Although Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd are the two most renowned environmental organizations to battle against the Japanese government and seeking to save the whales in the Southern Ocean from being killed in the name of “science,” the means by which they accomplish this goal differ substantially. While GP adopts a non-violent tactic and no human being gets hurt in its protests, Sea Shepherd places the security of whales first and engages in acts of sabotage, which lead to the destruction or incapacitation of whaling ship.
Furthermore, while both organizations have large numbers of supporters, Greenpeace released a handout yesterday, further distancing itself from the other group, with which it had connections in the past. The statement underlines all the ideological differences between the two movements, and is part of Greenpeace's efforts to make a clear distinction between itself and the radical group.
“Some anti-environmentalists try to use the fact that an extreme minority in the environmental movement resorts to force and sabotage to brand the movement as a whole as 'terrorist.' One such attempt has been specifically condemned by a Norwegian court,” the piece of news says. Indeed, critics of environmental groups often argue that their violence is not justified, and use the fact that ships have been sunk to draw public criticism to them.
“We passionately want to stop whaling, and will do so peacefully. That's why we won't help Sea Shepherd. Greenpeace is committed to non-violence and we'll never, ever, change that; not for anything. If we helped Sea Shepherd to find the whaling fleet we'd be responsible for anything they did having got that information, and history shows that they've used violence in the past, in the most dangerous seas on Earth. For us, non-violence is a non-negotiable, precious principle. Greenpeace will continue to act to defend the whales, but will never attack or endanger the whalers,” the release adds.
“Paul Watson [of Sea Shepherd] is welcome to express his opinions about Greenpeace – as a more progressive environmental organization, we have a wide spectrum of detractors, and we welcome fair criticism. But, we expect fair debate to be based in fact, not falsehoods,” the Greenpeace handout concludes.
Find us on Google+
