from the Financial Times
Activists' hands tied for 7 years
by Jonathan Birchall in New York
Published: October 24 2004 22:04 | Last updated: October 24 2004 22:04
Some of the protesters wore tiger suits; others wore brightly coloured
T-shirts under business suits. They entered the front lobby or climbed
on the roof of ExxonMobil's headquarters in Irving, Texas. The protest,
involving more than 30 members of Greenpeace, the environmental
activist group, was aimed at the world's largest oil company and its
policies on global warming.
Now, almost 18 months later, Greenpeace has signed a court agreement
that will prevent its supporters from staging any similar protests
against ExxonMobil, not only in Texas but anywhere in the US, for seven
years.
The agreement is believed to be the first of its kind involving a US
company and a protest group. While it stems from a bitter and
long-running global campaign by Greenpeace against ExxonMobil, it could
also serve as a precedent for other companies with operations in the US
- from Wal-Mart to Huntingdon Life Sciences - that face the challenge
of "direct action" by protest groups.
Exxon said it was "satisfied" with the consent judgment by a Texas
judge, which covers corporate property, filling stations and any event
sponsored by the company or involving company officers. Any breach
would bring the automatic risk of fines and imprisonment.
ExxonMobil has previously secured court injunctions against Greenpeace
protesters in cases in the UK and Europe involving action and blockades
of its facilities. But such nationwide injunctions are extremely rare
in the US, with previous case law focused on anti-abortion protests and
union disputes.
"It's certainly unusual," says Erwin Cherminsky, professor of law at
Duke University in North Carolina and a specialist in freedom of speech
issues. "But this is an injunction that doesn't prohibit that which the
law does not already prohibit."
Robert O'Neil, director of the Thomas Jefferson Center for the
Protection of Free Expression, says he finds the scope of the
injunction "fairly drastic". In particular, he says, language dealing
with perceived threats to people entering or leaving facilities goes
beyond standards set in disputes over anti-abortion protests. "You
don't enjoin every possible variety of expressive act unless you're
clear that no other remedy is available," he says.
The agreement is a blow for Greenpeace, which has made non-violent
direct action a key element in its campaign strategy. Lisa Finaldi,
campaigns director at Greenpeace USA, says the group agreed to the
settlement in part to avoid an indefinite ban on action against
ExxonMobil. "We've been around for 30 years, and we can handle a
seven-year ban, but we couldn't handle a lifetime ban against one of
the largest companies in the world," she says.
Greenpeace says it was also concerned about more serious felony charges
being laid over a hand injury sustained by a 67-year-old security
guard, although Exxon has agreed not to press for prosecution.
However, the pre-emptive scope of the agreement has troubled some civil
rights advocates. Julian Bond, a veteran of the black civil rights
struggle of the 1960s and chairman of the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People, has accused Exxon of a "heavy-handed"
attack that was an "assault on the time-honoured tradition of free
speech".
"What would have happened [in the 1960s] if the bus companies in
Alabama had taken out injunctions against the civil rights protests by
the Southern Christian Leadership Conference?" asks Elliott Schrage,
who lectures on business and human rights issues at Columbia University.
Exxon counters: "The Greenpeace break-in should not be mistaken as
following 'the right of non-violent protest' . . . Greenpeace breaks
laws not because its members are subject to unjust laws but because
Greenpeace has failed by democratic means to get its way."
The company also argues that its response was justified in the
aftermath of the terror attacks of September 11 2001. The incident
occurred, it says, "when the country was on level orange alert . . .
The current climate makes Greenpeace's activities directed at
ExxonMobil all the more irresponsible and dangerous."
Fred Garcia, founder of Logos Consulting, a US-based crisis management
consultancy, says a change in corporate attitudes towards direct action
is not surprising in the post-September 11 world. "I wouldn't be at all
surprised to see a more robust approach, with companies seeing this
kind of thing as a security issue rather than a business reputation
issue."
Greenpeace leaders say the ExxonMobil case coincides with actions by
the US government that they believe send a message that this kind of
direct action against companies is not acceptable in the current
climate. Applying a rarely used law of 1872, the Department of Justice
sought to prosecute Greenpeace - albeit unsuccessfully - in a federal
court in Miami this year over a protest in which activists boarded a
freighter allegedly carrying a shipment of mahogany from the Amazon
region.
"The US government, not the city or the state, was seeking to curtail
the entire organisation. I think this gives quite a clear signal,
whether to industry or to others, that people who take direct action
are fair game," says Sarah Burton, Greenpeace International's legal
consultant.
In another incident earlier this year, the US attorney in Pittsburgh
initially laid federal criminal charges against Greenpeace activists
who scaled a 700ft (213m) smoke stack at a power station run by
Allegheny Energy, using laws aimed at the threat of sabotage or
terrorism. The federal charges were subsequently dropped; a less
serious state case against the protesters is continuing.
Greenpeace says it will continue its campaign against ExxonMobil within
the limits set by the Texas court. At this year's Exxon annual general
meeting the group was already subject to a temporary court injunction
of similar scope. It responded by projecting images of the effects of
global warming on to the side of the building in Dallas that was
hosting the meeting. "In the US we have restrictions and we believe we
can live by them," says Ms Finaldi.
*************
Thanks to Michael, this article is shared on a one-time-only basis, for
educational purposes only, by
The Edmonds Institute
20319-92nd Avenue West
Edmonds, Washington 98020
USA
phone:(001) 425-775-5383
email: beb@igc.org
website:
********************************************************************
Diverse Women for Diversity
A-60, Hauz Khas, New Delhi- 16
Tel:91 11 26561868, 26698077
Fax: 91 11 26562093
**********************************************************************
No comments:
Post a Comment