Monday, April 20, 2009

Indian MPs want Greenpeace to be Banned in the Country



A Foreign Organization by name Greenpeace in association with several local Organizationsare carrying out a campaign to stop the construction of the port for flimsy reasons. The port constructionwas initiated only after due environment clearance and national environment Appellate Authority has also upheld this clearance in 2004. The Dhamra Port is constructed at a site which is far away from Turtle Nesting and Breeding Zone located at Gahrimatha. A strong action should be initiated by the Ministry against this Organization who are acting against the development od the State of Orissa and Country say MPs.

41 comments:

  1. Society's double behavioral standard for women and for men is, in fact, a more effective deterrent than economic discrimination because it is more insidious, less tangible. Economic disadvantages involve ascertainable amounts, but the very nature of societal value judgments makes them harder to define, their effects harder to relate,GREENPEACE which has head office in bangalore does not make any comments are protests when there is felling of trees in bangalore,because no body is paying them to protest,but at the same time there is dhamraport coming in orissa they are making all out effort in saving the turtles even though they know that the port is coming 25 kms away from the breeding place and it is no way going to affect the breeding, and also greenpeace does not take any money from the corporates but they take the money from the foundation run by the corporates,no doubt that 40 members of parliament wanted green peace to be banned,people of double standard never experience happiness all there falsified effort will go the drains

    ReplyDelete
  2. Till date agriculture is the main occupation of orissa's cittizens and hence, Orissa state's economy was also dependent on agriculture. But, the production of food grains has considerably fluctuated over the years due to natural calamities. Now, the growth and production of the Food and other agricultural products have come down affecting economy of Orissa State. In such a state, TATA has come forward to help, develop and build a New orissa state, which promises many jobs and livelihood to the local citizens also helps to build orissa a strong economic state. I stronglt support Dhamra port construction.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Green peace after protesting against TATA as enemies of Olive Ridley Turtles for last few years, it is ridiculous to know that they are still protesting in the name after turtles after turtles recently arrived for nesting in Orissa. It's a shame on Greenpeace for misusing the cause and trying to stop TATA from building the port. It is Greenpeace who are real enemies of India, staying inside India trying to stop the development, Infrastructure and Economical growth of Orissa State and the country. Greenpeace should be banned from India.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Green peace after protesting against TATA as enemies of Olive Ridley Turtles for last few years, it is ridiculous to know that they are still protesting in the name after turtles after turtles recently arrived for nesting in Orissa. It's a shame on Greenpeace for misusing the cause and trying to stop TATA from building the port. It is Greenpeace who are real enemies of India, staying inside India trying to stop the development, Infrastructure and Economical growth of Orissa State and the country. Greenpeace should be banned from India.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Orissa has a rich land but, many people from orissa after their schooling migrate to different states of the country hunting for jobs. The reason, to earn daily daily bread, support their families back in orissa and the unemployment in Orissa state. The two key reasons for the state’s poverty is due to repeated natural calamities and lacking of high quality infrastructure and improper utilization of its vast mineral resources. Now, TATA has come forward to give a new look to Orissa state by providing jobs, infrastructure and help growth of of Orissa state economy. It's a great job indeed. I whole heartedly support the port construction.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The stories of Olive Ridley Turtles and Dhamra Port project in Orissa have been much spoken topics in Orissa and other major cities of India. This could be due to the considerable attention given to endangered species of Olive Ridley turtles and their nesting grounds in Orissa. But, why don’t NGOs like Greenpeace also think about the humans living in Orissa? Indeed, saving turtles from dying is a heroic act but, stopping the development, Infrastructure and economy growth of Orissa on which thousands of Orissa locals would make their living in future, well what do you call this act as? Can we call it as human sacrifice to save turtles? This is ridiculous; Greenpeace should also give the equal importance to the human feelings and developments. TATA is doing a great job, I support the Dhamra port construction.

    ReplyDelete
  7. People are bound to fall to emotional subjects and some NGOs are well known to trap people using this as a weak point. Most of those people wont have any thorough knowledge about the subject. NGOs misusing this to make money or fame or just to create a hype by mis-guiding people, this is something really important one has to think about. I support the TATA Dhamra port construction.

