Its funny, because Greenpeace seems to get more done than a lot of smaller groups that just continuously whine about how hard off they are. Critics like Dawn don't actually know all the facts and spread rumors because they're bitter that they can't make any real change. When's the last time Dawn actually made a ripple in the pond? If I had to chose between self rightgeous angry yapping or organizations that do good work and direct action (like Greenpeace) I'd side with Greenpeace any day.

I think (and I apologize in advance for making presumptions) one of the key points that Dawn was trying to point out is that there is something fundamentally flawed about any organization claiming the title of environmental or climate justice which also operates in a top-down manner such as this.

The issue at play here is indicative of a larger debate about the power of ENGO and NGO organizations to dictate the terms of engagement for what is (for better or worse) a large portion of self-identified environmental activists. Like it or not, Greenpeace does monopolize a large portion of the global "environmental consciousness", for lack of a better term, and thusly needs to be held accountable for the power that comes with that. This power includes controlling the messaging coming from the streets of Toronto, even if it is accidental or passive. Neutrality on a moving train (to blatantly steal from Howard Zinn...) fundamentally places ones momentum in the same direction of that train, and this situation is no different. By not supporting more confrontational actions, these organizations support the corporate media and government narrative (even passively) that these actions are the work of a few malcontents, instead of the manifestation of the discontent of many.

Of course it is well within the rights of Greenpeace, as it is with any other top-down organization, to request that individuals who they are responsible for the legal costs of not exasperate the situation. The question that should be asked though, is does it help the larger movement – be it for large scale social change in Canada, confronting the climate crisis, etc – for organizations such as Greenpeace (and by no means is Greenpeace alone is this manner) to march in circles and remove themselves from the frontlines of these struggles? And what does it mean for these movements, given that these organizations – who are the only ones with access to resources that even comes close to that of the political and corporate structures which we all aim to confront, challenge and bring down – expend energy maintaining a public image instead of using that to add a constructive voice to what is inevitably a confrontation.

All this being said, I have a lot of respect and love for individuals within Greenpeace, and know the amount of work, within and outside the organization, that they put it in. Those people who are dedicated to the principles of justice, be it climate, social, migrant, gender or otherwise, will still be on the streets, the Rainbow Warrior just wont be, and that's whats disappointing.

I wish greenpeace had been more transparent when they signed the Canadian Boreal Forest agreement, specifically when it came to consultation with first nations.  I just hope the context (ie. urgency of the situation, neccesity for closed door talks with logging industry) motivated these upper management of greenpeace to make these seemingly out of character decesions.

BUT....this article is an internal email call out to specifically Greenpeace supporters and is intended  to protect the organization from being liable to independent actions by individuals, whom do not share the collective agenda of peaceful direct action. Completely routine (as any organization would do).

Would it be better for Greenpeace activists to be violent and trash the credibility of the orgnization, impacting the legitimacy of the entire movement?

"While Greenpeace is participating in the rally, we as an organization are not participating in any direct actions during this period. As activists many of you may have greater participation with G8/G20 events taking place – this is your business as long as it does not reflect poorly on Greenpeace or potentially confuse the public about Greenpeace’s role in the G8/G20."

I think this quote from the call out to Greenpeace volunteers and activists says it all. Greenpeace is in no way telling people how to behave, live, etc, they just dont want to be associated with any potentially violent acts that may occur at the G8/G20. This is legitimate. Greenpeace is the biggest environmental organization in the world and the media is ALWAYS on us. Its understandable why we would ask activists to just not identify as Greenpeace while they are (as individuals) participating in actions that may not fall in line with Greenpeace values. Everyone is free to do their own thing, but not as a Greenpeace representative. Other groups (and coaltions) do this as well. For instance, in Vancouver during the Olympics, olympics organizers had messaging they wanted to stick to and if you were representing the Welcoming Committee or ORN etc you needed to abide by those messages. 

In terms of the activists with conditions and the legals issue, all we are doing is suggesting that activists abide by their coniditons because it could be to their detirment if they don't. Police don't take it lightly when activists (espceially GP ones) break conditions, especially during something like the g8 protests, and we don't want to see our activists going to jail for indefinite periods of time or potentially their actions affecting other activsts (as some of their conditions are inter related). GP supports their activists to the end of any legal case, but it would make our work terribly difficult if all our activists went to jail at the g8 and didn't get release with other activsts because they were on charges from previous Greenpeace actions. Its common sense. However, its up to them, because they are their own free agents and we are not trying to control anyone.

Also, specifically to Dawn, I really find it upsetting that you took an internal e-mail being sent to Greenpeace volunteers (by what means you got this, I don't know) and posted it to the wider community. How do you think it makes those activists with bail conditions feel when you go around saying Greenpeace is trying to control the message when all we are doing is trying to be legally resposible? I really don't think its your place. And quite frankly I'm getting tired of the attacks on Greenpeace. Greenpeace activists and staff are good people with great hearts and are trying to make a difference in the world- and we are. Our tar sands campaign put the tar sands on the map in Alberta. Our oceans campaign is getting red list fish REMOVED from supermarkets. We are making a difference. And of course, we have issues to work on, all of us know this, you aren't saying anything new. But Greenpeace does good work and as a staff member and activist who spends my life trying to fight for the environment, I find your attacks divisive, misleading, and even cruel sometimes.

Personally, I have been invlolved in many actions with Greenpeace and I love how their legal support system works, I always feel supported and valued as an activist putting myself on the line for what I believe in. 

Lastly, here's a personal anecdote I'd like to share....I was involved in last years action at the Shell Mine in the tar sands. I blockaded giant tar sands trucks and a monlithic crane for over 32 hrs. At one point, one activist (who had an phone and was communicting out of the mine) told me to climb to the top of the crane. Curious, I said ok and climbed from the cabin to the top of the cranes arm. I stood up there and looked around. The entire mine (all of Albian Sands) was still. All activity had come to a halt. I was shoked. As far as my eyes could see, all the trucks, equipment, the biggest machines in the world, were as if dead. No movement anywhere. We, Greenpeace, had literaly stopped part of the the tar sands. This lasted for over 6 hrs and costed the company millions of dollars.

No one else has done anything like that. It was probably one of the most amazing moments in my activist career. This (among many other reasons) is why I am a proud Greenpeacer.

Hey Dawn,

I'm not asking you not to write, I think its great to challenge issues through writing and alt media. I just think you publish a lot of writing thats pretty reminiscent of slander, that's what I don't appreciate. I'm tired of the onslaught on Greenpeace, to be quite honest. We do awesome work, I see it on a daily basis. I don't agree with everything Greenpeace does for sure, but I've been involved in many types of activism with many different groups and Greenpeace is pretty kick ass.

As for who I am, I don't know why you care so much. The reason I posted anonymously was because I didn't really think it was relevant. There are a few other anonymous posters defending Greenpeace on this page, and I think its fair if people want to say what they want to say without having their name on it.

Also, considering how you use documents, Greenpeace names, confidential recordings, and post them all over the internet and attach your own version of a story to it, doesn't it kinda make sense why I wouldn't be so forthcoming with my information?

Peace.