Greenpeace Two get nine month suspended sentences

By 19 November, 2012 34

crop damage

The ABC has the anticipated news that the Greenpeace Two, Jessa Latona and Heather McCabe won’t be doing porridge for the vandalism of CSIRO wheat trials:

Greenpeace has since paid more than $280,000 in compensation to the CSIRO.

Justice Hillary Penfold told the ACT Supreme Court this morning that she appreciated the actions were motivated by deeply held beliefs and altruistic intentions, but the law had been deliberately broken.

She also took aim at Greenpeace for allowing two junior staff members to being exposed to the consequences of breaking the law.

Please login to post your comments
34 Responses to Greenpeace Two get nine month suspended sentences
#1
Snarky12:18 pm, 19 Nov 12

This particular act of stupidity was for the straw that broke the camels back for me as far as voting Greens went. An imbecilic bit of vandalism and non-existent response or even attempt at justification by the Green party.

#2
Snarky12:33 pm, 19 Nov 12

Reading back on my comment I can see that I’ve left out a huge train of thought that went from Greenpeace’s actions, through responses and counter-responses, and on to ACT Greens policies and actions on quite unrelated matters. I know these two clowns are Greenpeace, not the ACT Greens. My poorly thought out and too-rapid comment doesn’t make this at all clear.

#3
Chop712:15 pm, 19 Nov 12

They should have got 9 months community service doing gardening work around Canberra.
Put those power tools to good use.

#4
Chop712:16 pm, 19 Nov 12

…and to all those who donate to Greenpeace, $280,000 well spent :)

#5
PantsMan2:26 pm, 19 Nov 12

I just wish they would respect the science.

And has Shane got a comment on this illegal act now he’s a Minister?

#6
DrKoresh2:45 pm, 19 Nov 12

PantsMan said :

I just wish they would respect the science.

Exactly, me too!

But I thought this was old news, didn’t we hear about them getting bugger-all in the way of sentencing at the start of the year?

#7
bundah2:47 pm, 19 Nov 12

Seeing how Greenpeace compensated CSIRO for the damage then a 9 month suspended sentence is reasonable.All in all quite an effective advertising campaign given $280,000 doesn’t get one very far in the corporate world.

#8
How_Canberran3:30 pm, 19 Nov 12

PantsMan said :

I just wish they would respect the science.

And has Shane got a comment on this illegal act now he’s a Minister?

I doubt it. Lord Rattenbury is a ‘local’ Minister. The CSIRO falls under the Federal Government purview.

#9
RadioVK4:21 pm, 19 Nov 12

Pretty poor effort.

These people need to understand that “altruism” and “deeply held beliefs” are a poor justification for trespass and vandalism. There are ways to make a point that don’t involve breaking the law, but of course, they won’t get you anywhere near the media coverage…

#10
Masquara5:14 pm, 19 Nov 12

PantsMan said :

I just wish they would respect the science.

And has Shane got a comment on this illegal act now he’s a Minister?

Here’s Shane’s comment at the time. Hardly promising for science. Folks, this is the “real Shane” shall we presume? The “before-the-Greens-looked-at-the-polling-and-got-pragmatic-after-the-case” Shane.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-14/20110714-greenpeace-gm-protest/2794272

#11
milkman6:12 pm, 19 Nov 12

All this does is reinforce my determination to never give Greenpeace a cent, and to encourage others to do the same.

#12
breda8:06 pm, 19 Nov 12

Don’t cry for Greenpeace – Greenpeace Asia Pacific (of which Australia is a subset) had an income of about $16 million according to the latest (2011) published accounts:

http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/en/about/how-is-greenpeace-structured/finance/satements/Financial-Statements-2011/

Oh, and donors may not realise that fundraising costs chew up 35% of their donations.

#13
LSWCHP8:22 pm, 19 Nov 12

These people are dimwitted arseclowns who have been manipulated by intelligent people with a malignant agenda. They should’ve copped the $280K and a month or so in the slammer as well.