    ReplyDelete
  8. If an NGO is talking about the ridley turtles, generally all animal lovers would come forward to help, but,before that person could gain some knowledge about turtles and the facts, he would have been attended/approached by various means,in the name of education or saving animals and would have been brain washed to an extent that he would stop thinking about knowing things on his own and would blindly accept what is said to him as real facts. Greenpeace should stop playing such tricks and help support build a strong nation.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I am an environmentalist and I also know the fact about this campaign is that, the port in question is 25 kilometers or more than away from the nesting place of ridley olives, but, Greenpeace and their campaigners do not mention that and other fact is, thousands of turtles have come and gone in the last couple of years, even after the construction started, but, Greenpeace also doesn't mention this nor ready to
    agree on this. Here the question is why? let facts be facts why does Greenpeace wants to hide these facts and divert and make a big issue on what is actually not required?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I love turtles. I am also well aware that TATA constructing a port would help the poor and would also raise a little status of the Orissa locals. I support Dhamra port construction.

    ReplyDelete
  11. When a question comes about the Choosing turtles and Port construction, I would choose both. In recent times, it is learnt that Turtles had come for nesting even when Port was under construction, then there is no question about the fact that the port is constructed at a far away place which is actually not disturbing the the turtles and due to this reason they have come. So, now it is for us to decide whether we can support TATA to build a port which would provide jobs, business, infrastructure and helps locals and orissa state government to improve their economic status... I strongly support the TATA for Port construction.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Olive Ridley turtles are coming every year to Gahirmatha Marine Sanctuary for nesting in the warm eastern sand. In the same way they came this year and nested between March 21st to March 24th. Already this year’s nesting has been completed . Even now why this Greenpeace is dragging this issue with the same reason of turtles

    ReplyDelete
  13. However TATA has made an effort to solve this issue amicably and called Greenpeace for the conversation. But it seems Greenpeace is not ready to unravel this issue. They are heaving the issue for no reasons.
    Tata should now carry on with its project of construction.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Its high time now, Tata should not wait because of Green peace.
    If Tata group is confident in its path, it should just go on with its construction work.
    I shore up for Tata and Dhamra port construction.

    ReplyDelete
  15. After knowing all the facts & figures of this issue, I am seriously worried about our Nation. Foreign Organizations like Green peace are planning to suppress the development of our country. Our people should understand this and should support to improve our country.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Even now people support NGO’s believing that they work for some genuine reasons or to protect our planet. But NGO’s like Greenpeace are making a fuss of standards of these NGO’s. I really feel sad for that. Any how it should not be successful in the issue of Dharma port construction

    ReplyDelete
  17. It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes short again and again, who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause, who at best knows achievement and who at the worst if he fails at least fails while daring greatly so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.TATA should go with the construction of dhamra port,since it is the infrastructure project critical for the development of orissa ,and since so many people are involved to safeguard the marine lifes and breeding of theturtles ,GREENPEACE should also work with government and the tatas to develop the port,human lives is as important as the life of turtles.i support the dhamra port.

    ReplyDelete
  18. By constructing the Dhamra port, lot many Fishermen will dig up with the employment for their life which helps to save the fishes and also turtles, otherwise the fishing trawlers continue to sail even, during the time of nesting
    So the best way to save these creatures is supporting the construction of port

    ReplyDelete
  19. Greenpeace is not having any intensions to save the turtles, it is just pretending in front of public to save turtles, or else it would not have stopped the development of orissa by the name of Turtles which are not at all harmed by the port construction

    ReplyDelete
  20. NGO’s are the organizations which have to struggle for the sake of saving the planet. But how can they forget their main aim or motto and involve in some industrial issues which is nowhere related to their complaints

    ReplyDelete
  21. Tata is actually trying to solve the employment problem of orissa in a legal way, by giving the employment for the fishermen who make their earnings through illegal fishing. If Tata stops the port construction, the illegal activities will be more and the threats for Turtles will be even more

    ReplyDelete
  22. The only way to save our country from these kinds of NGO’s is to make the public to understand about the selfish intension behind the comments of these NGO’s and public should judge them stop supporting them.,

