Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Daily flights from Canberra
to Singapore and the world

Greenpeace Two get nine month suspended sentences

By johnboy 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.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
34 Responses to
Greenpeace Two get nine month suspended sentences
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
PBO 9:59 am 13 May 13

Can we get a map of where they live? My deeply held beliefs and altruistic intentions want me to go there with a whipper snipper……but sadly I bet they both live in guvvy s***holes with no lawns, dirt for a driveway’s and baby nappies scattered around the yard with a malnourished dog for security. All the while screaming that the Guvmint has not done enough for them when they sit on there asses all day long getting handouts, with no intention of bettering the lives of themselves or those around them……..I could be wrong, but I think that I may be right with these two.

Ben_Dover 6:59 am 13 May 13

Just a heads up on the type of outcome the actions of these scumbags could have affected.

British scientists say they have developed a new type of wheat which could increase productivity by 30%.

The Cambridge-based National Institute of Agricultural Botany has combined an ancient ancestor of wheat with a modern variety to produce a new strain.

In early trials, the resulting crop seemed bigger and stronger than the current modern wheat varieties.

It will take at least five years of tests and regulatory approval before it is harvested by farmers.

Some farmers, however, are urging new initiatives between the food industry, scientists and government.

They believe the regulatory process needs to be speeded up to ensure that the global food security demands of the next few decades can be met, says the BBC’s Tom Heap.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22498274

what_the 12:47 am 21 Nov 12

Duffbowl said :

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.

Well that’s the end of this thread!

There’s a reason why you shouldn’t invoke Godwin’s Law…

Henry82 11:51 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.

Duffbowl 8:13 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.

Masquara 7:39 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 …

Diggety 5:58 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).

bigfeet 4:02 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?

Baldy 3:32 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.

Baldy 3:27 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?

Duffbowl 12:43 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?

Antagonist 12:20 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.

what_the 10:01 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.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site