Well that didn’t take long. Well, actually it did.
Greenpeace along with many other Environmental Non Government Organizations have been attacking Western Industry non-stop for years now trying to reduce our economy and way of life to a “cave-dwelling” state that would make the old Pagan Culture look like Camelot!
Their extreme and unrealistic claims that our consumption of goods and services that offer us a “quality of life” which has been the best in modern history is killing the planet (Mother Gaia) and must come to a complete halt!
They have met their match. Resolute Forest Products have had enough!
Hopefully this company’s actions will give some backbone to all the other Industrial firms who have experienced these Green Whackos efforts to destroy them……….are you listening Oil Sands????
Resolute seems to have come to the end of its tether in the face of relentless Greenpeace attacks related to the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement. D. Langhorst/Handout
In a welcome but all-too-rare display of corporate backbone, Montreal-based Resolute Forest Products has sued Greenpeace Canada.
The suit, which was filed in Thunder Bay last Thursday, names Greenpeace and its campaigners, Richard Brooks and Shane Moffatt, and claims “damages for defamation, malicious falsehood and intentional interference with economic relations” in the amount of $5-million. It also seeks punitive damages of $2-million, plus costs.
Given the extraordinary power of environmental non-governmental organizations, ENGOs, corporations have been reluctant to pursue lawsuits, but Resolute seems to have come to the end of its tether in the face of relentless Greenpeace attacks related to the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement, the “ceasefire” signed three years ago by members of the Forest Products Association of Canada, FPAC, and nine ENGOs after a series of ENGO do-not-buy campaigns.
Last December, Greenpeace withdrew, claiming Resolute had broken the agreement by logging in off-limits areas. Resolute pointed out that Greenpeace’s allegations were false. Greenpeace nevertheless persisted in its claims until, in February — the filing reveals — Resolute threatened a lawsuit, and pointed to the responsibility of Greenpeace’s directors. The result was an almost unprecedented retraction and apology by Greenpeace, which claimed it “sincerely regrets its error.”
Greenpeace in fact subsequently redoubled its assault, based on many of the inaccurate accusations for which it had already apologized, plus a raft of new alleged fabrications. Most recently, Messrs Brooks and Moffatt penned “The Unsustainability Report,” which attacked Resolute not merely for its logging practices but also for its record on pay and pensions, and accused it of selling green products that were “tainted” because they contained no recycled fibre (although Resolute acknowledges this fact on its website). The two campaigners turned up at Resolute’s AGM and — “with express malice” — handed out copies of the error-filled report to shareholders.
Resolute last week itself withdrew from the CBFA, citing the “unbalanced” demands of ENGOs. The ENGOs responded by declaring that it was they who were “suspending further work” with Resolute. Now comes Resolute’s lawsuit, which is quietly welcomed by many in the industry. Note “quietly.”
Resolute Forest seems to have come to the end of its tether on Boreal agreement
The lawsuit further cranks up the spotlight on the FPAC, which, while meant to be an advocate for its forestry company members, seems to equate industry interests with constant NGO appeasement. FPAC president David Lindsay last week called for everybody to calm down and return to the table, under which he his other members appeared to be hiding. Mr. Lindsay’s reluctance to attribute “blame” also appears to give a free pass to NGO misrepresentation.
One can understand why corporations would be scared of taking on well-funded NGOs who are expert manipulators of the media. However, the CBFA was always doomed to generate ever-mounting NGO pressure and demands. As Resolute has pointed out, such demands are completely unbalanced between the alleged “three pillars” of sustainability — economic, social and environmental.