    ReplyDelete
  23. The conception of worth, that each person is an end per se, is not a mere abstraction. Our interest in it is not merely academic. Every outcry against the oppression of some people by other people, or against what is morally hideous is the affirmation of the principle that a human being as such is not to be violated. A human being is not to be handled as a tool but is to be respected and revered.In the same way we should respect the TATA for undertaking the prestigious dhamra port ,its not only going to improve the infrastructure of orissa its also going to help the people of poverty stricken orissa.Greenpeace should suppport this dhamraport for the people of orissa,since the dpcl has taken necessary steps to safeguard the marine life,and even the government is going to take over the port after its completion.green peace should settle the matter in the intrest of the people o f orissa.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.this enables the people to move with the times as per as the requirement of the people.TATA has coming out with the prestigious dhamraport in orissa in view of the adverse affect of the people of orissa for the changing times.greenpeace should support this project instead of making so much hue and cry.since after completion of the project government of orissa is taking over the port.it will definitely safeguard the safety of the marine life.so i concur and fully support the dhamra port.

    ReplyDelete
  25. It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes short again and again, who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause, who at best knows achievement and who at the worst if he fails at least fails while daring greatly so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.TATA has a vision to built the dhamra port,for the people of orissa,greenpeace who is objecting to the port that they should balance between enviorment and development since the port is going to be handed over to the government once when it is completed,green peace should work with the government of orissa and solve the problem with proper negotations,instead of making so much fuss.we fully support the dhamra port

    ReplyDelete
  26. The essence of democracy is its assurance that every human being should so respect himself and should be so respected in his own personality that he should have opportunity equal to that of every other human being to show what he was meant to become.Can anything be sadder than work left unfinished? Yes; work never begun.There is no security on this earth. Only opportunity.TATA is using this opportunity to built the dhamra port in orissa,Green peace after protesting against TATA as enemies of Olive Ridley Turtles,they are trying to get the political mileage for their vested intrest,tata should unduly worry about the greenpeace it should construct the dhamraport for the people of orissa under the proper guidelines from the government.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Everyone has a right to peaceful coexistence, the basic personal freedoms, the alleviation of suffering, and the opportunity to lead a productive life.TATA is doing a wonderful job by constructing the dhamraport for the people of orissa,it will definitely improve the infrastructure and naturally there will be a growth in the economy for the people of orissa .green peace is taking a unjust stand by opposing the project,green peace should understand that the people of orissa specially living the coastal areas live well below the poverty line this dhamra port is a boon to them,since the TATA is taking necessary guidelines to safeguard the marine life and the breeding of the turtles.and also the dhamraport is coming 25kms away from the breeding place.it is no way going to affect the breeding od the turtles .so we all should support the dhamra port.

    ReplyDelete
  28. State of affairs will be affecting the goals and bring a pause in the achievements, but this cannot stop the progress of the country. Any times this happens in the journey of success, but ultimate joy is in getting triumph over these obstacles. So, TATA, never lose sight of your goal.

    ReplyDelete
  29. The strike, the boycott, the refusal to serve, the ability to paralyze the functioning of a complex social structure-these remain potent weapons against the most fearsome state or corporate power.TATA is coming up with the prestigious dhamra port,GREENPEACE which is globally recognised NGO is trying to hamper the development. Dhamra port construction will not harm Gahirmatha turtle breeding which is nearly 25 to 30 kilometers far-off from the place of port construction. So, it is an imprudent thing being done by Greenpeace .TATA should not stop the construction of dhamra port

    ReplyDelete
  30. Criticism of Greenpeace
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Jump to: navigation, search
    This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. (July 2008)
    This article contains weasel words, vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed. (March 2009)

    During its history, Greenpeace has been criticized by a number of groups. These include governments such as Germany, industries such as BP and political groups such as the US republican party . The organization's use of non-violent direct action has also caused controversy.

