Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Snow grow situation | Main | Tip drive »

Greenpeace banned

The latest from the subcontinent is that Prime Minister Modi has finally decided that enough is enough and has banned Greenpeace for good:

Under the latest order issued by authorities in Tamil Nadu where Greenpeace is registered, the government said it had found that the organisation had violated the provisions of law by engaging in fraudulent dealings.

Greenpeace denied any wrongdoing and said the closure was a "clumsy tactic" to silence dissent.

It sounds a bit vague to me. I wonder what precisely these fraudulent dealings are? I'm also not really into banning things, although I think it's possible to make a good case where foreign agitators are involved.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (39)

A bit rich Greenpeace complaining about the silencing of dissent.

Nov 6, 2015 at 3:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterJamesG

Be careful what you wish for. My understanding is that the Modi government is cynically stirring up communalist violence and suppressing dissent. Your enemy's enemy is not necessarily your friend.

Nov 6, 2015 at 3:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterDaveB

It is good that someone in a Government is prepared to give Greenpeace the treatment and respect they have been asking for, for so long.

Will Mrs Cameron be asking for special treatment from Dave?

Nov 6, 2015 at 3:41 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Censorship and suppression of groups is a Bad Thing.

We should all support Greenpeace's right to exist and to campaign.

I won't support their campaigns but I'll definitely sign anything to say they have the right to campaign.

Je suis Greenpeace (aujourd'hui).

Nov 6, 2015 at 3:46 PM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

'I'm also not really into banning things'

You are getting soft. There no wrongdoing in banning Greenpeace.

Greenpeace by design basically breaks law all the time. Je suis Indian.

Nov 6, 2015 at 3:57 PM | Unregistered Commenterwert

M Courtney

Would you defend the right of the Mafia to exist?

Nov 6, 2015 at 4:02 PM | Registered CommenterDung

Dung, Yes.
I wouldn't defend the right of the Mafia to break the law.
But if they want to campaign for things I disagree with - that's fine.

Nov 6, 2015 at 4:09 PM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

Banning is a start. Preventative detention - for the detainees own safety, of course - is the serious thinkers way forward.

Nov 6, 2015 at 4:21 PM | Unregistered Commenterbill

I don't like the idea of banning things either much. However, I dislike the sharp practices of a far-left political organisation which professes to campaign about the environment! I think they have got what they deserved, after all, if you keep pushing, one day, someone will push back!

Nov 6, 2015 at 4:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan the Brit

It would be much better to go after Greenpeace for racketeering and criminal activities. Put the bosses in jail and confiscate Greenpeace's assets.

Greenpeace are responsible for violating the basic human rights of Indians - their right of access to cheap energy, cheap food, clean water, medicines etc.

Nov 6, 2015 at 4:27 PM | Registered CommenterPhillip Bratby

I dislike the sharp practices of a far-left political organisation which professes to campaign about the environment!

The notion that Greenpeace is a "far left" organisation is too fatuous to take seriously. Take a look at e.g. its history, its leadership and the social composition of its membership.

I think they have got what they deserved

Maybe they did, maybe they didn't but, as we don't know what the group is accused of, it might be wise to wait for more information. That said, I agree that the Russians gave its members some of what its leadership deserved in the recent Arctic piracy fiasco and I remain outraged at other members' appalling conduct in Peru. But that's a long way indeed from uncritically endorsing the antics of a nasty Indian government.

Nov 6, 2015 at 4:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterDaveB

Apart from anything else, it allows the whiners to claim martyr status.

Nov 6, 2015 at 4:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

But they're not being suppressed for campaigning. They're being suppressed for (allegedly) financial fraud and falsification of data. Greenpeace has long played the dirty game and any government which turns on them has my support. Let's hope FoE and WWF are next.

DaveB - if you want to switch the spotlight back onto the behaviour of the Indian government a link or two would help. Your unsupported 'understanding' is hardly compelling.

Nov 6, 2015 at 4:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil D

You know this is about the sixth time the Modi government has done this, and on every other occasion it's been thrown out by the courts?

I don't expect you guys to support Greenpeace, but if you're against law-breaking, then it's Modi you need to be worried about.

If you are against law-breaking.

