http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2012/08/cop-that-greenpeace/?fb_ref=.UBuVXgKVG_A.like&fb_source=home_multiline
LOLOLOL. What a good example they set. I wonder how this will affect public donations to NGOs.
Poor Greenpeace. Attracting the wrong sort of crowd, giving them a bad
name. Oh wait, isn't this what they set out to do; polarising public
opinion, raising awareness of issues?
It is a clear statement
by Greenpeace that they support the terrorist actions of those two bad
eggs; paying for their bail can be interpreted as this: a criminal
action sanctioned by a criminal organisation. Organised crime funded by
donations from well-meaning but wooly members of the public due to
their urge to make a difference in the world.
Optimists and
supporters could say that the bail money is more than those criminals
could shell out individually. A Greenpeace reparation payment could be
interpreted as a gesture of apology for the damages their mis-guided
extremist members caused. This reparation payment is an opportunity for
Greenpeace to show how apologetic they are for their mis-guided
members.
What tips the balance in favour of a poor
interpretation of Greenpeace is the route the money took. It went
through their bad egg members, through the court system, and to the
victims, allowing the bad eggs to get out of jail free. If it was to
truly show that they agree that what their bad eggs did was wrong, the
money should have instead went directly to the victims, leaving their
bad eggs isolated in jail. With those unrepentant bad eggs out of jail
due to the Greenpeace bail out, not only are they free to contaminate
other people, they also show that Greenpeace sanctions their terrorist
actions. Shame on Greenpeace.
Anyway, that's how I read the situation.