    Contents [hide]
    1 Criticisms
    1.1 Anti-DDT Campaign and Resurgence of Malaria
    1.2 Anti-GMO campaigns
    1.3 Nuclear power
    1.4 Greener Electronics campaign
    2 Blunders
    2.1 Coral destruction
    2.2 Removal of ancient tree
    2.3 Mistaken deforestation
    2.4 Press release blunder
    3 References



    [edit] Criticisms
    Some critics have said the organisation is too mainstream. Paul Watson, who was pushed out of Greenpeace in the 1970s and later founded Sea Shepherd, once called Greenpeace "the Avon ladies of the environmental movement," because of their door-to-door fund-raising that relies on the media exposure of deliberately orchestrated and highly publicized actions to keep the name of Greenpeace on the front pages. Bradley Angel, who organized communities in California and Arizona for Greenpeace, split to found Greenaction in 1997. Greenpeace had summarily shut down its community-building operations, terminating more than 300 employees in the US alone, in what Mr Angel called "a betrayal".[1]

    A prominent critic of Greenpeace is Icelandic filmmaker Magnus Gudmundsson, director of a documentary Survival in the High North. Gudmundsson's criticisms have focused largely on the social impacts of anti-whaling and anti-sealing campaigns which have had disastrous affects on the native people of Iceland, Greenland and Canada who depend on these activities to make a living. Due to extensive efforts on the part of Greenpeace[clarification needed], Gudmundsson's documentary was judged libellous by a Norwegian court in 1992 and he was ordered to pay damages to Greenpeace. Similarly, a Danish tribunal held that the allegations against Greenpeace about faking video materials were unfounded. Many media that published Gudmundsson's allegations have subsequently retracted and apologized (e.g. the Irish Sunday Business Post and TVNZ).
    visit https:www.blogger.com/comment.do
    please post your opinion after going through the link

    ReplyDelete
  31. janetmisoram said...
    By PATRICK MOORE
    In 1971 an environmental and antiwar ethic was taking root in Canada, and I chose to participate. As I completed a Ph.D. in ecology, I combined my science background with the strong media skills of my colleagues. In keeping with our pacifist views, we started Greenpeace.

    But I later learned that the environmental movement is not always guided by science. As we celebrate Earth Day today, this is a good lesson to keep in mind.

    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. Its antichlorination campaign failed, only to be followed by a campaign against polyvinyl chloride.

    Greenpeace now has a new target called phthalates (pronounced thal-ates). These are chemical compounds that make plastics flexible. They are found in everything from hospital equipment such as IV bags and tubes, to children's toys and shower curtains. They are among the most practical chemical compounds in existence.The European Union banned the use of phthalates in toys prior to completion of a comprehensive risk assessment on DINP. That assessment ultimately concluded that the use of DINP in infant toys poses no measurable risk.

    The antiphthalate activists are running a campaign of fear to implement their political agenda. They have seen success in California, with a state ban on the use of phthalates in infant products, and are pushing for a national ban. This fear campaign merely distracts the public from real environmental threats.

    We all have a responsibility to be environmental stewards. But that stewardship requires that science, not political agendas, drive our public policy.

    Mr. Moore, co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace, is chairman and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies.
    visit http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120882720657033391.html
    pls post your opinion after going to the web link.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Criticism of Greenpeace.
    ----------------------------------
    Does anyone know if this report is accurate ?
    Rick

    "Activists Attack Greenpeace over Anti-GM Tactics," Reuters (news
    service), July 31, 1999, by Simon Gardner
    ======================================================================
    =====

    Greenpeace came under fire from fellow environmental groups on July
    29, accused of damaging the credibility of anti-GM campaigns by
    destroying a genetically modified crop earlier in the week.

    Both Friends of the Earth and organic farming group the Soil
    Association were cited as condemning Greenpeace's attitude towards GM
    crops, saying the group was not giving science a chance.

    Greenpeace protesters wrecked half a test crop of genetically modified
    maize in Norfolk on July 26 by flattening the crop with a tractor.

    Helen Browning, chairman of the Soil Association, was quoted as
    telling the British Broadcasting Corporation [BBC] current affairs
    program Newsnight that, "You cannot go around trashing crops and
    breaking the law. We can protest in other ways. Being destructive is
    only going to turn the farming community in on itself."

