Lucifer

On the 30th of August, my ship was entering Long Point Bay on Lake Erie, heading for Nanticoke to unload coal. At about 7:30 am, we received a radio transmission from a Greenpeace ship, who informed us that they were going to peacefully protest the fact that we were carrying coal to be burned at a generating station. At around 8 am, with no warning, a Zodiac pulled alongside us, while we were still underway, someone on board it threw a boarding ladder over our rails, and before we could react, two activists scaled the ladder and chained themselves to our unloading boom.






(Keep in mind how incredibly dangerous this is. If that person was to fall, they would die. No question about it. We were moving at 12 knots (about 14 miles per hour) and 300 feet behind that person is a propeller consisting of three 9 foot high blades! A woman was killed this summer in Montreal because she decided to go for a swim off a yacht when a ship was passing! she was sucked underwater by the propeller wash and drowned.)

Next the people in the Zodiacs painted "No Coal! No Nukes! Clean Energy!" on the side of the ship.



On orders from our head office we reduced speed and went to anchor to await the proper authorities to remove the people from the ship. Once the propeller stopped, a third activist suspended herself from a lifting point above the rudder, in an attempt to prevent us from moving again.





Again, seriously dangerous, not only to her, but also to the ship. If we had dragged anchor (if the anchor started to slip and move along the bottom), the ship would be helpless to prevent ourselves from running aground, and possibly causing an enviromental disaster.

After about 4 hours, the Ontario Police Tactical Terrorist Unit came alongside and removed the activists.






In my opinon, this isn't a 'peaceful protest'. When a ship is illegally boarded while at sea, it is considered piracy. Under the International Maritime Organization's Maritime Security Act (which both Canada and the USA are signatories to), any illegal boarding of a ship raises the vessels security level to MARSEC 3, which is a terrorist act. If we had been in American waters when this happened and we had informed the US Coast Guard of a terrorist act, these two 'activists' would be in a lot more hot water than they are in Canada! Here, they've been charged with two counts of criminal mischief apiece.
Not to mention, the cost of the cleanup of the ship's side ($2000 of marine paint, not to mention the overtime cost of the crew to repaint as quickly as possible); the cost of having a fully loaded ship sitting idly at anchor for 24 hours ($40,000/day): once a ship goes to MARSEC 3, there are specific procedures that must be followed to return to a normal operating level and it takes a while to do; and the emotional cost to the crew. I (and 7 others) were supposed to get off for scheduled vacation that day. Having to wait another day may not seem like a big deal to some, but keep in mind, I had been on that ship for 4.5 months without a dayoff! The rest hadn't been off in 3 months. My watchman had a cracked forearm suffered in a fall two days before and had to wait an extra 24 hours before seeing a doctor!

Now, TFP, is this a peaceful protest?

__________________
Now there's a fire down below, but it's coming' up here,
Leave everything you know, carry only what you fear,
On the road the sun is sinking low, there's bodies hangin' in the trees,
This is what will be, this is what will be.

Elphaba

Lucifer, I would only attribute this form of protest as nonviolent which I think is often considered "peaceful." But as you have pointed out, "peaceful" protest can have significant physically "violent" consequences. Decades ago, I supported Green Peace's effort to protect endangered whales by surrounding the whale, and that effort led to meaningful protections that have brought back the whale populations. But this particular action is reckless and radical, and I believe borders on eco-terrorism. This group could have tried to hamper the delivery of coal at the dock, but I think they wanted higher "drama" to insure greater news coverage. I suspect that they got the greater coverage they wanted, but perhaps at the cost of their credibility as a "peaceful" organization.

Whomever dreamed up this operation needs to spend some time in prison to reconsider methods of addressing the clean air issue.

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

MSD

Boarding a ship like that is piracy and the pirates should be shot before they are able to get on board.

And nuclear energy is clean, efficient, and the only current viable way to reduce fossil fuel dependency

analog

Pirates. Should have shot 'em. If you're that stupid to board a ship illegally, you need to be shot.

Baraka_Guru

I'm not sure if you can call it piracy if they didn't do anything like kidnap, murder, steal, or sabotage (causing a certain amount of damage). I think it depends on territorial laws.

And as far as nuclear energy is concerned... clean & efficient? Did you forget to factor in construction, waste, and disposal costs?

__________________
"The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. [...] In our age there is no such thing as 'keeping out of politics.' All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer."

—"Politics and the English Language," George Orwell

"Humankind cannot bear very much reality."

—"Burnt Norton," Four Quartets, T. S. Eliot

Elphaba

Oh goodie...wouldn't that be a great news event.

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

albania

Greenpeace wants us to give up on our fight with mother nature. Wake up people or we'll never win. Maybe they just ran out of things that made sense to protest against. Unless they have some feasible, cost effective (magical )solution to the energy issue it seems sort of asinine to protest.