#14
Masquara9:09 pm, 19 Nov 12

Shane Rattenbury in his maiden speech in 2008. Definitely worth locating his sentiments pre-self-gagging-for-pragmatic-political-purposes:

“Whilst on the subject of Greenpeace, I would like to pay tribute to those who continue to give their all each day in the fight for the future. Greenpeace exists because this fragile Earth deserves a voice. You “warriors of the rainbow”, you have my utmost admiration. To my many friends around the world—there are too many of you to name—I thank each and every one of you.”

#15
Postalgeek9:44 pm, 19 Nov 12

Masquara said :

Shane Rattenbury in his maiden speech in 2008. Definitely worth locating his sentiments pre-self-gagging-for-pragmatic-political-purposes:

“Whilst on the subject of Greenpeace, I would like to pay tribute to those who continue to give their all each day in the fight for the future. Greenpeace exists because this fragile Earth deserves a voice. You “warriors of the rainbow”, you have my utmost admiration. To my many friends around the world—there are too many of you to name—I thank each and every one of you.”

Wow. Truly harrowing reading. I pledge my broom to you should you wish to declare ‘Shenanigans’.

#16
Baldy8:34 am, 20 Nov 12

To be fair Greenpeace do do a lot of good in the world. You can’t judge an entire organisation on a few radicals (actually you can but you will be wrong) that have an incredible lack of understanding of science, and don’t bother researching things before acting.

Before we go and condemn the entire organisations look at what they do first. Their actions in saving whales from being hunted for example have very effctive results.

For the record I am all for GM crops and I put these tow in the same bracket as Alen Jones listeners (i.e. believe what theya re told and don’t bother fidning out the facts for themselves)

#17
Masquara8:41 am, 20 Nov 12

Postalgeek said :

Masquara said :

Shane Rattenbury in his maiden speech in 2008. Definitely worth locating his sentiments pre-self-gagging-for-pragmatic-political-purposes:

“Whilst on the subject of Greenpeace, I would like to pay tribute to those who continue to give their all each day in the fight for the future. Greenpeace exists because this fragile Earth deserves a voice. You “warriors of the rainbow”, you have my utmost admiration. To my many friends around the world—there are too many of you to name—I thank each and every one of you.”

Wow. Truly harrowing reading. I pledge my broom to you should you wish to declare ‘Shenanigans’.

Just interesting that he focused on Greenpeace in his maiden speech along with commenting in favour of Greenpeace activism all along the way, then dropped all mention of environmental issues for political expediency …

#18
glenenglish8:41 am, 20 Nov 12

I cancelled my Greenpeace auto donations after this one. What were they thinking.
and Greens, you lost my vote on this, also. where was your condemnation of this ?

Vandalism and this is no better than pretty crime.

280K is peanuts for this organisation, should have been 10x this.

#19
switch9:10 am, 20 Nov 12

glenenglish said :

280K is peanuts for this organisation, should have been 10x this.

Don’t they say that about Big Oil?

#20
Jim Jones9:59 am, 20 Nov 12

Masquara said :

Postalgeek said :

Masquara said :

Shane Rattenbury in his maiden speech in 2008. Definitely worth locating his sentiments pre-self-gagging-for-pragmatic-political-purposes:

“Whilst on the subject of Greenpeace, I would like to pay tribute to those who continue to give their all each day in the fight for the future. Greenpeace exists because this fragile Earth deserves a voice. You “warriors of the rainbow”, you have my utmost admiration. To my many friends around the world—there are too many of you to name—I thank each and every one of you.”

Wow. Truly harrowing reading. I pledge my broom to you should you wish to declare ‘Shenanigans’.

Just interesting that he focused on Greenpeace in his maiden speech along with commenting in favour of Greenpeace activism all along the way, then dropped all mention of environmental issues for political expediency …

OMG … he’s like some sort of devious super-Hitler.

#21
what_the10:01 am, 20 Nov 12

Baldy said :

To be fair Greenpeace do do a lot of good in the world. You can’t judge an entire organisation on a few radicals (actually you can but you will be wrong) that have an incredible lack of understanding of science, and don’t bother researching things before acting.

