Greenpeace under attack, denied Miami berth, sued in court, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
Topic started on 16-10-2003 @ 01:03 PM by kukla
The administration doesn't take kindly to rabble-rousers and seem to have set their sights on Greenpeace. I may not always agree with Greenpeace tactics but their frequent exercise of 1st ammendment rights, should always be supported and appreciated. But now under the scrutiny of the administration, attempts are being made to curtail Greenpeace's activities.

This is a discouraging development as activists begin to prepare for the election cycle. What other 1st ammendment circumventions may they try?

The environmental activist group Greenpeace is accusing the Port of Miami-Dade of violating its free speech rights by refusing to grant dock space to one of its ships later this month.

Greenpeace applied for a one-week berth for its 237-foot vessel Esperanza, which is scheduled to reach Miami on Oct. 26. But Port Director Charles Towsley denied the request, citing security issues.

Greenpeace spokeswoman Nancy Hwa said the group believes it has been singled out because of its political perspective, which would be unconstitutional.


www.miami.com...

In court papers, the organization's lawyers warned that the prosecution "could significantly affect our nation's tradition of civil protest and civil disobedience, a tradition that has endured from the Boston Tea Party through the modern civil rights movement."

The group is charged with vi olating an obscure 1872 law intended for proprietors of boarding houses who preyed on sailors returning to port. It forbids the unauthorized boarding of "any vessel about to arrive at the place of her destination." The last court decision concerning the law, from 1890, said it was meant to prevent "sailor-mongers" from luring crews to boarding houses "by the help of intoxicants and the use of other means, often savoring of violence."


www.infoshop.org.../10/11/6854002


reply posted on 17-10-2003 @ 05:28 AM by ThePrankMonkey
Originally posted by insite
They may harbor a few eco-terrorists in their ranks, but does this mean that they should be denied a birth at the marina for fear that they'll lure sailors into the bowls of their ship with illicit "hemp?"

Sounds kind of stupid to me. Let the activists land! Don't like their tactics? Protest! Don't hide behind some 130 year old law that hasn't been used in 113 years


oh i dont know.....some people think a criminal toting a gun is enough to believe that ALL gun owners are criminals and that all guns should be banned. since this is mostly leftist thinking from the anti gun lobby why cant this same leftist logic be used on leftists???

i also fail to see how denying them berth is violating their freedom of speech. they can complain long and loud about being denied but its not a right to to want to park your ship anywhere you want. owning a boat is a priviledge, not a right. had it been a right it would have been specified in the constitution. thats like saying if i cant have the closest parking spot to the entrance of the stores i frequent i should be able to sue them for freedom of speech violations! its ludicrous. greenpeace does things to irritate people first, make a point second. while greenpeace has some good ideals those who actually implement them i have to give a second thought to. they're similar to peta, while they have this great idea that no animals should be harmed peta breaks the law and releases minks that wind up getting run over on a highway or get killed by predators in the immediate area. so while claiming to be protecting mother earth that chug around in a diesel powered ship. really good example that isnt it?

if they want to really make a point they should try leading by example and cut holes in the side of the ship so they can ROW it around and show the world they dont need solar panels to power thise ship (solar panels requires a factory to build them and that produces waste and garbage, not very enviromentally friendly is it?)

i'm not bashing greenpeace but i do question their actions 99% of the time. i question their REAL motives, not that crap they scream when the cameras show up, i want to know their true intentions for doing such things as i suspect their real motives and reasons dont exactly match up to what spew to the media.

now i dont agree with them leaning against some outdated law which in my mind doesnt seem to hold water but i also feel that they should be able to deny port to anyone they wish, its not a right to own a boat after all and its isnt stopping them from saying what they want, they're just stopping them from docking where they want.


i also find it most ironic that some people scream about their constitutional rights are being violated while wanting to take other constitutional rights away from others....its enough to make me want to puke laugh and cry all at the same time.

and denying berth isnt even close to the verichip or tattooing jews from WWII. that analogy is rather far fetched and somewhat offensive to me as jews suffered through real horrors. how is being denied berth a horror that even comes close to being tattooed or cooked in a oven? better yet dont answer it, the connection between the two is so distant its ridiculous.

owning a ship=not a right
docking your ship where ever you damn well please=also not a right

neither is covered under the constitution and their accusation that its because of their political beliefs maybe true but denying them berth doesnt prevent them from saying what they want, it just keeps their ship out of harbor.

boohoo! lets all shed a tear for the horribly opressed greenpeace. give me a break!
Pages:     ^^TOP^^