A warm welcome in Dunedin for the Warrior
So much can happen in a week! It’s about that long since I wrote my last blog. In the meantime, you’ll have noticed the privilege was passed on to our web editor Nick, who joined the ship during its time in Lyttelton.
Now we are on our way into Dunedin. As I type, we’re sidling into port, with the albatross colony to our left and Port Chalmers to the right. Dunedin is as still and beautiful as I remember. And welcoming! I’m looking out the bridge windows and can see people along the harbour edge waving and even a group of children holding a rainbow banner. So we’re not public enemy number one everywhere after all!!
This relaxed and sunny entry into Dunedin bares little resemblance to the last 48 hours. As you’ll know from previous blogs, on Wednesday we carried out a direct action against a coal shipment in the Port of Lyttelton. In other words, we attempted to stop the ship (carrying up to 60,000 tonnes of Solid Energy export coal) from leaving port. We did this to highlight the double standards inherent in government policy that bans new fossil fuel generation for 10 years in New Zealand, but allows the export of increasing quantities of coal to other countries. A government which publicly aspires to being “carbon neutral” but is overseeing a planned expansion of mining and burning of coal here in New Zealand. The figures are quite staggering. The amount of coal we’re pulling out of the ground, burning for industrial processes and exporting is enough to make your skin crawl.
It was my first Greenpeace action; infact it was the first action for several people onboard. Greenpeace has built its reputation on taking no prisoners when it comes to environmental issues, and it was amazing to finally be part of this sure and unapologetic stance.
The action played out over about four hours, and involved pilot boats, tug boats, charter boats, our boat, inflatable boats, far too many police, over 100 spectators on the Port Hills above the harbour, quick decision-making, lots of adrenalin and pretty much every main media outlet in the country.
My colleague, who was onshore, said a man came to the Port Hills viewing spot, carrying his son on his shoulders. As they stood looking at the action unfolding below with the Rainbow Warrior, police boat and coal ship, he said:
“see the green boat, they’re the goodies. See the blue boat, that’s the bad guys, and see the big black boat, those are the really really bad guys.”
Good to know that boy will grow up with the correct perceptions!
We did not end up blocking the shipment for long enough to stop it leaving on the high tide. But we did manage to draw attention to a major problem that we, as New Zealanders, are responsible for. At a time when climate change demands we all reduce emissions, there is no way more and more of these coal laden shipments should be leaving this port.
Media coverage of the activity was extensive, and ongoing. As soon as we arrived in Dunedin, we had the local paper, TV and radio stations at the gangplank and on the phone, wanting interviews.
Unfortunately, in some of the media coverage, police hyperbole got in the way of more extensive debate about where we’re going with climate change in New Zealand. Somewhat predictably, Christchurch police said we had “tied up” their resources, leaving them with insufficient staff to responds to other call outs. Our response to this is simple. We cannot be held responsible for police staffing decisions. It is their prerogative what they do with their resources. For 30 years now Greenpeace have been peacefully protesting, and causing no physical harm to anyone. Police know this. If they choose to put 30 men on a peaceful action against an environmental wrong, leaving them ill-equipped to deal with other things, then that’s their call. Why police would prioritise getting a bulk shipment of coal to market on time over central city crime is not for Greenpeace to answer.
The Climate Change Minister’s response to the action was equally as pitiful. He said his government has no plans to stop coal exports, and that even if they did, it wouldn’t help climate change, because the countries we export to would simply source their coal elsewhere. To justify doing something wrong by saying that if you don’t, others will, is simply immoral. It could be used to justify anything from drug dealing to child slavery. Moreover, it is crucial New Zealand plays a leadership role in the fight against climate change. If a country like NZ announced that in response to the threat of climate change it was capping coal exports, it would send an extremely powerful signal to the rest of the world that developed countries were prepared to take real action. It would be a signal as powerful as that sent when NZ banned nuclear-powered warships in the 1980s and reinvigorated the peace movement.
We’re proud of what we did on Wednesday and (despite calls from the editorial pages of some major daily newspapers today!) we will never stop pushing the envelope if it means the planet survives.
Related posts
Email This Post
I’m sorry but now you’ve just swung over into the realms of media spin. I mean come on, why write stuff such as this:
My colleague, who was onshore, said a man came to the Port Hills viewing spot, carrying his son on his shoulders. As they stood looking at the action unfolding below with the Rainbow Warrior, police boat and coal ship, he said: “see the green boat, they’re the goodies. See the blue boat, that’s the bad guys, and see the big black boat, those are the really really bad guys.” Good to know that boy will grow up with the correct perceptions!
Nice to know that you think the police/harbour should be portrayed as baddies! As I have noted elsewhere, GP would be the first to criticise the police if they were to allow a GP protester to be assaulted.
Which brings me to my next point. Police hyperbole? As I have pointed out before, it is possible that the police reacted in the way they did because they feared that the situation could get out of hand (GP protesters have been assaulted before, and GP supporters – not trained activists – have been known to cross the line too). Let’s not forget your “peaceful protest” did involve the potentiality of danger and injury to people (and not just GP activists). Perhaps this is worthy of consideration?
Indeed, let’s also not forget that GP activists have been grateful for police protection in tha past: http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/forests/greenpeace-activists-held-captive-in-the-amazon-20071018
Again, I’m a supporter of GP ideals, but I have to admit I am rather concerned about the spin doctoring and showboating that GP is currently involved in.
I am happy to discuss this at length, but let’s do it without the spin eh? GP is bigger than that.