    A Friends of the Earth spokesman was quoted as saying, "What
    Greenpeace has done here is wrong. The principal reason for
    supporting or opposing the use of GM crops must be scientific. The
    price that we will pay for not allowing proper science to underpin the
    decision making process is a very high one indeed. I don't believe
    Greenpeace has taken into account the loss of credibility [to] the
    environment movement as a whole."
    visit and post after viewing the web link.
    http://sweetness-light.com/archive/a-founder-explains-why-he-left-greenpeace

    ReplyDelete
  33. U.S. takes hard line on Greenpeace
    Bush critics say use of obscure law smacks of retribution
    ----------------------------------
    msnbc.com
    Nov. 14, 2003 - When Greenpeace activists illegally scrambled aboard the cargo ship APL Jade, it was the start of a pretty typical day. Convinced the ship was hauling contraband mahogany from Brazil, the environmentalists aimed to draw attention to it by unfurling a banner with this message: “President Bush, Stop Illegal Logging.” Their arrests by the Coast Guard were also part of a day’s work. But the later use of an obscure 19th century law to charge the entire organization with criminal conspiracy has Greenpeace defenders claiming that they are the target of U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft’s attempts to stifle political criticism of the government.

    The Greenpeace demonstration off the coast of Florida on April 12, 2002, was one of a series of similar “direct actions” taken by the international organization near ports around the world as it attempted to draw attention to the mahogany shipment, which violated a Brazilian moratorium on mahogany lumbering in the Amazon, and violated the international treaty controlling trade in endangered species, CITES.

    It was standard practice for the international organization, which for more than three decades has used this in-your-face method to fight for causes it deems just. It is a method of civil disobedience that has been used by activists on both ends of the political spectrum, from civil rights campaigners to anti-abortion groups. In Florida, as in the mahogany protests elsewhere, a handful of individuals were charged with minor crimes and released shortly thereafter.
    Greenpeace, say the case is of “profound importance” because it “imperils the core values of the Constitution.”

    ‘For 200 years, the United States government has refrained from prosecuting advocacy groups whose members occasionally engage in peaceful civil disobedience to convey a constitutionally protected message.’


    — AMICUS BRIEF

    “For two hundred years, the United States government has refrained from prosecuting advocacy groups whose members occasionally engage in peaceful civil disobedience to convey a constitutionally protected message,” they wrote in their brief. “The prosecution of Greenpeace indicates a sea change in that policy.”

    Greenpeace, which has led an aggressive pro-environmental campaign since its founding in 1971, has been at odds with the Bush administration since its earliest days in office, decrying the president’s position on the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, staging protests against the National Missile Defense Initiative and the opening of roads on national forest land. Just a few months after Bush took office, Greenpeace activists climbed a water tower near his ranch in Crawford, Texas, and unfurled a banner that read: “Bush the Toxic Texan, Don’t Mess with the Earth.” They were arrested after a two-hour stand-off during which they refused to climb down, ignoring demands by the mayor, the county sheriff and the Secret Service.

    “We have been critics across the board,” says John Passacantando, executive director of Greenpeace.

    He says the organization has never before been challenged at this level in the United States, and characterizes it as the way the Justice Department operates under Ashcroft.

    “The parallel I see is with the McCarthy era — the overreach by the government to stifle its critics,” he says. “It is a fight we are willing to take on ... a fight for our right to dissent peacefully in this country in areas we think society is wrong.”

    Greenpeace will seek additional discovery to lay out what went into the decision to charge Greenpeace, says legal counsel Tom Wetterer. “We have found no previous examples of where the government has charged an organization for a political protest,” he says.

    “The prosecution, if indeed it is selective, amounts to nothing more than an act of intimidation by the government, apparently directed at silencing political speech,” says the ACLU/PAWF brief

    ReplyDelete
  34. Greenpeace recently released their "Guide to Greener Electronics," rating fourteen consumer electronics vendors. Following in the same tradition as the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, Greenpeace issued a press release that specifically called attention to Apple and assigned the company a failing grade. Do the claims have any merit?
    The Claims
    Unlike the SVTC’s Toxic Trash Attack on Apple, Greenpeace focused less on where e-waste might be ending up, and drew more attention to the toxic chemicals used in manufacturing, since these would tend to make any recycling efforts more dangerous. The report explained:

    The ranking is important because the amounts of toxic e-waste is [sic] growing everyday and it often ends up dumped in the developing world. Reducing the toxic chemicals in products reduces pollution from old products and makes recycling safer, easier and cheaper.

    The stated goal of the report was to encourage manufacturers to:

    1) clean up their products by eliminating hazardous substances; and 2) takeback and recycle their products responsibly once they become obsolete.

