Skip to main content

View Diary: How Shell is trying to send a chill through activist groups across the country (175 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This isn't only about the safety issue (6+ / 0-)

    and the case wasn't decided on the safety issue. This is applicable to other situations, and an injunction has been filed against some Keystone XL protesters as well on similar ground.

    I am not against civil disobedience, or even illegal protests, but those participating should be prepared to go to jail. If the protest causes property damage those responsible should also be liable for the cost of repairs.
    And they are liable for arrest and for damages already. This doesn't change any of that.

    This ruling could have been used as a prior restraint to the segregated lunch counter sit ins.

    If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

    by AoT on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 11:12:27 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  This IS about the safety issue. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib, samddobermann, CalGal47, murrayewv

      The only way you can get an injunction is to show the potential for irreparable harm - that if you wait and sue, dollars won't be an adequate remedy.  In order to issue the injunction, the Court had to specifically find that there was, in this case, the potential for irreparable harm.

      The Court's finding on irreparable harm is about the safety issue:

      2. Likelihood of Irreparable Harm

      The district court concluded that Shell demonstrated a
      likelihood of irreparable harm absent injunctive relief because “illegal or tortious efforts to board or interfere with [its] vessels would be likely to present unacceptable risks to human life, property and the environment.” Shell Offshore, 864 F. Supp. 2d at 851 (internal quotation marks omitted). In  support of these findings, the court considered evidence that actions of the sort undertaken by Greenpeace activists against Shell vessels in New Zealand, Finland, and Greenland pose risks to the safetyof activists and vessel occupants alike. The court also found – and Greenpeace USA does not dispute – that “if Greenpeace USA successfully disrupted Shell’s operation, calculating the amount of economic harm would be very difficult.” Id.
      Greenpeace USA offers nothing beyond conclusory
      statements and case summaries in support of its one-sentence argument that the “likelihood of future injury is speculative and cannot be based on matters that occurred in 1997, or that 8 involved entities that are not Greenpeace USA.” The record provides ample support for the conclusion that Greenpeace USA has either undertaken directly, or embraced as its own, tactics that include forcible e boarding of vessels at sea and the use of human beings as impediments to drilling operations. We find  it too plain for debate that such tactics at minimum pose a serious risk of harm to human life, particularly if attempted in the extreme conditions of the Arctic Ocean, and that such harm could find no adequate remedy at law.

      •  It is not only about the (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Words In Action, FishOutofWater

        safety issue. Otherwise they wouldn't be using the tactic elsewhere.

        If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

        by AoT on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 01:57:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Obviously, you are ignoring the law. (5+ / 0-)

          You can't get an injunction without a showing of the potential for irreparable harm.  That's black letter law.  Period.  End of story.  

          A lot of the oil and gas industry is inherently dangerous.  Oil and gas can easily blow up and burn.  That's the nature of the beast.  That means that if people who don't know what they are doing start messing with it, the chances of it blowing up increase.  That's true even on land.  It's doubly true in the middle of the ocean.  

          •  In other words (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Words In Action

            they are using this across the industry, like I said. So it's rather convenient that it's "about the safety" of a business that's in the business of killing us all.

            If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

            by AoT on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 02:10:34 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, not "across the industry." (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              VClib, 1BQ, CalGal47

              If you want to protest outside a refinery, that's not an "irreparable harm" situation.  If you want to protest outside of Shell's offices, that's not an irreparable harm situation.  That's protest.  That's what I thought this diary was about.  Instead, when I read the opinion, it was about people forcing their way onto vessels and rigs putting the lives and safety of the workers on those vessels and rigs in danger.  

              It's when people who don't know what they are doing try to forcibly take physical take control of things -- like vessels, rigs, or pipelines -- that are inherently dangerous that you get into the irreparable harm area.

              •  Yeah, and neither of those will do anything (3+ / 0-)

                You want us to keep taking actions that have proven useless again and again. I'm sick of the constant refrain of "it's illegal" when anyone hits on an effective tactic. This issue is kind of fucking important. How old are you? I'm going to have to deal with this personally, as will my nieces and nephews even more so. But no one should take any effective action, god forbid. Just march in circles again and again so everyone can tell us how useless protest is.

                Don't worry, they'll figure out away to abuse this ruling too. The rule of law is for little people, didn't you hear.

                If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                by AoT on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 02:21:27 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  So the only "effective action" is to put people's (6+ / 0-)

                  lives and safety in danger?  It's worth risking the lives and safety of the people who work on those rigs and vessels for you to make a point -- and you can't make that point any other way?

                  I am NOT telling anybody not to protest.  I fully support the right of everyone to protest.  I AM saying that protesting is completely different from deliberately putting the lives and safety of ordinary, working people (the workers on those vessels and rigs) in danger so that you can make a point.

                  •  None of this is to "make a point" (4+ / 0-)

                    It's to stop the actions that are killing the planet. And of course you aren't telling anyone not to protest, you're just saying that any direct action against building pipelines or other carbon extraction infrastructure will risk lives and so we should march around in circles or go get arrested in some useless show in front of the white house.

                    And you aren't really saying any of that. So I'm sorry for aiming all of this at you because I don't mean to make it personal. But that's how the system works now. No one actually does anything they can be blamed for and it just keeps getting worse and more of us are going to be killed because of it. We've built a giant edifice devoted to removing the personal responsibility of those who are destroying our world and then telling people who are trying to stop it that they are going to hurt people when they take effective action.

                    And we do the same thing with the economy.

                    Sigh.

                    If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                    by AoT on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 02:43:38 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site