__________________
My fairest child, I have no song to give you; No lark could pipe to skies so dull and grey: Yet, ere we part, one lesson I can leave you For every day.
Be good, sweet maid, and let who will be clever; Do noble things, not dream them, all day long: And so make life, death, and that vast for-ever One grand, sweet song. -Charles Kingsley

Shauk

i'm all for a more "green" way of living but this is stupid.

I mean yeah it's better than loading the shit with explosives and going "FUCK COAL MOTHER BITCHES!" in sky writing, but still, it's pretty dumb, it doesn't target the people who matter. The people who matter are you and me. We need to make our own decisions about what kind of energy sources we support by voting or being active in politics where it counts. This...this does nothing but make people want to act in opposition to spite such absurdity.

Frosstbyte

"Peaceful protest" has taken on a bizarre and particularly twisted meaning. "Peaceful" to these protesters apparently means that they do not threaten to actively harm you in your physical person (i.e. they won't hit you or push you or shoot you) but they're thrilled to and intend to cause whatever manner of emotional or financial discomfort they can by whatever method they can. If you've ever watched a video of the Seattle WTO protests, that fact will become abundantly clear. For some reason, to them, it is "non-violent" and "peaceful" to barricade a street so that a person can't get to work unless they "force" their way through a chain of people who have locked their arms together. The poor person trying to get to work, then, finds himself the "violent" one because he has to move the other people in order to get past them.

Trespassing is ok, nuisance is ok, making things difficult or impossible for other people is ok. They're twisting language to suit their needs and purposes because to do otherwise would make them less sympathetic and more like the people they're so eager to stop.

In this case, they're going particularly to the extreme. They were trying to prevent the cargo from reaching its destination. Though pirates are usually smart enough to take the cargo for themselves, depriving the rightful owner of their cargo by illegally boarding the ship sure sounds like piracy to me. They should be treated no less harshly than any other pirate or terrorist. End of story.

__________________

QuasiMondo

Makes me want to club a baby seal just to spite them.

*NOTE: QuasiMondo does not condone or approve of the use of clubs or other blunt instruments to bring harm to baby seals, sea lions, and other creatures of the sea, land, air, and outer space, if such animals exist. QuasiMondo cannot be held responsible for individuals who would like to do such things.

__________________
"Like it or not, change has come. O.J. is in prison, and a black man is in the White House. Is everybody happy now?"

-Tim Reid & Tom Dreesen

ngdawg

Like Elphaba, years ago I supported Green Peace, even sending them a portion of a tax refund.
This...is fucking stupid and they aren't very well informed.
Except for brainless stunts like this, Green Peace has no clout, no credibility and very little viable agenda, IMO.
Wonder if I can get my donation back after 16 years?

Edit: This just occured to me. How was their boat powered? Didn't think solar power could get a boat to move....And, looking over their site(they really are out of touch with reality), I noticed they went by submarine to study life underwater...can solar power/wind power work underwater?

__________________
Don't blame me. I didn't vote for either of'em.

Dilbert1234567

arg i hate green peace... can't they just get a life...

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

Ustwo

When one of the founders of Greenpeace thinks they have been taken over by wackjobs I think he has a point (no time to find the article).

I miss when they were known for protecting whales.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

roachboy

i dont see the problem.
i dont think it a particularly great action, but i dont see the problem with it.
its a standard type of greenpeace action.
they apparently like zipping around in zodiacs (tm).

anyway

the op is strange.
i cant figure out the point.
is it

(a) to present a view of the action from the side of folk who are positioned as "the man" by it even though they are simply working for a shipping company--which raises the question of whether and how thse who transport goods on a contract basis are complicit in the system of usage that is the object of the protest.

this seems kind of interesting.
why is no-one addressing it?

(b) the fact that the community kinda knows lucifer, in the way that we know anyone via 2-d, makes the responses to the post curious. i cant figure it out: is the logic above "we know lucifer---we empathize with him--- therefore greenpeace sucks?"

if that's not the basis for the various "greenpeace sucks" remarks above, then what is?

i have no iron in this fire, so am curious.


(b.1) given the way in which the op is framed, it is almost an interesting diary entry. in which case, there is no larger political point being raised--it is simply an experience that is being relayed.


