In response to the ongoing “Turtle vs. Tata” controversy, about which I have written several articles, Kumi Naidoo, the executive director of Greenpeace International, today published an article on The Huffington Post. Entitled “Tsk Tsk TATA – Rise Above SLAPP Suits,” Mr. Naidoo responded to the lawsuit filed by Tata Industries against Greenpeace.
The overview of this case is, briefly, that Tata Industries is suing Greenpeace for the alleged misuse of the Tata trademark, and for defamation of character, in connection with a video game that Greenpeace produced to protest Tata’s involvement in the construction of a deep-water port in India. The port construction, Greenpeace claims, is too close to the nesting area of an endangered turtle species. According to DNA India, allegedly the video game 1) portrays the chairman of Tata as a less than savory character, 2) uses the Tata trademark, and 3) misrepresents the characters of India’s top grossing film, Sholay. You may read more details by reviewing my other articles on this topic.
In today’s Huffington Post article, Mr. Naidoo characterizes the Tata lawsuit as a SLAPP suit (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) and an effort by Tata to “shrink the democratic space” in a “David vs. Goliath” battle. I wasn’t surprised to see Mr. Naidoo say this. Through my experiences of watching Greenpeace, I’ve learned that such responses are pretty much SOP (standard operating procedure) for them and part of the general media strategy of this organization which, to me, is really more of a media machine than an activist group. Such responses are made often when there is any form of “counter-protest” to or push-back against Greenpeace.
If the lawsuit allegations of Tata are true, that Greenpeace infringed the company’s trademark and defamed the character of the company chairman and the company itself, then Greenpeace has made a serious misstep here. And nowhere in his article does Mr. Naidoo deny these allegations. In his article, Mr. Naidoo simply attempts to turn the negative spotlight away from Greenpeace and back on Tata by portraying Tata as a villain (the “Goliath,” remember?) against the turtle and democracy in general:
Rather than respond to the ethical question of why it has chosen to develop a port in an ecologically fragile area of global significance, TATA has chosen to engage Greenpeace India and Greenpeace International in a SLAPP suit, a crude tactic employed to quash open discussion and the consumer’s right to information.
No, Tata is not quashing open discussion, they are merely protecting their rights. If the Tata complaints are upheld in court, then trademark violation and defamation cannot be considered to be “open discussion.” And the video game, as it has been described in media reports, is not an “open discussion” anyway. As reported it stands as a one-sided polemic designed to titillate and enrage.
Also in his Huffington Post article Mr. Naidoo fails to mention the reports that Tata has received all governmental permitting for the project. In a July 18, 2010 DNA India article on this subject, it was reported that the Tata court petition states:
that they (Tata) possess all clearances from the respective state departments
The report concerning the clearances was also made in the Financial Express.
If this is not true, that Tata does not possess the required permits, and with regard to an alleged violation as Mr. Naidoo states in his article that “documents obtained under the Right to Information Act show that the port is in violation of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980,” then it would seem that Greenpeace would have a “slam dunk” case in court. Greenpeace, instead of using the juvenile tactic of rhetorical protest via video game, could instead have taken a more direct path to stopping construction and sue Tata. Such legal action would be a more direct action in the protection of the turtle which would be won through the absence of proper permitting or through the violation of the Forest Conservation Act. But since Greenpeace doesn’t appear to be taking the legal path, then this would signal that Greenpeace thinks that the law is on the side of Tata’s construction.
Then, if the law is on the side of the Tata construction, and Tata is acting in a legal fashion, Greenpeace’s environmental argument is with the government, and not Tata. But this is not how Greenpeace operates. They use companies as “levers of embarrassment,” whether justified or not. Indeed in the above referenced Financial Express article about this case, Ashish Fernandez, the Greenpeace coordinator heading up the anti-Tata campaign:
explained that the game was an awareness-creating exercise that seeks to compel the government . . . to come up with environment-friendly projects. . . . He said the initiative was also to make an appeal to the ministry of environment and forests to come out with stricter guidelines on such projects.
So, according to the Greenpeace manager running this protest, the real target is the government, after all. The corporation is just a publicity vehicle to embarrass the government to act. This, of course, is the essence of private politics. Greenpeace does not like to take on governments. The government would be too strong of an opponent for Greenpeace, so instead they take the path of lesser resistance and target the weaker entity in the equation, a corporation with a reputation to uphold, which may be acting in a legal fashion. By holding a corporate reputation as hostage, Greenpeace seeks to coerce their chosen action, regardless of its validity, progressing the agenda of Greenpeace; an agenda which, by the way, is not democratically selected by the people it is intended to effect.
Such strategy indicates the weakness of the Greenpeace case.
Maybe the port endangers the turtle, maybe it doesn’t. I don’t know. The truth here is probably based more in emotion than in fact. I wouldn’t want the turtle to be harmed if Tata is wrong, but I also wouldn’t want the economy of India to be harmed if Greenpeace is wrong.
My point in this article is not that I am taking issue with the overall goal of Greenpeace. With what I am taking issue here is their strategy. And that is a strategy, rooted in rhetoric and not reason, which seeks to impose a will of the few over the lives of many. If Greenpeace is so certain that they are right, that their argument is for the good of the many, then they would have the confidence to drag Tata into court and sue for the construction to be stopped based on the law, not rhetoric.
Now, there’s one more point I would like to make before I draw this post to a close. Let’s get back to Mr. Naidoo’s assertion of “shrinking the democratic space” and “quashing open discussion.” When I read the Huffington Post article today, the comments section was closed and there were no comments showing. Where is the open discussion, Mr. Naidoo? However, unlike Mr. Naidoo’s Huffington Post article, I will publish any and all comments, as long as they are civil and “clean.” So, please feel free to have an open discussion below.
