The protest has drawn world-wide media attention because of Lawless. She fielded calls from the BBC, as well as European and United States media.
Her Wikipedia page, which documents her appointment as a climate ambassador with Greenpeace in May 2009, was updated only hours after she boarded the drilling ship to include her activist misdemeanour.
"It is astonishing to be here 'cause I'm not really cut out for this. I'm not an activist per se. I've never done a direct action on anything apart from being part of a protest down Queen St."
Lawless had been invited to take part in the action to gain maximum attention, but said her concerns were genuine. "Everybody here is a true believer in the importance of heading off runaway climate change right now."
This merely concerns our cynicism over the activities of Greenpeace. And is their publicity-whoring any surprise? Of course not; especially when one considers how Greenpeace is now regarded by one of its founding members, Dr Patrick Moore; check this out, via Kiwiblog:
You could call me a Greenpeace dropout, but that is not an entirely accurate description of how or why I left the organization 15 years after I helped create it. I’d like to think Greenpeace left me, rather than the other way around, but that too is not entirely correct.
The truth is Greenpeace and I underwent divergent evolutions. I became a sensible environmentalist; Greenpeace became increasingly senseless as it adopted an agenda that is antiscience, antibusiness, and downright antihuman.
Greenpeace these days seems far more focused on self-serving publicity stunts than on genuine environmental concerns. After all, can Lucy Lawless and her foolhardy mates personally guarantee that the environment was not harmed by the production of the survival gear they are using, the cellphones with which they are communicating with a meek and compliant news media (hang your head in shame TVNZ), and the means of transport by which they made their respective ways to New Plymouth?
Of course they can't, which merely exposes them as hypocrites of the first order, as well as lawbreakers preventing people from going about their lawful business.
12 comments:
Greenpeace achieves its aim.
That's right, they succeeded.
They got what they wanted and Lucy got something of what she wanted.
A very successful strategy and we admire that sort of initiative, don't we. Motivated people, taking action and succeeding.
@Anonymous . What exactly did the achieve for the environment ? I would suggest nothing. Not a single polar bear will be safe because Lawless climbed a tower in Taranaki.
They will have to leave soon , don't they need to defecate ? Can't see Lawless wanting to do that in the public gaze or change a tampon :-)
It is all about getting idealistic young acolytes to subscribe to the cause and keep the organisation cashed up so those at the top of their food chain can jet around to conferences and getting real jobs.
Succeeding in what? A LOT of people saying you're a bunch of useless bloody loonies rather than just he locals?
You don't give a crap about the law, anyone elses rights or even the reality of your leftist agenda driven lawlessness.
Meanwhile you've stopped NOTHING. Just crawl off into a corner and recycle, do the planet a favor.
Hose 'em off the ship. give em suits and tell 'em to turn up at the respective select committees.
It was KS that declared that Greenpeace had achieved its aim. Don't you value his opinion?
One aim was to attract world media attention. That's a tick right there.
Secondly, you're now all aware that there is drilling for oil planned for the Arctic. Tick no.2.
So you're an end-justifies-the-means type then Anon? So you won't be complaining if Key and English reduce our deficit or even take us back into surplus by selling a minority shareholding in a few SOE's, cutting the public service and reforming the welfare regime then?
It's good we've established that...
@ anonymous is correct, Greenpeace has achieved it's aim of attracting attention. It's purported purpose in attracting attention is to 'protect the environment'.
I think it's actually to recruit more true believers to make annual subscriptions to Greenpeace. Greenpeace spend 70 million Euros a year on recruiting new members.
To recruit new true believers it must maintain it's image as a 'revolutionary anti-establishment' organisation. Not going to attract too many dreadlocked tattooed twenty-somethings by promoting boringly reliable scientific and academic research.
Greenpeace spends 30% of annual income on attracting signing up new members. 10% on marketing & 10% on climate change.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/about/reports/
"It's good we've established that..."
Perhaps in your own mind you've 'established' something, Keeping Stock, but that's not a place where robust debate occurs, at least so far as we can see.
As for "Key and English reducing our deficit or even taking us back into surplus", there's zero chance of that happening any time soon, as you know. Still, if it gives you something to cling to, cling away!
Lawless has far more credibility than those two thieves.
Lawless and her bunch of brainless wankers need to be stood on from great heights. The sooner these idiots realise that, without certain products such as oil their comfortable way of life will cease to exist the better. Their lack of reasoned argument never ceases to amaze me. They live their lives using all of the benefits of modern life however continually complain about using the resources which provide this way life. They are just a bunch of brainless hypocrites as far as I am concerned.
Allan - your comment represents the thicker end of public opinion and I'm glad you've gone to the trouble of typing it out for us to see. I know how long that takes you and how tricky finding some of those keys can be, especially the 'w' and the 'z', eh!
"Lawless and her bunch of brainless wankers need to be stood on from great heights.
(Nice little reveal there, Allan - bit of pseudo-violence to add spice to your message)
The sooner these idiots realise that, without certain products such as oil their comfortable way of life will cease to exist the better.
(They do realise that, Allan. What evidence do you have - overheated opinion is not evidence btw - that Lucy doesn't realise this? None. At all.)
Their lack of reasoned argument never ceases to amaze me.
(I'm willing to bet Keeping Stock's business that you have no idea at all of what Lucy's argument is, Allan. No idea at all.)
They live their lives using all of the benefits of modern life however continually complain about using the resources which provide this way life.
(Lucy is 'complaining', not about all mining or drilling, but about this single program to drill for oil in the Arctic. She gives specific reasons why she opposes this specific project. Your generalizations are wrong, Allan, just wrong.)
They are just a bunch of brainless hypocrites as far as I am concerned.
(You've missed the point entirely, but I don't expect that you'll be able to see it, so, as you were Allan - froth on!)
How Greenpeace spin the news.
"Greenpeace say that so far 100,000 people have emailed Shell demanding that the company scraps its plans to drill in the Arctic. " - TVNZ
"As of January,2007, 2.9 million had taken out or renewed their financial membership within the last 18 months. " - Greenpeace website
That's 3% of their own members isn't it ?
Post a Comment