Last week, FoodNavigator.com reported that Greenpeace Australia/Pacific’s Sydney (Australia) headquarters were raided by police as a result of the destruction of a genetically-modified (GM) trial at a CSIRO farm in Canberra, Australia.
In the article, Greenpeace activists are said to have scaled a fence at the farm and to have destroyed over $300,000 worth of GM wheat. A CSIRO spokesman reported that the action has set back the program by about one year.
Although Greenpeace activists have not yet been officially linked to the incident, FoodNavigator.com reports that a Greenpeace spokesperson seemingly publicly admitted to the attack by saying, “Greenpeace always stands up and takes responsibility for its actions . . . We’re proud of bringing the significant threats associated with GM wheat out into the open, and we always cooperate fully with the police.”
Greenpeace positions itself as a non-violent organization. Should Greenpeace be conclusively and judicially linked to these attacks, it will be interesting to see how Greenpeace maintains its claim that they are non-violent. Indeed, on the Greenpeace Web site they state in their “Core Values” section that the organization uses non-violent means to further its message.
Should they be convicted of the damage reported above, they would not be able to maintain their non-violent claim given that Webster’s New World Dictionary defines “violence” as: ”physical force used so as to injure, damage, or destroy; unjust or callous use of force or power, as in violating another’s rights.”
Any destruction of property, especially when that destruction is unilaterally demanded, fits this definition. And given this definition (which appears similarly in other dictionaries), it will be extremely difficult for Greenpeace to defend its non-violent status should the organization be judicially connected to this incident.
