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.