Before we go and condemn the entire organisations look at what they do first. Their actions in saving whales from being hunted for example have very effctive results.

For the record I am all for GM crops and I put these tow in the same bracket as Alen Jones listeners (i.e. believe what theya re told and don’t bother fidning out the facts for themselves)

Greenpeace lost its way along time ago. This from their co-founder who left the organisation

“At first, many of the causes we championed, such as opposition to nuclear testing and protection of whales, stemmed from our scientific knowledge of nuclear physics and marine biology. But after six years as one of five directors of Greenpeace International, I observed that none of my fellow directors had any formal science education. They were either political activists or environmental entrepreneurs. Ultimately, a trend toward abandoning scientific objectivity in favor of political agendas forced me to leave Greenpeace in 1986.”

“Sadly, Greenpeace has evolved into an organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas.”

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/a-founder-explains-why-he-left-greenpeace#.UKq5E2ex0p4

Pretty much sums it up for me.

#22
Antagonist12:20 pm, 20 Nov 12

Baldy said :

To be fair Greenpeace do do a lot of good in the world. You can’t judge an entire organisation on a few radicals (actually you can but you will be wrong) that have an incredible lack of understanding of science, and don’t bother researching things before acting.

Before we go and condemn the entire organisations look at what they do first. Their actions in saving whales from being hunted for example have very effctive results.

From the ABC article:

But Ben Pearson from Greenpeace says the two activists knew what they were getting themselves into.

“Mr Pearson says despite the charges and fine, the conservation group would not rule out undertaking similar acts in the future

Ben Pearson says while it is a large amount [$280k], Greenpeace members will continue to support the organisation.

“Well Greenpeace paid it on behalf of the activists in recognition of the fact that they had, while undertaken the activity in their own personal capacity,” he said.

“Greenpeace supporters give us money exactly because we undertake these kind of activities, because we actually physically stand up to environmental harm and those causing it.

Baldy: I’m pretty sure we CAN judge the whole organisation based on this. Mr Pearson’s indignant attitude is just the icing on the cake. They will never see another cent from me.

#23
Duffbowl12:43 pm, 20 Nov 12

Baldy said :

To be fair Greenpeace do do a lot of good in the world. You can’t judge an entire organisation on a few radicals (actually you can but you will be wrong) that have an incredible lack of understanding of science, and don’t bother researching things before acting.

Before we go and condemn the entire organisations look at what they do first. Their actions in saving whales from being hunted for example have very effctive results.

For the record I am all for GM crops and I put these tow in the same bracket as Alen Jones listeners (i.e. believe what theya re told and don’t bother fidning out the facts for themselves)

Please, Sir, can I invoke Godwin’s Law?

#24
Baldy3:27 pm, 20 Nov 12

Duffbowl said :

Baldy said :

To be fair Greenpeace do do a lot of good in the world. You can’t judge an entire organisation on a few radicals (actually you can but you will be wrong) that have an incredible lack of understanding of science, and don’t bother researching things before acting.

Before we go and condemn the entire organisations look at what they do first. Their actions in saving whales from being hunted for example have very effctive results.

For the record I am all for GM crops and I put these tow in the same bracket as Alen Jones listeners (i.e. believe what theya re told and don’t bother fidning out the facts for themselves)

Please, Sir, can I invoke Godwin’s Law?

Uhmm. No. Godwin’s law has nothing to do with my comment just by it’s shear lack of reference to Hitler or Nazi’s.

You do know what Godwin’s law is don’t you? Or do youjust randomly post that?

#25
Baldy3:32 pm, 20 Nov 12

Antagonist said :

Baldy said :

To be fair Greenpeace do do a lot of good in the world. You can’t judge an entire organisation on a few radicals (actually you can but you will be wrong) that have an incredible lack of understanding of science, and don’t bother researching things before acting.

Before we go and condemn the entire organisations look at what they do first. Their actions in saving whales from being hunted for example have very effctive results.

From the ABC article:

But Ben Pearson from Greenpeace says the two activists knew what they were getting themselves into.

