Is sadly what happens when a pro-whaling supporter incorrectly predicts the results of the majority of the important votes in advance of this years IWC meeting and now feeling foolish; lashes out at the environmental movement he dislikes so much.
(image courtesy of Wikipedia)
Readers unfamiliar with David@Tokyo's unique brand of anti-environmental invective, re-interpreting of media stories, IWMC / ICR propaganda and hypocrisy over the definition of trollish posting may wish to visit his blog (I have posted the link at the bottom of this article).
David is the second pro-whaling blogger to remove my input from his forum, the first - Isanatori, appears to have gone as far as discontinuing the English language version of his blog so that our discussion about the history/culture of industrial Japanese whaling or rather the lack of it would not be available to anyone looking for balanced debate.
This is the full, uncensored thread from David@Tokyo's blog (I have not bothered to use David's red highlights in the quoted article; since they merely present his bias. Readers can form their own opinions without such cheap tricks).
"IWC 2006: Greedy Greenpeace to cash in again"
Despite previously ruling out harrassing the ICR research programme in the Antarctic this next austral summer, Greenpeace has now done an about face, in an apparent attempts to cash in on powerful anti-whaling propaganda campaigns.
A few days ago a revealing article into the the organisation of Greenpeace appeared in the Australian media. Particularly revealing bits highlighted in red:
"Leading the good fight"
What do you do when your brand is your best asset, your organisation needs money, but your 'customers' have very high standards? Peter Weekes reports.
Steve Shallhorn is sitting tightly on a potential pot of gold that other chief executives can only fantasise about - a brand recognition for his business of more than 90 per cent.
However, unlike other CEOs, Mr Shallhorn has no intention of leveraging his brand to generate a regular and stable source of income. "Greenpeace Approved" tinned tuna will not be on the supermarket shelves any time soon, says the recently appointed head of the Australian Pacific arm of the multi-national activist organisation.
"If we went down that road we would have to be absolutely sure that the product is what we say it is all the time," Mr Shallhorn argues. "We figure the monitoring it would take to make sure the product is what we say it is is not worth the risk of damage to the brand."
Over its 30-odd years, Greenpeace has created its household name by doing everything from chasing down Japanese whalers in Antarctica to abseiling down skyscrapers to hang protest banners. In the process they have frustrated, annoyed and generally earned the wrath of most governments around the world, and the applause of supporters.
The chief executive of global brand consultant Interbrand, Sam Osborn, argues that commercialisation would not necessarily harm Greenpeace's brand, and would have an important upside by moving away from society's fringe and broadening public support.
"You have to measure the objectives they set themselves and the change in views of the broader public. They can keep doing what they are doing and get the support of the minority, but to get greater support some of those behaviours might need to change," he says.
"Commercialisation is an opportunity for them to become less ideological and more approachable and accessible. Their extremism, which may be viewed as an expression of the their passion for what they believe in, also disenfranchises broader support."
Osborn cites Oxfam, which has shed its political edge and runs 16 shops nationally. "It's kinda cool to buy a pair of non-sweatshop sneakers from Oxfam. Even though you pay a little bit more but you know you are doing something good for society."
Indeed, Greenpeace is so concerned about reputational risk and perceived conflicts of interest that it will not accept donations from governments or corporations. This leaves only one source of income to keep the organisation afloat and punching above its weight - donations and bequests from Joe and Josephine Public.
However, times are changing and the environmental activist market is becoming more fragmented, meaning Greenpeace no longer has a monopoly on green donations.
It is a testing time for the 50-year-old Canadian activist, who was appointed chief executive six-months ago, but he believes Greenpeace still has the edge over his competitors in what he describes as "collaborate rivalry" with each group agreeing to focus on their own particular issue.
"We all realise that there is a certain amount of competition when it comes to fund-raising but we all have our niches. Greenpeace has some advantage as we tend to be more activist-oriented so we retain people better than other organisations," he says, adding that many young people are attracted by the spectacular protests.
Still, he concedes it is costing more money to raise money due to a high turnover of volunteers. "Return on investment on direct dialogue has been in decline for last five years and a big part of that is the competition," he says.