Nov 6, 2015 at 5:19 PM | Unregistered Commentergubulgaria

Any Government should take great care when shutting down dissent. I would hope that the allegations of fraud lead to prosecutions, as then they will have to be substantiated. It could be that the Indian Government has a different definition. In particular it could be viewed that Greenpeace's campaigns are an attempt by a foreign organisation to influence Indian politics, whilst trying to make out that it is from within India. There is also an issue of using campaigns as a cover for proselytizing on alternative belief systems to the mainstream Hindu religion.

Nov 6, 2015 at 5:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterKevin Marshall

any government which turns on them has my support.

It's the "any government" bit that shows political naivety. As I said, the Putin government was well within its rights to stamp on Greenpeace piracy though the later compromise wasn't hard to predict. The Peruvians were also right to be outraged by the neo-colonial hauteur of those who damaged the Nazca lines. Due Process aside, whether that justifies supporting Modi is another matter.

This blog's episcopalean mentor recently recommended Wilfried Huismann's book, "PandaLeaks - The Dark side of the WWF". So would I. It explains well and, despite some poor referencing, IMHO insightfully how (though he doesn't use the term) the WWF is in effect a protection racket which keeps quiet on major environmental scandals in exchange for "funding". I don't see Greenpeace and/or FoE as essentially any different - see eg. their actions in covering for "Big Wind" in Scotland. Though it's too early to say whether Modi's actions reflect a spat between gangsters or a genuine exposé of corruption, I have my suspicions.

Your unsupported 'understanding' is hardly compelling.

No disrespect but I'm not your political researcher. The international press has been awash for months with reports of the revival of far-right politics in India, the latest news (yesterday, even) inc the likes of Arundhati Roy returning literary prizes in protest at government antics.

Nov 6, 2015 at 5:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterDaveB

It would not hurt the British Government to look at some of these so-called charities.

"Legal requirement: when campaigning, charity trustees must comply not only with charity law, but other civil and criminal laws that may apply. Where applicable they should also comply with the Code of the Advertising Standards Authority.
A charity can campaign using emotive or controversial material, where this is lawful and justifiable in the context of the campaign. Such material must be factually accurate and have a legitimate evidence base."

Nov 6, 2015 at 5:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterIvor Ward

A good starting point for charities would be that they should exist solely on charitable donations. You'd be amazed how many that rules out!

Nov 6, 2015 at 6:16 PM | Registered Commenterjamesp

jamesp +100

If they aren't surviving on money freely given, they're just extortionists and governments are thieves.

Nov 6, 2015 at 6:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

No need to ban them, just get Dave to stop giving them taxpayers money.

Nov 6, 2015 at 7:54 PM | Registered CommenterBreath of Fresh Air

Who cares a monkey's whether Greenpi$$ were on the fiddle?

The great news is that India has seen them for what they are- liars and destroyers of industry.

Nov 6, 2015 at 8:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Keiller

Greenpeace are terrorists.

Put your arguments up for support of ISIS in the same breath......

Nov 6, 2015 at 10:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterLord Beaverbrook

A company involved in criminal activity or encouraging criminal activity should be investigated and prosecuted.

There might be bit of variation to the above if it is an international organization with a branch in the country undertaking criminal activity or undermining the government. Then you might have a good case to simply close the branch. Why put up with an international company constantly breaching the trust of the state, it's simply a cost and burden to your own law enforcement to keep tabs on them (and deal with the criminal activity consequences too).

But jamesp has the best answer, charity organizations exist on charity funding only. No government funding (or possibly international support funding) no matter how much it boosts one's ego.

Nov 6, 2015 at 11:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterGreg Cavanagh

I don't like greenpeace. I don't like the Indian government.

To see them fighting like rats in a sack does not bother me at all.

Nov 6, 2015 at 11:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterEternalOptimist

I do not like banning organisations, but one must bear in mind that what Greenpeace (and their ilk) are advocating is something that will result in the premature and needless death of hundreds and thousands of Indians. These people have a right to cheap and affordable energy and a developed infrastructure that will advance health care and life expectancy, as well as greatly advancing the quality of life. Many Indian school children are unable to do homework at night because there simply is no reliable electric lighting in the dwelling. Why should they not have what the developed West takes for granted, and the only way to achieve that is to electrify the country on the back of coal powered generation..