“Mr Pearson says despite the charges and fine, the conservation group would not rule out undertaking similar acts in the future

Ben Pearson says while it is a large amount [$280k], Greenpeace members will continue to support the organisation.

“Well Greenpeace paid it on behalf of the activists in recognition of the fact that they had, while undertaken the activity in their own personal capacity,” he said.

“Greenpeace supporters give us money exactly because we undertake these kind of activities, because we actually physically stand up to environmental harm and those causing it.

Baldy: I’m pretty sure we CAN judge the whole organisation based on this. Mr Pearson’s indignant attitude is just the icing on the cake. They will never see another cent from me.

So the voice of one person in one country is the voice of an entire worldwide organisation huh. Got you. Everyone is now tarred with the same brush whenever one person for a group speaks their mind.

#26
bigfeet4:02 pm, 20 Nov 12

Chop71 said :

…and to all those who donate to Greenpeace, $280,000 well spent :)

Isn’t funding a terrorist organization illegal anyway?

#27
Diggety5:58 pm, 20 Nov 12

Baldy said :

So the voice of one person in one country is the voice of an entire worldwide organisation huh. Got you. Everyone is now tarred with the same brush whenever one person for a group speaks their mind.

Baldy, it is the stated aims of the entire organisation and they themselves choose their own means in achieving them (vandalism, terrorism, etc).

#28
Masquara7:39 pm, 20 Nov 12

Baldy said :

Duffbowl said :

Baldy said :

To be fair Greenpeace do do a lot of good in the world. You can’t judge an entire organisation on a few radicals (actually you can but you will be wrong) that have an incredible lack of understanding of science, and don’t bother researching things before acting.

Before we go and condemn the entire organisations look at what they do first. Their actions in saving whales from being hunted for example have very effctive results.

For the record I am all for GM crops and I put these tow in the same bracket as Alen Jones listeners (i.e. believe what theya re told and don’t bother fidning out the facts for themselves)

Please, Sir, can I invoke Godwin’s Law?

Uhmm. No. Godwin’s law has nothing to do with my comment just by it’s shear lack of reference to Hitler or Nazi’s.

You do know what Godwin’s law is don’t you? Or do youjust randomly post that?

You’ll find that most Rioters think it has something to do with Godwin Grech …

#29
Duffbowl8:13 pm, 20 Nov 12

Baldy said :

Duffbowl said :

Baldy said :

To be fair Greenpeace do do a lot of good in the world. You can’t judge an entire organisation on a few radicals (actually you can but you will be wrong) that have an incredible lack of understanding of science, and don’t bother researching things before acting.

Before we go and condemn the entire organisations look at what they do first. Their actions in saving whales from being hunted for example have very effctive results.

Please, Sir, can I invoke Godwin’s Law?

Uhmm. No. Godwin’s law has nothing to do with my comment just by it’s shear lack of reference to Hitler or Nazi’s.

You do know what Godwin’s law is don’t you? Or do youjust randomly post that?

I was asking if I could invoke Godwin’s Law in my reply. Sorry if it wasn’t apparent.

Given a big enough organisation, you could argue that acts of good outweigh any notoriety brought upon the same organisation by individual members if reviewed with constraints. For instance, it could be argued that the NSDAP provided more good for German society than evil through the implementation of policies aimed at growth of industry, modernisation of transport, environmental and animal protection laws, and improvements in living conditions and health.

Of course, that is weighed up against the absolute evils inflicted on Europe overall as a result of their eugenics programs, their policies against those seen as non-Aryan, suppresion of any art form that was considered degenerate, decimation of any political resistance, and Lebensraum.

#30
Henry8211:51 pm, 20 Nov 12

ahh yes, i laughed hard when she said something along the lines of “as a mother, GM wheat is not safe”. Because ‘mother’ is some type of scientific accreditation.

Shame the youtube video was removed.

Advertisement
GET PREMIUM MEMBERSHIP
Advertisement

Halloween in Australia?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

IMAGES OF CANBERRA

Advertisement
Sponsors
Advertisement
Copyright © 2014 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.