Greenpeace having problems in India and NZ

June 24th, 2014 at 4:00 pm by David Farrar

The Hindu reports:

Following an Intelligence Bureau (IB) report that alleged foreign-funded NGOs were creating obstacles to India’s economic growth, the Home Ministry has clamped down on , an international campaign group present in 40 countries.

In a letter dated 13th June, the Ministry has directed the Reserve Bank of India that all foreign contributions originating from Greenpeace International and Climate Works Foundation — two principal international contributors to Greenpeace India Society — must be kept on hold until individual clearances are obtained from the Ministry for each transaction.

The RBI has been asked to direct banks to this effect. The central bank has also been asked to report to the government if any government department or institution is receiving such funds.

Greenpeace was specifically targeted because the IB report had charged it with orchestrating “massive efforts to take down India’s coal-fired power projects and mining activity.”

So Greenpeace India is funded by Greenpeace International? There are laws restricting the amount foreign companies can donate to NZ political parties. Should money from Greenpeace International be seen as a foreign election donation?

And they have problems in NZ also.  They had a website attacking Simon Bridges, which they have closed down as the Electoral Commission said it was an election advertisement that doesn’t have a promoter statement.  They could of course have simply stuck a promoter statement on the website, but I guess that would not help their court case where they claim to be a charity, not a lobby group.

Tags:

18 Responses to “Greenpeace having problems in India and NZ”

  1. DisgruntledOne (20 comments) says:

    “claim to be a charity, not a lobby group.”
    Does it have to be either or? I would describe them as a group which lobbies for charitable purposes.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 0 Thumb down 28 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. alloytoo (571 comments) says:

    I’d describe them as eco-terrorists who more often than not cause problems for legitimate conservation organisations.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 43 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Tarquin North (352 comments) says:

    The green taliban, no more no less. To even suggest they are a charity is incredibly naive.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. tas (641 comments) says:

    GreenPACe

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Akaroa (580 comments) says:

    I think Greenpeace long since lost their warm-fuzzy, “friends-of-the-earth-with-no-political-axe-to-grind” persona.

    They may have had some sort of genuine-caring-for-the- environment credentials years ago, but those days are long gone.

    I think what did it for me – (turning off Greenpeace i mean)- was the antics and outright life-threatening shenanigans they got up to some years ago in the Southern Ocean against some Whalers who were merely going about their lawful business.

    Oh, and a conversation I had in Wellington with one of their street coin collectors. It took about five seconds flat to establish that he was as red as they come. Couldn’t really make out whether he was a Commie or an Anarchist!

    No! Greenpeace in my book lines up with the Klu Klux Klan, the Provisional IRA and this latest bunch in Syria.

    Get thee hence Greenpeace!!

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Ross12 (1,453 comments) says:

    DisgruntledOne

    Yes it does have to be one or the other. When they went back to Court to get their charity status back they told the Court they would refrain from political lobbying if they got the status back. It appears they got it back so the website attacking Simon Bridges would, in my view, be at least contempt of court.
    ( I noticed when they took it down it was referred to as a hoax site by the tame MSM —yeah right !!)

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. All_on_Red (1,643 comments) says:

    That’s interesting Ross12
    If we saw them engaged in political lobbying, what could we do to get their status revoked? Do you complain to the Charities Commission?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Ross12 (1,453 comments) says:

    All_on_Red

    I’m not sure. I’m not a lawyer but I presume you would be right with your thinking that a complaint is the first step.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. All_on_Red (1,643 comments) says:

    Why do I get the feeling we will see an opportunity to pot them in the next few months. They won’t be able to help themselves. Judges don’t take kindly to being fooled either. I fucking hate them and they’re on my shit list so I’ll be keeping an eye out.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. gravedodger (1,567 comments) says:

    I wonder what the Electoral commission view would be on the two minute infomercial opposing drilling off Taranaki “That will threaten the last fifty five Mauis dolphins.” TV one News last night.
    Full on Jane Goodall fronted Green Party advertorial with no authentication or appropriate names displayed.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. greenjacket (481 comments) says:

    “the two minute infomercial opposing drilling off Taranaki “That will threaten the last fifty five Mauis dolphins.””

    And how many jobs in Taranaki does the Greenpeace action threaten?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. slijmbal (1,236 comments) says:

    @All_on_Red

    Issues with Charities are normally investigated by the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. peterwn (3,298 comments) says:

    I had thought that most Greenpeace money raised within NZ was remitted overseas. Even for charitable organisations as far as I know tax rebates are not available for funds raised for overseas work even if the organisation concerned has NZ charitable status (eg donations made via NZ churches for ‘overseas missions’). In NZ’s case I have wondered whether amounts remitted overseas by Greenpeace should be subject to a with-holding tax.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. insider (1,028 comments) says:

    Even more odd is that greenpeace claimed over the weekend that it was part of a ‘non partisan’ alliance lobbying for votes on climate change.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. 2boyz (263 comments) says:

    I see one of their executives commutes from Luxemburg to Amsterdam by plane for work (naughty CO2 emissions), bunch of self serving hypocrites. As for Lucy Lawless supporting them (enough said). I avoid them like the plague when in the CBD.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Nigel Kearney (1,047 comments) says:

    Charitable status and tax exempt status are not the same. I think the latter is the responsibility of the IRD.

    But please nobody try to get Greenpeace’s tax exempt status removed. Every time they open their mouths they make the five headed opposition monster seem even more extreme. And they would get considerable sympathy if the IRD went after them. Nobody likes the IRD. It’s analogous to the treatment the IRS in the US is currently getting for going after conservative groups.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Dave Mann (1,248 comments) says:

    I don’t avoid them when they are collecting. I get right in their smelly pathetic faces and tell them to fuck off. One day I took a complaint to Westfield against them, saying that they are a political lobby group who should not be allowed to harass shoppers. I don’t think my point was supported by the shopping centre, but I certainly made a point and if more citizens were publicly abusive towards these cunts, then the message might start to get through. If I was younger, I would seriously think about slapping some of these assholes just to start a debate. Like the Nazis in the’20s they feed off public apathy.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. G152 (385 comments) says:

    Full on Jane Goodall fronted Green Party advertorial with no authentication or appropriate names displayed.

    Well, shes an expert on Simians so who better to push the Greens barrow ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote