silence and intimidate the survivors of Mr. Robinson's sexual battery and assault. It is a baseless and vindictive legal maneuver designed to re-victimize, shift blame and discourage others from coming forward," lawyers for the women accusing Robinson said in a statement to USA Today. The women accusing Robinson alleged in their suit that Robinson committed sexual battery, assault, false imprisonment, and gender violence for years. On May 15, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department announced Robinson is under criminal investigation for sexual assault. Robinson has denied the allegations. Copyright 2025 UPI News Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