Mr Shallhorn has taken the reins at Greenpeace Australia, which has stemmed the tide of supporters deserting the organisation. Last year, it expanded its supporter base by 7000 to about 117,000, after it had shrunk 17,720 the previous three years.
The new boss puts this down to a concerted recruitment drive and high-profile campaigns such as the anti-whaling action in the Antarctic that received widespread international coverage.
Shallhorn says the organisation is starting to think afresh for a very different world to when he was first headhunted by Greenpeace to work as a disarmament campaigner straight out of college in 1987.
Like any new CEO, one of Mr Shallhorn's first jobs was to run a review of the Australian organisation that has just merged with Fiji and Papua New Guinea, and develop a strategic business plan.
He says over the past few years a view has emerged that television images and centimetres in newspapers that their protests created was no longer enough to win environmental campaigns.
"We have a very high brand recognition," he says. "In most countries it's over 90 per cent, but we felt there was a need to reinvent the organisation, to move with the times."
"There was a feeling shared by most of the staff that we needed to change our tactics, that just doing the same old, same old was not having the same effect and was starting to be ignored by the media and the public. We also needed to get more people involved."
As most CEOs attempting to shift a business' culture will testify, it can be a hard slog. But Mr Shallhorn says implementing the review's changes has not met "too much resistance".
Among other things, the review called for mass-marketing activities (fund-raising) to help fund its ongoing campaigns after it reduced its operating income reserves to what Mr Shallhorn says is "a more appropriate level" of 21/2 months.
"It is one thing to get people to sign a petition against whaling, it is another thing to get them to agree to give you $25 a month to stop whaling.
"When people are out on the street with clipboards, campaigning, they are talking to people directly about Greenpeace, which is giving us a profile, as well as building support for our campaign," he says.
Last year Greenpeace Australia Pacific raised $14.98 million, up from $13.28 million the previous year. Citing independence, it accepts no donations from government or corporations.
About 90 per cent of the funds come from supporters who have set up direct-debit accounts. This has sustained the Australian operation and finances other international campaigns.
A true "company man", before arriving in Australia, Mr Shallhorn had a short stint as head of Greenpeace Japan. In 1993, he was involved in action that led to a significant global treaty banning the dumping of nuclear waste at sea, and more recently he fought against illegal logging of the Great Bear Rainforest in British Columbia in his native Canada.
"I have the benefit of my skills and experience as a Greenpeace activist to bring to senior management. I have been in all sorts of campaign situations in many different countries. This allows me to anticipate campaign needs and ensure that the organisation is in the best position to support campaigns," he says.
Shallhorn himself is a veteran campaigner. He vividly recalls being held by a squad of Soviet soldiers who boarded his boat during a Greenpeace action he was leading against secret nuclear tests near the islands of Novaya Zemlya in the Soviet High Arctic during the Cold War in 1990.
The soldiers used a battering ram to break down the door of the radio room where Mr Shallhorn and a couple of others were hiding. Unknown to the Soviets at the time, it was broadcast live around the world and became the last time the Soviets tested the devices.
Mr Shallhorn laughs good-heartedly when asked how you manage a not-for-profit activist multimillion-dollar operation made up of necessarily overtly opinionated staff and volunteers - something not often encountered in the for-profit sector.
"I am a very firm believer in participatory management, but, yes, I am the boss and at the end of the day, Greenpeace is a hierarchical organisation, not a democratic organisation. I am responsible for all aspects of the organisation.
"The participatory management is: I go and ask people or my senior managers go and ask people who are actually doing the work. Sometimes that can take a little bit longer but I make better decisions."
Mr Shallhorn says he will measure the success of his time in the job on three criteria: the number of supporters, fund-raising success and political change.What business does a non-democractically elected, heirarchical organisation have attempting to achieve political change?
And why is whether conservation objectives achieved or not, not a measure of his time in the job?
The IWC will do well to revoke Greenpeace's observer status this Tuesday in St Kitts.
posted by David at 4:19 AM on Jun 18 2006
Very interesting, that article, David.
If only people could realize that Greenpeace have much interests in spreading misleading informations about whaling and other so-called conservation issues.
Environmentalism has well become a prolific business. That's sure.
It is clearly : "Give money to Greenpeace, and you'll be in peace with your consciousness about the environment".
