h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

was the greenpeace protest at Heathrow a legitmate protest or a foolhardy escapade that could have resulted in death or injury?
In this heightened time of terror alerts what would have been the reaction if armed police had shot these protestors seeing as how they had got airside and onto a plane?
In a democratic society legitmate protest, within the law is fine but how far over the line do we allow protest to go?
Also one has to question security at the airport, there was obviously a major lapse somewhere, how else did these protestors get airside and onto the plane? What if they had been terrorists?

Could they have been terrorists? Maybe they had been watched throughout and security/intelligence indicated that they were not.

Most people would support the issues that Greenpeace protest about, and they do a very good job of bringing these issues on to the front pages.

It always amazes me that these protestors are also the very people that use planes, cars, never seen a hard up protestor, wearing all designer label gear, or good brand gear, probably made in sweat shops in 3rd world countries.
I think there are times they come across as hypocrites, which does away with any good they do in highlighting green issues.
How much fuel did they burn chasing that japanese whaler across the southern ocean? They achieved nothing in the end.
As the first post says, they ran the risk of getting shot going airside at Heathrow of all places.

Running risks is partly how they succeed in getting the cameras trained on them. There are other organisations like Friends of the Earth who achieve their aims by lobbying MPs, but they would be very grateful to Greenpeace for what they achieve in terms of making people aware.

We live in a very corrupt society. Do you really trust the Japanese when they say they are whaling for scientific reasons, or the Government when they say that we really need an additional runway at Heathrow? Without the kind of pressure which mass awareness brings, we would be forced to trust them.

I for one am glad for Greenpeace raising awareness and doing the protest *I* should actually do.
I've supported their work by donating money for nearly 20 years now.

How lazy are you B'el?
I got thrown out of a shopping centre for a protest once. We decided that if three of us sat on the floor and ranted about capitalism, the three hippy-looking chicks would come over and talk to us. They did. Then the bourgeoise system repressed us and we had to go to Starbucks.

"Do you really trust the Japanese when they say they are whaling for scientific reasons,"

Absolutely not. My views on whaling are quite clear, there is no reason for any whales to be hunted/killed.
The point I was making was the waste of fuel and the 'enviromental impact' of burning all that fuel in a fruitless chase.
I'm also clear in that I believe in legal protest no matter the topic/subject of the protest, so long as it's reasonable and within the law and no-ones life is put at risk.
Breaking into a secure area of an airport with armed guards around isn't safe or sensible. Not living to the ideal set by protestors, ie. still driving, using planes, buying goods made in 3rd world countries via sweat shops, that in my mind defeats the object of the protest in the first place and gives the impression of hypocrisy.
As for our current government, frankly if they told me it was raining I'd walk outside to check, that's how little I trust this shower.

greenpeace is a religious cult.

that their objectives overlap substantially with those of rational environmentalists shouldn't confuse people into thinking they are one and the same.

but of course folks will. and every time greenpeace do something stupid or dangerous or alienating, they take real ecology advocacy back another step.

i really, honestly think the world would be a better place if they all just disappeared and grew organic veggies somewhere out of sight.

This post has been removed.

some people aren't happy campers and make their personal problems political.

and a total intolerance of other opinions and other approaches is a hallmark of a religious cult, particularly when it involves a rejection of science and common sense and an embracing of a tacit but still magical belief in an ill defined pantheism incapable of rendering ethical or practical solutions.

in other words, greenpeace is made up of nutters with questionable ethics whose very behaviours retard ecological solutions and awareness. but they don't care. they are saving the planet from armageddon. they are on a mission from...can we say it....god.

This post has been removed.

If you would like to offer a coherent argument, I will answer it. But idiocy deserves disdain.

According to my Japanese newspaper this morning ,
Because of the bugs planted on the Japanese harpoon boat Yushin Maru No2 by the two that boarded her a few weeks ago ,the Sea Shepherd was able to find her very quickly after refueling and because of that the Japanese fishing fleet will not be able to fill their quota this season as the season ends the middle of next month.The Japanese fleet have only caught about 400 whales so far and are unlikely to catch 600 more in the time left especially now that they are again being followed by Greenpeace.

I have always been proud to wear a Greenpeace T shirt

exactly. idiocy deserves disdain. now go over and look in the mirror. wear your greenpeace tshirt if it aids in recognition.

We don't need whale meat in the shops here and their hasn't been any now in the supermarkets I shop in for at least 3 weeks I hope that Greenpeace can help to keep it out of the shops .I've seen Whales in the ocean (fantastic site) and that's where I want them to stay , I don't want to see Whale meat on shop shelves it doesn't even look tasty.

to Skanky and Arnold (I spent an afternoon at Greenham if that counts...)

Unfortunately, Anti, a lot of people here know Skanky well enough to know that planet-saving-wise Skanky really does put his money where his mouth is. And in writing your silly replies to him you're just showing yourself up as the barrack-room lawyer type that you obviously are.

Oh and... it's bugging more than just me: use the flamin' Shift Key can't you?

Well said Sho

I won't get into discussion here so I'll just leave this which I wrote: A13900042 and mention that I support Greenpeace too.

GB (not a cult member, unless h2g2 is a cult..)

what 'enough people' think is irrelevant. the criticisms of greenpeace are well established and hardly unique to me.

his response was both inadequate and insulting. that his own words, yes, HIS words, were used to point out the irony, perhaps even hypocrisy, of his response, is an issue you best take up with him.

i don't usually respond to posters who impugn my credentials, but in this case i will.

as it happens i have qualifications in law and politics and philosophy. i also have a post grad qualification in public policy that involved no small amount of study into the theory of organisations. i have also spent 30 years involved in green politics to one degree or another.


i say none of this to bolster any argument i make: it has no bearing. i say it only to show you how ridiculous you can appear when you make assumptions about your correspondents.

your sanctimony even extends to letter case. colour me surprised.

the criticism of greenpeace extends beyond the adoption of 'ends justifying means' attitudes. it involves issues of corruption, dishonesty, political infighting, harm to others, exploitation of members and propaganda. but from my perspective the most damning indictment of greenpeace is its capacity to alienate otherwise undecided people in the battle for hearts and minds.

and if you doubt this is true...go back and read what has been posted.

Your argument makes no sense to me, antigravitas.

Greenpease think big. We're talking ecology-big, planet-big: French nuclear testing, the marine ecosystem, greenhouse gas emissions/global warming. I fail to see how someone with your green credentials can think that in the world we live in today we can attack an organisation which has the resolve and commitment to tackle these issues, when you use arguments like:

"i really, honestly think the world would be a better place if they all just disappeared and grew organic veggies somewhere out of sight."

and

"greenpeace is made up of nutters with questionable ethics whose very behaviours retard ecological solutions and awareness. but they don't care. they are saving the planet from armageddon. they are on a mission from...can we say it....god."

To accuse them of "corruption, dishonesty, political infighting, harm to others, exploitation of members and propaganda" sounds at best ill-informed and at worst, some sort of personal grudge. Maybe you prefer to tackle these global issues through lobbying international governments? Well, I hope you don't find them tainted by any "corruption, dishonesty, political infighting, harm to others, exploitation of members and propaganda".

I work in environmental law, and I can't agree that Greenpeace are useless. I sometimes think they pick the wrong things to focus on, but they draw attention to issues in a way that traditional political activism has its limits.

You can write to ministers all day everyday about the third runway, and never have the slightest difference. On these kind of fundamental issues, you have to mobilise a wider public, and that means this kind of non-violent direct action.

sprout