.
dude, you must be really board ay. of coarse they are not ungrateful for police. i think your raising stupid questions that don’t stand up to the more immediate problem of climate change and what we’re going to do about it.
While I agree that the Police and port authority are certainly not the bad guys, the amount of police resources allocated is certainly questionable.
GP has a long and well-known history of peaceful protest, and while the new security measures at the port may require a significant police presence when there is an incident, why 30 officers would be assigned to the incident leaving just one to respond to a callout such as the one at Cahill mall is beyond me. I have a long family history of policing and as an operational decision putting so many eggs in one basket is just bizarre. Why not have 25 on hand at the port and leave the other five back at headquarters on call, ready to respond to other call outs or to the protest if something had happened?
Why police would – apparently significantly – prioritise getting a government shipment of coal out on time over city policing is curious. Even if they did fear things had a potential to get out of hand, again this is an operational call and the fact that something may also get out of hand in the city would have to be taken into account, so leaving a threadbare force on patrol (as all the media has been insinuating) remains a questionable call.
From what I hear the police and protesters were very polite with each other, and several officers congratulated GP for its actions.
Spin doctoring and showboating is a rough accusation. I mean spin-doctoring? You mention in another post that GP has a “well oiled media not unlike that of coal companies etc”, what exactly is the problem here? Would you prefer GP be a loose association of hippy activists with no solid message? Would being less media savvy make GP more effective as an organisation working for social change?
GP needs to be strong on media and messaging as it is facing off against high-polluting companies pouring millions into PR every year, and doing it in an environment that is absolute saturated when it comes to media. To not be strong when it comes to media would be a disservice to its supports.
And how exactly is GP showboating? Is drawing attention to government hypocrisy showboating? How is hanging a banner off a boat shipping coal that much different to hanging a banner from a coal power station? Is chasing the Japanese whaling fleet showboating? Or is that OK because everyone is cool with saving the whales. Should GP not be calling attention to Solid Energy’s push to expand the incredibly dirty and environmentally damaging coal industry?
As for the peaceful protest involving “the potentiality of danger and injury to people (and not just GP activists)”, if you own one, every time you get in your car you there is a “potential danger of injury” to yourself an others. Every time you or someone near you lights up a cigarette there is a potential danger. You might as well criticise those organising the cycling event Critical Mass for putting participants at potential risk for riding their bikes on public roads to highlight their ‘bikes are better than cars’ environmental message. Those directly involved in the protest were obviously aware of any risks. The police face bigger risks every day while on the job, and accept it as part of their profession. And the workers on the boat? The most risky thing they did or were likely to do was hose the protesters from the deck.
The action was non-violent and I would say the chance of injury was low, swimming outside of the flags/riding a pushbike in the city/skiing on a busy slope low, that any argument trying to claim otherwise has no merit.
I’m sure Kathy was referring to the young boys’ perception of Greenpeace vs. the coal merchants and overlooked the police in the equation. We all agree that the police were just doing their job – a little over zealously perhaps but still just doing what they’re paid to do.
Jo,
Now that was a useful reponse. I suggest you re-read what I have been saying, maybe then you’ll get my point.
Nick,
Really? Do you know that for a fact? The goodie/baddie thing seems quite clear.
Greg,
Fair points. Spin doctoring can be defeated by facts. I’m disturbed the GP seems to falling sown the slippery slope towards slick media messages that a designed pluck at emotions rather than actually deal with the facts. Just because the otherside does it doesn’t mean that GP should.
As to showboating. First, I do believe some of the acts committed in the southern seas this year (not by GP) were showboating. When you’re doing this dramatic little pieces designed for media attention and little else then I question the value. Especially if you endanger people.
Its showboating when a groups becomes more concerned with committing showy media pieces than actually educating. Sure you can say “we’re drawing people’s attention to X”, but does it really work or does it si mply dilute the message because people write the protesters of as left-wing nutjobs who have no respect for other people’s rights etc? I repeated, my concern is such acts is the damage they do the movement. Still, what do I know eh?
Your potential danger response is what I expected. You are, and let’s be honest, comparing apples and oranges. Sure, everytime I get out of bed I’m in danger. But the level of danger to me and others is vastly different from bolting myself to a ship and requiring someone to remove me. I think that is worthy of consideration.
I still question the non-violent description of direction action, as, at times, the actions either do raise the possibility of endangerment for individuals or actively invite (and, one might argue), want a violent response (thereby allowing the claiming of moral highground). Moreover, GP has stated that it “embraces the principle of non-violence, rejecting attacks on either people or property” that action the other day, was, no matter how it is spun, an attack on property. Some might even argue it was an attack on people do (GP stopped individuals from working etc). Again, we can talk about this.
I want to end, once again, by stating I support GP’s objectives – including on climate change. Now, I am sure some will disbelieve me because I have dared to question actions and that is their right. However, if GP is all that it says it is, then it should welcome such discussions.
Here here Greg
Oh my Oki you are everywhere on here – its getting boring boring boring
Boring maybe, yet no one is willing to engage my point. Ummmmmmm, that says a lot.
I think I’ve engaged your point already. Those in direct participation are obviously fully aware of the risks, and I have no doubt every safety precaution possible was taken by both sides. While the action may look dangerous, I would not put it above, say, sitting atop of a tripod during a protest against logging, hanging a banner from a coal power plant or playing cat and mouse with a whaling fleet in the arctic.
Risk != Violence.
I think the action was well within the boundaries of what GP stands for.
Greg,
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. I do remain concerned, however, by the damage some of these actions might be doing to GP’s support base.
I think we just need a little patience with Oki on this….