    Greenpeace ranked Nokia and Dell near the top, but essentially gave failing grades across the industry, ranking Lenovo last, and Apple in eleventh place out of the fourteen brands. The report singled out Apple for its low rank, saying:

    It is disappointing to see Apple ranking so low in the overall guide. They are meant to be world leaders in design and marketing, they should also be world leaders in environmental innovation.
    Reality Check
    While the Greenpeace report attempted to rank vendors based upon useful and practical criteria, the actual scorecard and the methods used to collect information for their report were sloppy and incompetent. This should come as no surprise to anyone aware of Greenpeace activities.

    Greenpeace has worked to create awareness of important environmental issues since the 1970's, but their methods, accuracy, and effectiveness have ranged from controversial to comical to scandalous.

    Greenpeace activism is based upon the simplification of complex political issues into epic battles between good and evil. Rather than devoting a lot of resources into educating the public, Greenpeace, like most political activist groups, tries to create sensationalist drama to grab attention and put simplistic issues in the headlines.

    This is pretty commonplace in politics; however, Greenpeace has an established history of playing fast and loose with facts in order to intensify their stories, and in some cases their pursuits' careless disregard for the truth has caused more damage than the evil they attempted to target.

    This happened quite literally last fall, when Greenpeace divers aboard the Rainbow Warrior II entered the Tubbataha Reef Marine Park, off the coast of the Philippines, in order to assess the effect of global warming.

    While discovering that the protected coral reef appeared to be healthy, Greenpeace managed to run their ship into the reef, damaging over a thousand square feet (100 sq m) of the protected coral.

    More famously, in 1995, after Shell oil obtained UK permits to sink their Brent Spar oil platform in the North Sea, Greenpeace activists boarded the platform and demanded Shell move the ocean platform to shore for dismantling, rather than dispose of it into deep ocean waters.



    visit the below site and post u r comment http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/29C5599A-FCD8-4E30-9AD5-5497999ABA1B.html

    ReplyDelete
  35. Hon. William M. Thomas

    Committee on Ways and Means
    U.S. House of Representatives
    1102 Longworth House Office Building
    Washington, D.C. 20515

    Dear Chairman Thomas:

    On behalf of the Center for Individual Freedom, I write to ask that the Committee on Ways and Means investigate and hold hearings on abuses of tax-exempt status by non-profit organizations in general, and violations committed by the group Greenpeace in particular.

    While tax violations by for-profit corporations have for some time captured legislative, regulatory, media, and public attention, similar violations by non-profits have gone largely unnoticed. Because of the magnitude of the budgets involved — and the magnitude of the corresponding impact on taxpayers — it would be prudent to bring this issue to the forefront.

    To explain how non-profits routinely circumvent federal tax laws, Public Interest Watch, a non-profit watchdog, recently issued a report on the financial practices of Greenpeace. The report documents how during a three-year period Greenpeace Fund, Inc., diverted over $24 million in tax-deductible contributions to related entities for use in non-qualifying programs. In doing so, Greenpeace Fund, Inc., violated both the letter and the spirit of the law under which it was chartered, IRC Section 501(c)(3), cheating taxpayers in the process.

    What makes the practice illegal is the way in which Greenpeace collects money required by law to be applied toward "educational" programs, and then shifts that money for use by groups that instead conduct "advocacy" and "direct action" programs. These other groups, known as 501(c)(4) organizations, are allowed to conduct such activities, but not using tax-deductible funds.

    Public Interest Watch explains that during the period examined, Greenpeace Fund, Inc., illegally made contributions to 501(c)(4) organizations as follows:

    $3.8 million to Greenpeace, Inc., in 1998;

    $4 million to Greenpeace International and other affiliates in 1998;

    $4.25 million to Greenpeace, Inc., in 1999;

    $3.8 million to Greenpeace International and other affiliates in 1999;

    $4.5 million to Greenpeace, Inc., in 2000;

    $3.7 million to Greenpeace International in 2000; and

    $0.8 million to Greenpeace affiliates in foreign countries in 2000.

    Examples of "advocacy" and "direct action" activities conducted by Greenpeace, Inc., and Greenpeace International that do not qualify under 501(c)(3) include:

    Campaigning against genetically-modified crops;

    Blockading a naval base in protest of the war in Iraq;

    Boarding an oil tanker for a "banner hang";

    Breaking into the central control building of a nuclear power station; and

    Padlocking the gates of a government research facility.

