Lawsuits threaten to stifle public debate=20 as the Greenpeace action shows, writes=20 George Monbiot
Every month, the weapons mobilised in the=20 public relations battle over the future of=20 the planet become more sophisticated. A few=20 weeks ago, a leak from the PR company=20 Burson-Marsteller revealed that it has been=20 advising biotechnology companies to “stay=20 off the killing field” of the environment=20 and human health, as “the industry cannot=20 be expected to prevail in public opposition=20 to adversarial voices on these issues”.=20 Other means had to be found of confronting=20 opposition to genetic engineering.
Last week, perhaps in response to similar=20 advice, BP shifted the debate about its=20 oil-prospecting work away from the Atlantic=20 frontier and into the courts. On Monday=20 last week, it began a suit against=20 Greenpeace for the $2,2-million it claimed=20 it had lost as a result of the group’s=20 occupation of the Stena Dee test-drilling=20 rig near the Shetlands. If the organisation=20 would not pay, BP said, it would hold three=20 members of Greenpeace’s staff personally=20 liable. By Tuesday evening, the company was=20 offering to abandon the suit if Greenpeace=20 promised to keep out of its oilfields.=20
BP has been deploying smart PR bombs=20 throughout this ritual conflict. While=20 Greenpeace sought to draw attention to=20 climate change and the dumping of toxic=20 residues on the ocean floor, BP=20 concentrated on the safety of the activists=20 chained to the oil rig, announcing that it=20 would try to pull them off only if their=20 lives were in danger. It succeeded both in=20 drawing the press away from the critical=20 issues and in presenting itself as a=20 compassionate company that puts human=20 welfare ahead of filthy lucre.=20
BP’s lawsuit, which it delayed until police=20 had removed the activists from the public=20 eye, enabled it to drag the debate still=20 further away from environmental arguments.=20 Public discussion shifted to Greenpeace’s=20 assets and whether or not they should or=20 could be seized. BP could distance itself=20 from the dispute – arguing that the matter=20 was now in the hands of the courts – while=20 ensuring that the moral pressure remained=20 on Greenpeace.
Had BP pursued its suit, seized=20 Greenpeace’s assets and, as some people=20 predicted, wiped out the organisation, it=20 would have found itself portrayed as an=20 oceanic shark, snapping up defenceless=20 tiddlers. But suits of this nature are=20 seldom designed to succeed. In the United=20 States they are so common they have=20 acquired a name of their own: “strategic=20 lawsuits against public participation”, and=20 the emphasis is firmly on the “strategic”.=20 About three-quarters of the charges of=20 conspiracy, defamation or criminal=20 liability big companies pursue against=20 American activists are dropped or thrown=20 out of court, often after years of=20 litigation. But both the charges themselves=20 and the costs of fighting a case tend to=20 stifle dissent.
The first major case of this kind in=20 Britain was pursued by the Department of=20 Transport against people opposing its=20 motorway plans. The department’s injunction=20 named as many campaigners as it could=20 identify, some of whom had only the most=20 fleeting involvement in the protest. They=20 were held “jointly and severally liable”=20 for the transport department’s legal costs=20 and damages – about $3-million.
The department pursued them for three years=20 before it quietly dropped the case. But the=20 lawsuit worked. Hundreds of people with=20 assets kept away from the area, worried=20 that they too might find themselves subject=20 to the costs order. The campaign was left=20 largely to the property-less and=20 dispossessed, which helped the DoT to=20 portray its opponents as a bunch of workshy=20 trouble-makers, protesting only because=20 they had nothing better to do.
The injunction’s success, of course, was=20 dependent on its failure. The last thing=20 the department wanted to do was to seize=20 the home of a respectable taxpayer.
As both British and American laws tend to=20 be more effective at protecting private=20 property than public assets, the scope for=20 retaliatory counter-suits is limited.=20
Environmentalists should continue to call=20 the corporations’ bluff, force them to=20 pursue their suits and let them suffer the=20 public humiliation of a brutal victory.=20 Only then might the big companies be=20 inclined to test their case not in the=20 stuffy enclave of the courts, but in the=20 fresh air and open seas of public debate.