Oliver Knowles, Oceans Campaigner, Greenpeace International, Amsterdam
Greenpeace intervention was peaceful
The editorial No Place For Fishing Wars (June 29) asserts that Greenpeace has been taking violent action to stop tuna fishing in the Mediterranean. This is not the case. Our actions were entirely peaceful and safe, and given the dire state of bluefin tuna stocks and the repeated failure of our elected politicians to bring this environmental crisis under control, we believe entirely justified. We should not forget that over 80 per cent of the stock of bluefin tuna has already been fished out, lost to our oceans forever.
Greenpeace took peaceful direct action this fishing season to try and set bluefin tuna free from fishermen's nets so that these increasingly depleted fish could be returned to the wild.
We took every care to ensure that our actions did not harm the fishermen. This cannot be said of the fishermen's actions: one of our activists was seriously injured and spent four days in hospital as a direct result of the violent response shown to us by French tuna fishermen.
Several activists reported seeing fishermen armed with knives and other weapons. Two of our inflatable boats were sunk when they were slashed open by fishermen using large blades and a purse seiner rammed an immobilised inflatable with people still on it. On another occasion, a Maltese fishing vessel attempted to sail over one of our inflatables at full speed.
Greenpeace has offered full cooperation in any inquiry into the events that unfolded on the international waters south of Malta this summer. We will be asking the French prosecutor to investigate the conduct of French fishermen in particular. Greenpeace has a history of over 40 years of intervening peacefully to stop environmental destruction where it happens - our recent interventions in the Mediterranean have been no exception to this commitment to non-violence.
The real failing in the bluefin tuna story is a political one. For years, scientists have been warning about the dramatic declines in bluefin tuna stocks but our politicians have repeatedly failed to take adequate action to reverse the damage. Each year, the hunt for the ever-dwindling bluefin tuna is allowed to resume. This year, Greenpeace decided to act where our politicians have not.
Greenpeace is not opposed to fishing. On the contrary, we want to see proper protection for our marine environment and fishing that is truly sustainable. European governments should make every effort to ensure that fishermen are properly supported in the transition to sustainable fishing.
Our hope is that in the coming months European politicians will take the decisive action needed to save the bluefin tuna by closing the fishery. Only then will this species be given the chance to recover.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
13 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
mohammed najjar
Jul 2nd 2010, 09:47
Greenpeace's invtervention should be targeted to help people who are starving in the sieged Gaza Strip. Does Greenpeace fear Israel? Or they only justify environmental issues 'Tuna Fishing'. I believe Greenpeace is 'Fishing in Troubled Waters of the Mediterranean'!
oliver mallia
Jul 1st 2010, 21:50
@ Joseph Micallef
Ok see it this way, I am against the project of Renzo Piano and Bella compania. In my opinion the theatre is going fake etc.. like a big aquarium. Although more than 200 artists (one of them world wide) had objected the theatre plans. They were ignored and the project will carry on. So now I join a group and start vandalising this project? That’s what Greenpeace are doing!
Franco Farrugia
Jul 2nd 2010, 11:37
You ar wrong and your logic is warped.
Johnny Xerri
Jul 3rd 2010, 11:06
Lets say its warped, its at least less warped than taking the law into your own hands....remember your comment about the LSA....and how greenpeace take the law into their own hands.
Lets compare like with like dear Mr Farrugia,
If I am pro human life, can I go and vandalise abortion clinics?
No because they are perfectly legal. Not moral, but legal.
Same with the tuna issue. They are perfectly legal. They may not be moral to you and your ilk, but they are perfectly legal.
oliver mallia
Jul 1st 2010, 17:26
To Oliver from Oliver,
Your and your team has lost fait and credibility. On the 15th the fishing season had closed for the Maltese and still opened for our competitors of Libya. If Greenpeace is smart, act with Libya same as you have acted with the others. If not, this is discrimination. About 1 year ago, similar act had happened at Marsaxlokk on a fishing boat and your team ended up swimming. Greenpeace acts violent, so what you pretend flowers? Imagine my self, goes to a Labour Party mass meeting wearing a PN costume and carrying a PN flag what will happened to me? Will it be my fault?
Joseph Micallef
Jul 1st 2010, 20:10
Oliver your comparison simply makes you lose all your argument. I have a right to wear whatever I want even if it is something that does not please the majority! - If I am attacked because I am wearing a PN costume (or vice versa) at a PL metting, then those who attack me are at fault NOT ME!
Franco Farrugia
Jul 1st 2010, 22:36
@ Joseph Micallef: You are wrong and Mr Oliver Mallia is right. This is the Maltese mentality. This is the way we run things here and this is the way we think things out. I am being sarcastic, of course. So, on the one hand we are screaming in favor of the rule of law; on the other hand ... we have Oliver Mallia! U leeeeeee!
Demis Paul Scerri
Jul 1st 2010, 11:28
Oliver, please just shut up!
J Brownie
Jul 1st 2010, 17:47
Greenpeace conducts operations to save the planets' fast dwindling natural resources - future generations should be thankful to this orgainsations if anything remains until then - by having Greenpeace shutting up its mouth it will be truly commiting a disservice to these generations - so please don't be an accomplice to deny my kids and everyone's a better and healthier environmental future - that is called sustainability.
If you have ever went and enjoyed a nice day at the Buskett woodland it's because someone before you took care to create a small woodland , and which he had probably did not have time to enjoy during his lifetime - yes for someone like you, who are asking decent people to shut up
john fenech
Jul 1st 2010, 10:49
If the fisherman’s activities were in line with the EU regulations regarding fishing quality and quantity than the actions of the Greenpeace were illegal and dangerous to themselves and others.
Although Greenpeace do not see eye to eye with the politicians they must not take the law into their hands, otherwise those who are observing the law have to also defend their rights – in this case their right to a job – their right for a adequate living.
Louis J. Saliba
Jul 1st 2010, 10:49
Who is Oliver Knowles trying to fool?
Since when has the wilful destruction of other peoples' property become "peaceful"? Not only that, but the real victims (in this case the fishermen) are described as agressors because they took the only action possible to protect their property.
What a number of people appear to be unable to understand is that private organizations such as Greenpeace have no official standing whatsoever. They have no right either to interfere in other peoples' affairs, or to demand inspection of third party premises or property. If they disagree with anything, they should resort to the proper authorities.
The problem lies in the fact that some of these private organizations have degenerated into gangs of hooligans who use the environment as an excuse to justify their illegal activities. This situation should no longer be tolerated, and official action taken to ensure that such activities be stopped.
Franco Farrugia
Jul 1st 2010, 13:10
Greenpeace are very important in safeguarding the natural environment. Read about it.
James Turner
Jul 1st 2010, 14:20
you must be truly joking. Try to refresh your memory.