(c) that a protest inconviences has no bearing on whether it is peaceful or not, useful or not.
this kind of action is SUPPOSED to inconvenience.
it isnt about stopping the use of coal in general--it is theater.
all direct action is theater.

you could object to it by saying that the action did not take account of the feelings and responsibilities of the ship's crew, and that would be true--but so what?
are you saying that you oppose any such political action?
or that you only oppose this one because you found it inconvenient?

from here the question becomes a version of (a).

variation: when did it come to pass that inconveniencing those affected was meaningful in judging a political action?
if the protest is directed at an element of the normal operation of the status quo, then it follows that there would be some value--if fleeting--in disrupting that status quo.
the problems with this follow from the idea of direct action itself, and not from the inconveniencing of people as a function of direct action.


sure, it would have been better for you, lucifer, to get on with some time off and for your crewmate to get medical treatment faster--but do these factors obviate the political expression of the activists?
or is it that you might support such political expression so long as it doesnt affect you?
i really do not understand what your argument is on this.

ancillary:

that such an action can be interpreted legally as piracy doesnt make it piracy.
this is obvious.

that "security" hysteria is as it is means nothing. that greenpeace could be taken as a "terrorist group" indicates that the law involved is so badly written that it makes no distinction between "terrorist" and peaceful protest. given that, i dont know why you'd invoke it. unless you see yourself as some kind of victim of a "terrorist action"....

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

kutulu

You need to hire some ninjas to deal with these pirates.

Ustwo

Who would be better equipped to deal with the problem?

You are endangering a ship and its crew with unqualified peaceful protesters. This by the way was the point of the original post. Even though you are not shooting gun or blowing up bombs, it doesn't mean you are peaceful. Purposely endangering lives in a symbolic gesture for TV coverage may not be as 'bad' as a suicide bomber, but its not 'peaceful'.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Willravel

Facts:
1) Piracy is robbery committed at sea. Their intention clearly was not to steal anything, nothing was stolen, therefore it was not piracy. They illegally boarded a vessel in international water.

2) No one was hurt, and the protesters clearly intended no physical harm to any of the workers, therefore it's non-violent.

__________________
ɯǝɥʇ ǝʌlos uɐɔ ǝʍ ʇɐɥʇ ǝɔuɐɹouƃı ɥƃnoɹɥʇ ʇou sı ʇı 'sɯǝlqoɹd ǝʇɐǝɹɔ uɐɔ ǝƃpǝlʍouʞ ɟı

Infinite_Loser

If they would have blown a hole in the hull, then that would be considered a 'non-peaceful' protest. As it stands, all they did was cause you a minor inconvenience. Annoying? Yes. Worthy of the term piracy of terrorist? Absolutely not.

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

guccilvr

One could argue that they robbed the company of revenue (to the tune of $40,000 per day) and other expenses.

__________________
It's no good trying to place your hand where I can't see because I understand you're different than me ~Syd Barrett


Have a question about TFP in General? CLICK THIS

Willravel

I understand what you're saying, but they were not paid the $40,000 per day. Their only benefit was personal satisfaction.

What they did was vandalism.

__________________
ɯǝɥʇ ǝʌlos uɐɔ ǝʍ ʇɐɥʇ ǝɔuɐɹouƃı ɥƃnoɹɥʇ ʇou sı ʇı 'sɯǝlqoɹd ǝʇɐǝɹɔ uɐɔ ǝƃpǝlʍouʞ ɟı

Ustwo

If I held a gun to your head, never intended to shoot you but wanted to get out the news for my cause would it be 'non-violent' if no one got hurt?

Or less extreme...

If one of the police unit sent to deal with it fell to his death trying to get someone off the rigging would it be 'non-violent'?

They were acting in an unsafe manner, on a ship whos working I doubt they understood well, in a publicity stunt.

And yes they did steal, they didn't 'take' the coal, but they cost the company involved a lot of money. They intended to hurt the operation of the coal plant as well. I'm not a lawyer but I'm sure if there is any point in suing greenpeace they would be liable for damages.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Willravel

I'd call that apples and oranges. They had no weapons. Their intent was clear: stop the ship and vandalize it. Being a pansy green liberal myself, I can say with reasonable certainty they wouldn't have gotten violent.
If he was pushed, then it would be violent. If he fell because he slipped, he's clumsy and it's natural selection. Unfortunate, but to blame the protesters is like blaming the owner of the refrigerator that started the fire a fireman died in. Circumstance would have been to blame.
You don't need to be a lawyer to understand that no theft occurred. The Greenpeace people didn't walk away with that which was lost by the company, so there was no theft. Had Greenpeace taken the coal off the ship, then there would have been a theft, and thus piracy.

__________________
ɯǝɥʇ ǝʌlos uɐɔ ǝʍ ʇɐɥʇ ǝɔuɐɹouƃı ɥƃnoɹɥʇ ʇou sı ʇı 'sɯǝlqoɹd ǝʇɐǝɹɔ uɐɔ ǝƃpǝlʍouʞ ɟı

Infinite_Loser

You can't 'rob' someone of unearned revenue.

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

Ustwo

You didn't answer the question but it can be skipped, its just to get people thinking what 'violent' is.

If you start a malicious fire on purpose and a