I wonder how much money Shallhorn is making a month...We'll certainly never know, but he's no volunteer, that's for sure.
Yes, it really confirms everything we hear about Greenpeace.
Their interests in misleading people are clearly exposed, by their own leader.
By the way, have you read Eugene Lapointe's book "Embracing the Earth's Wild Resources"? If you are interested in more information about the "environmental" confidence scam that Greenpeace represents, it should be an interesting read :-)
You can order it from http://www.iwmc.org
See you later!
Here is my post, which David chose to delete -
Would that be well known 'environmental' scam artist Eugene Lapointe, president of IWMC, the pseudo conservation organisation that could not survive on contributions from members, so relies on lobbying for bear bile farming, whaling, shark finning etc. to generate cash from governments and globalised big business.
I wonder how much money Mr Lapointe is making a month...We'll certainly never know, but he's no volunteer, that's for sure. :-)
Indeed IWMC is now so greedy for funds it is ignoring the fact that it is supposed to be an 'environmental' organisation and openly appealing to proto-fascists of the NRA persuasion, by lobbying for pro hand gun legislation.http://www.iwmc.org/IWMC-Forum/JamesSwan/060129.htm
It really confirms everything we hear about IWMC. Their interests in misleading people are clearly exposed, by their own website. :-)
Nice to see Isanatori-san has sorted out the 'technical problems' with his blog. Disapointing but predictable to see that it is now only available in French, so that he could remove our interesting debate on whaling and its history, which he clearly felt was causing him unacceptable 'loss of face'?
- Lamna nasus
Your post is deleted because you are posting verifiable lies.
I will no longer tolerate such nonsense.
David partially censored my next post which was so short I did not bother to keep a copy of it. David reproduced the first part, what followed was merely the observation that since David personally indulges in direct insults and misrepresentations about individuals, politicians, NGOs and governments and also tolerates tirades of invective by Anonymous pro whaling contributors against specific targets; it was a bit rich to start censoring posts merely because he did not approve of their content, since there is no basis for his accusation of 'lies'.
From Lamna Nasus:
"Readers who do not agree with censorship and wish to read the deleted post may do so at my blog -
Readers are welcome to visit Lamna Nasus' page.
But I don't have time to repeatedly debunk the same lies over and over, and you have repeatedly shown that you have no credibility.
I've already taken up the lies you posted with Ann previously, as she made the same statements herself originally (perhaps that is where you got it from). Ann agreed with me that it was a mistake. Maybe Ann will visit your homepage and confirm to you that you were regurgitating lies.
Thus, if you want to continue to post nonsense anyway, you rightly should make like Paul Watson and do it on your own page, so I congratulate you. I have no problems in permitting the above link to your page for readers who have LOTS of free time on their hands.
I will continue to delete any objectionable parts of your posts at my own descretion until you acknowledge the lie that you posted here.
It is simply not acceptable to attribute positions to people that are clearly inaccurate.
That lowers the level of the type of debate that I wish to foster here. Drop your ad hominems and participate like a grown-up instead of a troll and you may find your comments are let stand as they were posted.
I should note that I've never had to delete any of Ann's posts
I'd like to note that I just visited your blog - couldn't find the lies you said you would repeat (perhaps you thought better of it), but I did see this choice comment:
"I will edit offensive material,
moderator's judgement is final! :-)"
Interesting that you criticise me for editing your lies-ridden post, yet are more than happy to do so at your own blog.
Your presence is not welcome here, but I'm glad it is so easy to show that you have no integrity at all.
That comment was from
by the way.
David censored all of my next post except one sentence, so here is the full version -
'I'd like to note that I just visited your blog - couldn't find the lies you said you would repeat'
Really thats odd because the post is there and I remember you telling me in the past that if I could not find my way round a blog perhaps I would be better off working in a fast food outlet if indeed that wasn't too challenging.
Interesting how you can throw ad hominem insults around (not least about people who work for fast foood outlets) but not regard it as trollish behaviour.
Of course you posting -
'You Greenpeace guys are filthy greedy devils.Tricking people into wanting to give their hard earned money to you is just downright dishonest.You disgust me......donating you scum money....You disgust me, you conman... '
on the Greenpeace USA discussion board was also non-trollish reasoned debate. :-)
Indeed it would be possible to put together a rather long list of your blog's ad hominem insults about politicians, governments, NGOs and individuals except the final result I fear would look very...trollish.