    In light of the scandals perpetrated in the corporate world, it follows that those with the authority should work to eliminate similar misdeeds in the non-profit world. If specific actions are not taken against specific violations, then those non-profit corporations that strive to operate within the letter and spirit of the law which governs our status are put at a deficit. We therefore urge the Committee on Ways and Means to hold hearings on the matter and take appropriate action to bring Greenpeace into compliance with the law.

    We thank you for your consideration.

    Sincerely,

    Jeffrey Mazzella

    Executive Director



    cc: Speaker Dennis Hastert
    cc: Majority Leader Tom DeLay
    visithttp://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/investigate_greenpeace.htm
    and post u r comment

    ReplyDelete
  36. green peace are the bunch of liars view the youtube and know more about the clandestine activities of green peace
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYoa1wKFmW4

    ReplyDelete
  37. Greenpeace fined for reef damage

    Greenpeace divers were inspecting Tubbataha's reefs for damage
    Environmental group Greenpeace has been fined almost $7,000 (£4,000) for damaging a coral reef at a World Heritage site in the Philippines.
    Their flagship Rainbow Warrior II ran aground at Tubbataha Reef Marine Park, in the Sulu Sea, 650km (400 miles) south-east of Manila.

    Park officials said almost 100 sq m (1,076 sq ft) of reef had been damaged.

    Greenpeace agreed to pay the fine, but blamed the accident on outdated maps provided by the Philippines government.

    "The chart indicated we were a mile and a half" from the coral reef when the ship ran aground, regional Greenpeace official Red Constantino told AFP news agency.

    "This accident could have been avoided if the chart was accurate," he said, adding, however, that Greenpeace felt "responsible" for the damage.

    'Immediate action'

    The accident happened while the Rainbow Warrior was on a four-month tour of the Asia-Pacific region to promote environmentally-friendly energy sources.

    Greenpeace divers were at the Tubbataha park, off the coast of Palawan island, to inspect the effect of global warming on the coral reef.


    The Rainbow Warrior escaped serious damage
    Mr Constantino said the reef appeared to be healthy, with no evidence of bleaching which is believed to be caused by warmer sea temperatures.

    The Rainbow Warrior II escaped serious damage and was towed into deeper water by its own rubber boats.

    Tubbataha park manager, Angelique Songco, praised the work Greenpeace was doing to protect the environment.

    "We also appreciate the immediate action they took to get the full assessment of the damage," she said.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Are we against Greenpeace?
    Until a few years ago, we were admirers of Greenpeace, until we discovered that even if their targets are legitimated, in all cases they use lies, halftruths and exaggerations to reach their target. And in the case of chlorine and PVC, even the target is wrong.
    By saying that Greenpeace uses lies, we are in good company: Paul Crutzen, recent Nobel Prize winner for his work on the ozone layer, has cancelled his membership of Greenpeace:
    "They have cheated the case and I am angry about that, because that will come to our account. They use bad data, as well as for the Brent Spar as for the French nuclear tests. I am against nuclear tests, but one should use scientifical sound arguments... ...No, Greenpeace has harmed the environmental case."

    The actions of environmental groups, including Greenpeace, of which many Chlorophiles are (in the case of Greenpeace: were) members, were necessary in the past to awake the managements of factories and the government, that pollution was going too far. But nowadays, most factories are polluting much less than traffic or agricultural or domestic activities.

    Some environmental groups, like Bellona in the Nordic countries, have done actions at PVC-factories, but they didn't ask for the closing down, they worked out how to reduce the pollution to acceptable low amounts. This was followed by investments at the factories and now PVC is an accepted product for them. This is not the case for Greenpeace, they are against PVC, only because it contains chlorine, even if they lose a lot of credibility for themselves and, even worse, for the environmental ideas in general.
    We think that environmental groups are still necessary to be a watchdog for factories and government to keep them aware of the consequences of what they are doing. But that must be groups that use sound science and valuable arguments, not this Greenpeace.
    VISIT THIS BELOW LINK TO KNOW MORE ABOUT IT.
    http://www.ping.be/~ping5859/en/en_gp_cl2.html

    ReplyDelete
  39. Exposure Of The Greenpeace Lies About GM Foods
    Letters To The Editor
    The Courier-Mail, 16th February,2005
    Ed Newbigin, School of Botany, University of Melbourne, Victoria.
    Greenpeace's Jeremy Tager (Letters, Feb 15) refers to the myths of the genetic engineering industry, but then produces his own myth by saying that animals that eat GE [Genetically Engineered] food "frequently show serious effects". Wrong. Numerous studies attest to the fact that animals that eat GE food as part of a normal diet do as well as animals that eat conventional food. Greenpeace does the community a great disservice by spreading such myths.

