Greenpeace began to be tried on Monday in North Dakota in the United States in a process that can bankrupt one of the best known environmental organizations in the world.
The action was filed in 2017 by Energy Transfer, headquartered in Texas, which accuses Greenpeace of being the leading articulator of protests against the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline veho, located near the Standing Rock Indigenous Reserve. The organization denies and states that its performance was only supported by a mobilization led by indigenous peoples.
Activists see the process as an attempt to intimidate to silence social movements and believe that a conviction would open a dangerous precedent against the right to protest.
“This judgment is a critical test for freedom of expression and peaceful manifestation in the United States under the Trump government and in the future,” Sushma Raman, the Greenpeace interim director, said in a statement.
Energy Transfer, which did not comment on the case before the trial began, had previously stated that the action “has no relation to freedom of expression, but with the breach of the law.”
Greenpeace said the values claimed by the company reach $ 300 million – more than ten times the annual budget of the organization. In addition to Greenpeace, the targets of the process A Greenpeace Fund, based in Washington, and Greenpeace International, based in the Netherlands.
Continues after advertising
The trial is expected to last five weeks in the city of Mandan, North Dakota, and experts believe that Greenpeace can face difficulties in gaining a favorable jury in a historically conservative state.
Oil pipeline and protests
The Dakota Access pipeline was approved in 2016 and immediately generated a strong opposition from indigenous communities, which warned of the risk of water contamination and the violation of sacred lands. With 1,880 kilometers long, the structure carries oil from the state of Dakota do Norte to Illinois.
Thousands of protesters traveled to the region to join the movement, which used the motto “Água É Vida”. The protests lasted months and resulted in clashes between activists and security forces. Energy Transfer claimed that equipment was damaged and that the mobilization has damaged its reputation in the market.
Continues after advertising
“The mobilization emerged organically, led by indigenous women. We stayed on the river bank, unarmed, ”said Waniya Locke, an activist of the Standing Rock reserve.
The protest camp has been dismantled and the pipeline is operating, although some regulatory approvals are still missing.
Process for organized crime was rejected
Energy Transfer originally sued Greenpeace in the US Federal Court based on rich law, created to combat criminal organizations. In 2019, a judge rejected the process, stating that the accusations “were far from characterizing a criminal organization.”
Continues after advertising
The company then filed a new action in the state court, claiming that Greenpeace has committed crimes such as invasion of property, defamation, conspiracy and illicit interference in business. Energy Transfer claims that the organization has spread false information that encouraged protests and caused financial losses.
Greenpeace lawyer Deepa Padmanabha argued that the entity supported the protests and helped in the formation of activists in non -violent actions, but had no central role in mobilization.
She warned that the Energy Transfer thesis seeks to impose a “collective responsibility for protest”, in which any group could be punished by the isolated acts of protesters. “It is how to hold a peaceful activist for the fire of an unknown person. If this type of argument is accepted, any protest could be criminalized, ”said the lawyer.
Continues after advertising
Greenpeace considers action an attempt to silence
The organization classifies the action as a SLAPP, acronym in English for strategic processes against public participation. These actions are often used by large companies to intimidate critics, imposing on them high legal defense costs.
In the US, some states have laws that facilitate the annulment of such processes – but northern Dakota does not have this protection. In the European Union, a new legislation offers legal backing against slapps.
Greenpeace International appealed to the Netherlands court and filed a lawsuit against Energy Transfer in Amsterdam, claiming that the company should bear the legal costs imposed on the organization. The first hearing is scheduled for July.
Kristin Casper, legal director of Greenpeace International, said the action in Amsterdam “is an important step in protecting activists from abusive processes aimed at silencing their voices.”