Odd that you repeating unpublished ICR data is debate but my repeating anti-commercial whaling data from a wide range of sources including the IWC and sources you have cited is 'repeating the same lies over and over'.
The warning on my blog about offensive material is perfectly reasonable and conforms with the Precautionary Principle, I have seen some of the primitive hate material posted by anti-environmentalists on environmental discussion boards.
Which fact about the IWMC did you believe inaccurate and why? -
The fact that they cannot rely on membership donations to remain solvent?
The fact that they are funded by governments and corporations to greenwash cetain agendas?
The fact that they have dedicated a page to the pro handgun lobby on their website?
The fact that their financial details are not transparent?
Free speech can be so very inconvenient but now you have summoned the courage to justify your illiberal censorship to yourself, I'm sure you will find it extremely useful in the future.
You have to admit the second time was so much easier than the first and the second post merely listed my blog and the evils of censorship of debate.
It will be so much easier to avoid debate or insult me now, simply by restricting my unwelcome right of reply.....just say it was 'lies' everytime. Easy isn't it eh?
You will of course be able to 'justify' all this by saying that you never have to censor Ann........oh, you already did.
- Lamna nasus
> Which fact about the IWMC did you believe inaccurate and why? -
Read what you wrote again (it's at your blog). Then justify every single one of those "facts" you stated about the IWMC with evidence.
You will not be able to do so, because your post included verifiably false information. Ann and I discussed the lies for which your post was deleted. When I showed counter-evidence to Ann previously, she agreed that her attribution of the position in question was not correct. You have either failed to see this exchange, or you ignored it.
You are welcome to search the comments on my blog (on your own time) to find it.
I simply refuse to deal with such nonsense more than once. If you would grow up and actually not post verifiable lies, you'll not find your posts getting deleted. Behave like an adult - simple as that. I'm looking for discussion here, not endless tirades of nonsensical abuse.
In the meantime, until you show that you have some integrity by acknowledging the verifiable lies that you have posted with regards to IWMC, you are banned indefinitely, and you are also banned without further response. I simply don't have time to waste on you, if this is the way you intend to behave. My time is better spent on people with integrity. It is not my goal to communicate with those people who demonstrate that they have no integrity.
Why is David so upset about my comments about IWMC? Well it appears that Eugene Lapointe and his organisation are something of a touchstone for David and indeed many adherents of the discredited 'sustainable development' theory.
The IWMC is a greenwashing lobby organisation which has recently decided to broaden its scope by appealing to the gun lobby in the USA, a very valuable source of revenue, just ask the NRA.
On the IWMC website there is an 'IWMC Forum' –
This forum claims - ’The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by the various authors and participants in the IWMC Internet Forum do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of IWMC.org or official policies of IWMC World Conservation Trust.’
However since the only way to be published on the forum is via IWMC and since the forum specifically states it is only for ‘friends and supporters’ clearly anything published has the approval of the IWMC –
So when in June 2006 the article mentioned below was given headline billing on IWMC’s homepage, any suggestion that it is not IWMCs express intention to raise its profile with the pro-gun lobby is laughable.
'Why gun bans don’t work…and what to do. However well-intentioned, gun bans are likely to get the opposite results of what they are intended to achieve. To stop them, the shooting/hunting community needs to get pro-active.'
By James A. Swan, Ph.D.
Author of "In Defense of Hunting"
It is worth noting that using its usual political spin, the IWMC is making a link to 'hunting' to justify this new angle. However since the majority of the article concerns itself with hand guns in San Francisco........
I had a particularly good laugh at this piece of historical revisionism -
'The well-armed Swiss militia dissuaded the Nazis from invading in World War II'
The combined might of the Wehrmacht and the Luftwaffe was deterred by some well armed Swiss policemen?! RAOTFLMAO.
So thats the gun part of my comments about the IWMC covered, now for the rest.
The IWMC's president Eugene Lapointe is a former CITES dismissed Secretary General.
Lapointe (a French Canadian lawyer) was fired from CITES in 1990 after being found campaigning against a ban on the ivory trade.
