Skip to main content

View Diary: How Shell is trying to send a chill through activist groups across the country (175 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not exactly. The injunction (17+ / 0-)
    barred Greenpeace from:
    a. Breaking into or trespassing on [specified] vessels;
    b. Tortiously or illegally interfering with the
    operation, movement or progress of [specified]
    c. Barricading, blocking, or preventing access to or
    egress from [specified] vessels;
    d. Tortiously or illegally endangering or threatening
    any employee, contractor or visitor of Shell or any
    of its affiliates who is present on, or as they enter
    or exit, [specified] vessels
    Wouldn't B encompass any activity that could be construed to interfere with the "progress" or "operation" of the specified ships, e.g., protests at the company's  headquarters that kept their people from going to work?

    Wouldn't "C" be a subjective opinion (e.g, "I feel threatened!") subject to just about any type of behavior the protesters could come up with? And if it needs to be "tortious," how can a protester be guided by what is  or is not tortious, if it's undefined?

    In other words, is an injunction against "tortious interference" with business or "tortious endangerment or threatening" appropriate where the tort is undefined and hasn't even occurred?

    •  Correct. (5+ / 0-)

      The norm for tortious acts is that offenders are sued.

      Preventive arrest is normally done only for criminal acts.

      This ruling turns that on its head.

      Further, it's completely one-sided. The flip would be preventive arrests of Shell executives, to prevent them from polluting the Arctic. We all know how likely that is.

      "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

      by nosleep4u on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 01:12:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No. Read the opinion. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib, CalGal47

        The reason these illegal and tortious acts merited an injunction was because of irreparable harm -- someone could be hurt or killed as a result of people forcing their way onto these vessels or rigs, and that is what can't be adequately compensated with money. In order to get an injunction, you have to show a likelihood of irreparable harm of the other side does the illegal or tortious thing.  Here's what the Court said:  

        2. Likelihood of Irreparable Harm

        The district court concluded that Shell demonstrated a
        likelihood of irreparable harm absent injunctive relief because “illegal or tortious efforts to board or interfere with [its] vessels would be likely to present unacceptable risks to human life, property and the environment.” Shell Offshore, 864 F. Supp. 2d at 851 (internal quotation marks omitted). In  support of these findings, the court considered evidence that actions of the sort undertaken by Greenpeace activists against Shell vessels in New Zealand, Finland, and Greenland pose risks to the safetyof activists and vessel occupants alike. The court also found – and Greenpeace USA does not dispute – that “if Greenpeace USA successfully disrupted Shell’s operation, calculating the amount of economic harm would be very difficult.” Id.
        Greenpeace USA offers nothing beyond conclusory
        statements and case summaries in support of its one-sentence argument that the “likelihood of future injury is speculative and cannot be based on matters that occurred in 1997, or that 8 involved entities that are not Greenpeace USA.” The record provides ample support for the conclusion that Greenpeace USA has either undertaken directly, or embraced as its own, tactics that include forcible e boarding of vessels at sea and the use of human beings as impediments to drilling operations. We find  it too plain for debate that such tactics at minimum pose a serious risk of harm to human life, particularly if attempted in the extreme conditions of the Arctic Ocean, and that such harm could find no adequate remedy at law.

        •  As if there's no likelihood of harm by the (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          samanthab, burlydee, KenBee, Tonedevil

          Rigs and the vessels and the oil on people or the planet.

          This is the sick and twisted thinking of people who work so closely in establishment circles that they are compromised both not being able or inclined to see the lunacy of these situations.

          Add the median effective tax rate, healthcare costs (20%?), education costs, and other things guaranteed in Denmark & Sweden, we pay MORE for LESS. Somebody's gotta pay the billionaires. They don't grow on trees. ☮ ♥ ☺

          by Words In Action on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 03:49:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Hilarious. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Show me an injunction against Shell destroying the planet, they maybe you've got half an argument.

          "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

          by nosleep4u on Wed Jun 19, 2013 at 01:54:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site