I am afraid that whilst I consider organisations such as Greenpeace to be evil. There are many good environmental causes that should be taken up, but climate change and the deindustrialisation of the developed West and the non industrialisation of developing countries is not one such cause.

Nov 6, 2015 at 11:36 PM | Unregistered Commenterrichard verney

I don't think it should be about banning Greenpeace, but their Press Released stories of brave daring do, get rehashed by the BBC etc, portraying Greenpeace as the sweet innocent David taking on the brutal Goliath.

They must have sufficient funds to do a lot of whining as they wine and dine journalists, and it shows.

Greenpeace HQ must have loved the publicity from their Russian fiasco, but their band of loyal suckers don't seem to fancy Russian designed zero carbon heating systems, and have not gone back for more.

I am not upto speed with the current Indian corruption, but if they have taken inspiration from Russia, in dealing with unwelcome subversive foreigners, trying to destroy economic development, Greenpeace should not act surprised. Whether Greenpeace manage to survive on food and cash hand outs from the rural communities they are trying to save from electricity will be interesting.

Nov 7, 2015 at 12:04 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

richard verney, you make a fair point.
But if you really think that then banning is not enough.

If they are a danger to thousands of lives (which arguably they are) then they should be stopped.
Jail, at least.
A street fight at worst - people die in real fights.

But no-one thinks that stupid students in Save the Whales T-Shirts deserve the Death Penalty.

They should be allowed to speak, rebutted and defeated - in debate.
Let us believe in Liberty and Democracy even when we don't get the freedom of victory.

Nov 7, 2015 at 12:04 AM | Registered CommenterM Courtney


You're playing ping-pong, they're (progs) playing Russian roulette. Win or die is their cup of tea....

Nov 7, 2015 at 1:30 AM | Unregistered CommenterNica in Houston

I will support Grenpeace's claim they are all about free speech when they stop acting like pirates and vandals and agree to open discussions on environment, climate and energy, specifically agreeing that skeptics should have a place at the table.
Until then, eff 'em.

Nov 7, 2015 at 5:45 AM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

Even going back to my student days, I could recognize Greenpeace for what they were, hard left thugs posing as fluffy 'concerned' wildlife lovers, I am proud to say that, I have never given a penny to WWF, Greenpiss nor, the FiendsoE.

It cannot be gainsaid, that, if Greenpi8* had the authority, the power to issue an executive order and by tacitly threatening violence they could shut their critics up, Kumi Naidoo would have no hesitation in applying such a diktat.

I may well defend another's right to free speech in the UK, what other countries do, is up to them.

But know this, I shall shed no tears when Greenpi77 and all the others are buried deep in the cesspit, away forgotten by history and historians. Though do I indeed dread it, that day will shortly arrive, when the lights go off, the people, the UK electorate will start to focus their anger and ask the questions they should have been asking for the last 20 years. In that, "why the headlong plummet to green boondoggles" and then they'll peer and recognize Greenpi55 for the politicized charlatans and snake oil pedlars of mendacious green prescription and prescriptive anti democracy authoritarians - they have alus been.

Aye the day is coming and double whammy - as soon when the EU implodes - the likes of greenpi88 will sink into the merde whence they came.

Nov 7, 2015 at 6:18 AM | Unregistered CommenterAthelstan.

It was not a sudden court order but rather the end of a Registrar of Societies own procedure as it upheld that rules were broken.
India media carry a lot of evidence that AP didn't report

\\The Tamil Nadu Registrar of Societies has “summarily” cancelled the registration of Greenpeace India Society.

The cancellation order from the District Registrar Chennai, dated November 4 and received by the organisation on November 6, cites several reasons for the cancellation. Firstly, the order says that Greenpeace India had filed its returns late for the years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2009-10. It also states as an irregularity that Greenpeace India does not function independantly but under the control of STICHTING Green Peace Council at Netherlands.

But more seriously, the order states that the documents on the organisation's accounts acquired during an inspection carried out by the Sub-Registrar (Chit & Society) on June 3, does not correspond to the figures submitted by the NGO to the Registrar. by Greenpeace
But more seriously, the order states that the documents on the organisation's accounts acquired during an inspection carried out by the Sub-Registrar (Chit & Society) on June 3, does not correspond to the figures submitted by the NGO to the Registrar.