In a very strange postscript to this sacking, a tribunal of three people awarded financial compensation to Lapointe for a 'capricious and abitrary' dismissal; yet Lapointe was not re-instated.
It would be extremely interesting to locate more information on this tribunal but Lapointe appears to be the only person on record regarding its findings.
In his book, "Embracing the Earth's Wild Resources" Lapointe notes that an official at the US State Department when asked about the campaign to remove Lapointe from office commented "Our actions were motivated by the necessity of protecting valuable species such as elephants, whales..."
Well DAH! Lapointe was abusing his position as Secretary General of CITES, an organisation designed to protect endangered species in order to exploit them!
Lapointe now advises Japan, Norway, China and Canada and many industries on how to legally avoid animal trade legislation.
His organisation actively supports Whaling, Sealing, the Ivory trade and Shark finning; as listed on the IWMC website
Lapointe admits that he has been at the forefront of resistance to eliminate the secret ballot in CITES. Despite the fact that a secret ballot is beneficial in protecting the man on the street during elections; it is open to huge abuse in international political organisations where transparency becomes a much more important issue. After all if the scientific argument for 'sustainable development' is so incontravertable there is no reason for any nation to vote for it in secret.
Since Lapointe is a an Ex Secretary General of CITES, you would expect his organisation to demonstrate a mature and statesmanlike approach to politics? In which case you would expect wrong! :o)
MOST TIRESOME SPEAKER New Zealand's didactic Commissioner Sir Geoffrey Palmer. Blah blah blah.
IWMC intends to do its part to see that the obstructionist tactics of do-nothing delegations and their NGO colleagues do not carry this or any other day.
- IWMC, 2003
You might also expect the IWMC to be in favour of scientific research to back 'sustainable development'? Wrong again I'm afraid! -
The United States plan to research its bowhead stock structure, thereby delaying any tough decisions on its quota for years.
- IWMC, 2004
Although funding details for the IWMC are far from easy to come by, IWMC receives some funding from the World Conservation Trust Foundation.
WCTF is a corporation registered in Canada
WCTF's President is...Eugene Lapointe.
Lapointe is on record as saying IWMC funding comes from Japan, Norway, China, Canada, and "two small European countries."
Oslo Dagbladet reported on 24 May 2000: "Before the CITES meeting in Nairobi on the trade in endangered species in April, the Ministry of Fisheries and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs gave large sums of money to Norwegian and foreign lobby organizations in order to ensure a majority for commercial whaling. Some of the lobbyists have very dubious reputations."
"IWMC, an American organization with a questionable reputation and strong economic interests, received 50,000 Norwegian kroner ($6,250) from the Ministry of Fisheries," the newspaper stated. A March 2000 letter from the ministry to IWMC head Eugene Lapointe stated that the government funds were "to carry out activities related to CITES COP 11 and IWC 52 as described in your application to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Support from other Norwegian sources will be allocated separately."
Eugene Lapointe is also on the National Advisory Board of the National Wilderness Institute, some of the funding sources for this organisation will give readers an idea of the sort of corporation sources likely to be contributing funds to the WCTF and the IWMC.
National Wilderness Institute Foundation Grants -
Mobile Foundation - $5000 - 1996
Monsanto Fund - $1000 - 1996
Mobile Foundation - $5000 - 1995
Monsanto Fund - $1000 - 1995
Mobile Foundation - $10,000 - 1995
National Wilderness Institute Corporate Grants -
Chevron - $5000 - 1996
ExxonMobil - $15000 - 1995
Chevron - $5000 - 1995
Chevron - $5000 – 1994
The real reason David does not offer a link to his insubstantial defence of IWMC with Ann is because he couldn't find it on his own blog since it was never there. David has forgotten that he actually had that discussion with Ann on someone else's blog and she was not in total agreement with him. 'Nuff said! :o)
Sadly it seems if the pro-whaling lobby cannot carry the day democratically they will simply attempt to expunge critical debate; particularly if it has the timerity to quote chunks of their own propaganda back at them. That's the problem with neoconservatives, no sense of humour! :o)http://david-in-tokyo.blogspot.com/2006/06/iwc-2006-greedy-greenpeace-to-cash-in.html