    Tony Coulepis, executive director, AusBiotech, Richmond, Victoria
    Greenpeace will lose any claim to represent consumers if it continues to misinform them. GM [Genetically Modified] crops and foods, derived from biotechnology, are the most rigorously tested foods in history. Any GM crop on the market, and many have been available for 10 years, has been shown by independent government regulators to be safe for animals and humans alike

    ReplyDelete
  40. Greenpeace Reacts to Ecoterrorism
    ----------------------------------
    Ecoterrorism is an outrage to groups like Greenpeace, who promote environmentally healthy practices without the arson.

    Greenpeace USA does not endorse the Earth Liberation Front. National director John Passacantando says they oppose violence in any form whether it's directed towards people or property.

    Passacantando doesn't think the public or government will lump Greenpeace with other more radical groups. He says they've never had that happen, but they're very careful to make sure people know the difference. He says they're very public in stating they oppose all forms of violence whether it's foreign wars by the US government or destruction of property by people with agendas here in the US.

    Could the people of Greenpeace reach out to ELF and act as a sort of mentorship for peace? Passacantando says there's no occasion for reaching out and he wouldn't even know who to contact.

    Passacantando believes educating people about the environment is the best tool of persuasion. He says the greats have taught us that love is the force more powerful, so burning down someone's house for any reason is not going to advance anyone's cause.
    visit the site below to know more about it.
    http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=11&sid=33056

    ReplyDelete
  41. Terrorism in the Name of the Earth
    Flush out eco-terrorism money
    -----------------------------------
    .

    On Sept. 22, the charitable oversight group Public Interest Watch filed a complaint with the IRS charging Greenpeace with making such illegal transfers. In a report entitled "Green-Peace, Dirty Money: Tax Violations in the World of Non-Profits," Public Interest Watch found that Greenpeace Fund, a 501(c)(3) transferred more than $10 million in exempt funds to nonexempt Greenpeace organizations such as Greenpeace, Inc. , between 1998 and 2000. Greenpeace, Inc., and other nonexempt Greenpeace entities benefiting from these transfers have committed numerous acts of eco-terrorism. They have blockaded a U.S. naval base, broken into the central control building of a nuclear power station in England, overrun the Exxon-Mobil corporate headquarters in Texas, and rammed a ship into the French sailboat competing in the 2003 America's Cup,

    permanently damaging the vessel.

    In April 2002, Greenpeace activists forcibly boarded a cargo ship in Florida carrying Brazilian wood. In connection with this incident, federal prosecutors indicted Greenpeace in July for violating an 1872 law prohibiting the unauthorized boarding of "any vessel about to arrive at the place of her destination." (The trial is scheduled for December).

    Greenpeace isn't alone in funneling tax-exempt dollars into eco-terrorism efforts. According to the Center for Consumer Freedom, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has donated at least $70,000 from its tax-exempt coffers to the ALF. Assistant U.S. Attorney Timothy Verhey, who prosecuted the 1992 ALF firebombing of a Michigan State University laboratory, has noted the challenge of prosecuting eco-terrorists because of "a lack of witnesses and the group's 'cell' structure that lacks centralized leadership or a membership roster."

    The difficulty in nabbing individual eco-terrorists is precisely why it is critically important that the IRS do its part to immobilize eco-terrorism groups by investigating the illegal use of tax-exempt funds to bankroll their crimes. Eco-terrorism is a scourge on society and a sordid stain on the wholesome causes of nonviolent environmentalists. Let's put the peace back into Greenpeace and protect the environment through vigilance, not vigilantism.
    visit this below site for further details.
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/10/19/EDGM82CQO01.DTL

    ReplyDelete