According to the RoS, the statements filed by the organisation to the FCRA and to the Registrar of Societies differ significantly for the years from 2005-06 to 2011-12. "It is seen from here that different amounts were shown in the report for the years 2005-06 to 2011-12. This is seen as fraudulent activities of the society," says the order.

Moreover, it also states that the response of Greenpeace to the show cause notice following the inspection mentions "irrelevant matters" and was "off the mark". Greenpeace
(the report then gives some GP rebuttals)

Another article carries more detail and ends in a useful timeline list

My opinion is Yep close NGOs is they break the law, and due process is followed.
Earlier this year the news was - "In April, Greenpeace India's foreign-funding license was suspended for six months as officials accused the NGO of underreporting foreign contributions and using them without government approval." ..that judgement was dismissed, then re-upheld on appeal..So it could be that now 6 months later GP were getting ready to operate again with heavy foreign funds and this court order is some lazy stop gap.

Nov 7, 2015 at 10:01 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

oops... "close NGO's if they break the law" ..if not is

Is using the registrar of Societies to ban GP a political trick ?

Well Indian govs have tried to some ban political parties before in that way.
..but if you google you find that RoS have banned societies previously for not paying tax etc.
And that the next procedure is that the appellants go to court to say RoS has not followed correct procedure.
Mostly then they lost, but sometimes they won.

Nov 7, 2015 at 11:13 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen
Nov 7, 2015 at 11:44 AM | Unregistered Commenterstewgreen2

Greenpeace website has a pdf copy of the full order

Nov 7, 2015 at 11:50 AM | Unregistered Commenterstewgreen2

stewgreen, thank you for that link to Delingpole.

Greenpeace and co have exploited ruthlessly the "civilised" culture of western developed nations, and overplayed the fluffy bunny trump card.

Struggling rural economies know that fluffy bunnies will out compete them for food, and treat them as killer rabbits requiring strict control.

Fluffy bunnies with their breeding fertility, lecture everyone else on Malthusian dire warnings on overpopulation, without realising that they represent the most compelling argument for specific population control.

Other nations will look to Russia and India for inspiration, in the back room brawls in Paris. China will regard this episode as proof of the worst excesses of a liberal society.

Being Green has not provided the cavalcades of European limousines, so craved by leaders in developing countries, let alone infrastructure for Economic Development. Short term financial and political gains are not on offer in Paris in open conference. Greed by Greens is proving to be their own undoing. Poetic justice in action.

Nov 7, 2015 at 12:42 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

"Greenpeace denied any wrongdoing and said the closure was a clumsy tactic to silence dissent".

Greenpeace demonstrate their expertise in hypocrisy, and 40 years of devious tactics to silence debate. No one is allowed to deviate from Greenpeace diktats, and Greenpeace believe that Laws are there to be ignored and broken, when they decide it is ok, and suits their purpose.

Nov 7, 2015 at 1:48 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Greenpeace are not a charity. They are a political organisation who abuse the laws relating to charities and their funding.

They routinely display contempt for national laws across the globe, often committing criminal acts in order to prevent corporations and individuals going about their legitimate everyday business.

They wish for western nations to impoverish themselves, and for Indians to remain impoverished. They even wish for trees to have less carbon dioxide for growth. As an organisation, they are stupid and they are ignorant and they are unpleasant . They deserve nothing less than contempt.

Nov 7, 2015 at 7:46 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

About time. These nongovernmental entities or NGOs like Greenpeace, WWF nd others of their ilk are acting like governments and interfering in the internal affairs of sovereign states. The Chileans had plans for hydro-power in Patagonia which called for long transmission lines. It did not suit the WWF and they started their own fifth column in Chile to stop the project. What the sovereign nation of Chile does is none of these illegitimate entities' business. There are enough international trouble makers like ISIS who should be stopped but all these guys want to do is fight a non-existent global warming by blocking legitimate projects like hydropower in Chile..

Nov 9, 2015 at 12:06 AM | Unregistered CommenterArno Arrak

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>