Greenpeace a Charity- Yeah Right

I’m certainly no fan of Greenpeace, nor of its boss Bunny McDiarmid. Even that pinko blogger Farrar commented that he thinks Greenpeace acts in a very political way. I agree.

The Court of Appeal is currently hearing from the lawyers from Crown Law and Greenpeace in the appeal against Greenpeace losing their charitable status. Greenpeace clearly doesn’t want to lose its charitable status with their lawyer saying “the sticking point was that if it lost its charitable status the IRD might revoke its donor status”.

No shit Sherlock. That’s because Greenpeace might start seeing donations and funding source drying up faster than the Sahara Desert.

The reality is there is nothing charitable about Greenpeace. You just have to read the ranting of McDiarmid to see that.  It is a global business whose only desire is to extract the maximum amount of money out of New Zealanders to send off-shore to Greenpeace International.

Here’s 10 Reasons Why Greenpeace Should Not be treated as a charity…

  1. Charities don’t cost the economy jobs by advocating for whole industries to close down
  2. Charities don’t commandeer public property
  3. Charities don’t appropriate the intellectual property of other organisations
  4. Charities don’t break and enter private property
  5. Charities don’t get charged with burglary
  6. Charities don’t attack the livelihoods of other New Zealanders
  7. Charities don’t tell lies in advertising  (Rena )
  8. Charities don’t tamper with food products
  9. Charities don’t bully, persecute and stalk those they disagree with
  10. Charities don’t litter, vandalise and graffiti

THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • LesleyNZ


  • Sir Cullen’s Sidekick

    No need to worry Torries. Deputy PM and Finance Minister Ozie Mozzie Russel Norman will restore the charity status in November 2014.

    • DJ

      Everytime someone mentions Russell Norman being deputy PM in 2014, I sorta secretly wish the Mayans to be right.

      • Sir Cullen’s Sidekick

        Sorry DJ, as much as I hate it for the sake of country, that is an unavoidable fact. That is why I am working on my exit strategy from now on……

  • Joe Bloggs

    Greenpeace makes more money from anti-whaling than Norway and Iceland combined make from whaling. In both cases, the whales die and someone profits. Nothing charitable there.

    There’s no reason to treat Greenpeace differently to any other benefit bludger with outstanding warrants

    • 2ndAmendment

      There’s no reason to treat Greenpeace different to any other armed terrorist group

  • Bankside Resident

    The point here is that Greenpeace NZ is a political activist groups cloaking itself in a greenwash of environmentalism. Whale’s hit the nail on the head with this one. To try and claim that their activities do not have a political focus is simply unbelievable.

    They wind up issues to wind up the public to wind up the politicians – it’s that simple. That results in the dosh flowing into their coffers.

    The Charities Commission is full of organisations rorting the system. IRD should come down on them like a big pile of elephant shit.

  • In Vino Veritas

    Let me see now. (1) Political activists – check, (2) Zero tolerance policies – check, (3) scare tactics – check, (4) sensationalism – check. Sounds very much like the Green party in disguise, no?
    At best, they are to the Greens what the unions are to Labour.

    • 2ndAmendment

      Yeah – the armed, terrorist wing

      Unions & Greenpeace are organised criminal groups and so far have done much more damage to NZ than an out-of-work actor & a clarinet teacher every managed.

  • Patrick

    The debate shouldn’t be about whether or not Green Peace is a charity, rather whether or not Green Peace is a legal organisation.
    Green Peace constantly breaks & encourages law breaking, they fund criminal activities & as such should be outlawed, all the hairy marys should have their welfare stopped, the activists here on student visas should have them revoked & they should be deported back to their own sh1tholes.
    If these Green Peace “activists” had regular jobs to go to they ould have less time to spend lying around thinking of new ways to disrupt NZ Inc.

    • Apolonia

      Greenpeace have more in common with the mongrel mob than they do with charities.

  • If Greenpeace have Charitable Status- I can’t see why the Sensible Sentencing Trust lost thiers !

  • Proud Greenie

    I’m a Greenpeace supporter and I think they should be able to lobby government on issues that we care deeply about. I’ve been in meetings with passionate Greenpeace people that encourage us to do all that we can to achieve an outcome. When it was asked whether we’ll be targeting MPs the answer was clearly yes.

    To bring about change we need to get MPs interested in the issues and real facts – not some corporate spin from big business. They’re the ones causing all the problems not Greenpeace. Shame on you Whale for hating on Greenpeace.

    • DLM

      Typical tree hugger. Probably live on Waiheke Island. Tell me how the fuck do you get to and from the island – swim? Go and smoke some more dope while you sit back an take welfare payments from the Govt you protest against.

      • Polish Pride

        I protest against the government because they are idiots and do not have the answers to the problems we face. Because they squander our tax money time and time again. Because we don’t have a democracy in this country. Instead we have an elected dictatorship. I also smoke dope because it has the ability to break down societal constructs and help one think and come up with solutions to problems. I smoke dope because it expands the mind. Unlike you I don’t believe the BS and propaganda the government shovels.
        People like you are unfortunately the ones who would benefit the most from smoking Cannabis from my experience.
        Perhaps if you did you’d understnd that as someone who does all this Understanding that the government lies to you. That giving a shit about the environment (you know – the country we live in) is a good thing and is not mutually exclusive with taking the Waiheke Ferry.
        It is people that think like you have shown you do that is a big part of the reason why this country has so many problems.
        You probably think big corporations have your best interests at heart in all that they do. If there is a God….. God help us because thinking like yours certainly never will.
        Cam – You might not hold Green Peace in the highest regard but I have NEVER met a hunter yet that doesn’t greatly appreciate and care about the environment…

        • Guest

          hahahahahaha you are hilarious and only serve to reinforce the stereotypes of dopehead wasters.
          “it helps one think”, “it expands the mind”, “it comes up with solutions”…riiiiighhhttt…
          so tell me, do we only have an elected dictatorship when we have a National government? seems to me the last government did pretty much as they pleased too – and to quote the previous deputy PM “we won, you lost”…you’re just repeating the same old sanctimonious bullshit we hear every time the left find themselves in opposition.
          because if you think the current government doesnt have the answers to the problems we face, are ummm errr ahhhh GST-free veges and ummm errr ahhhh more handouts and ummm errrr ahhh dont sell farms to chinese going to turn things around??
          light one up and have a think about that you muppet!

          • Polish Pride

            I’m guessing you are coming from never having tried it or at the very least only using it to get ‘wasted’ which is not what it is for.
            I was able to sit down and work out solutions to all the problems that Capitalism presents with and have never been able to be solved by any Govt. It is very powerful stuff if used in the right way with pure intentions. I do not expect you to understand that though.
            If you had read earlier posts of mine you would know I believe the whole system needs to change. It doesn’t matter whether the party is blue pink green red brown or whatever colour, the problems will still exist. The problems are systemic. They are resolvable and easily but not under the present system. The rights solutions are no better than the lefts and vice versa. But if you smoked some weed you’d be able to take your system constructed blinkers off and be able to see that. Thats the greatest thing about it, it helps remove the constructs the system puts in place and allows you to see things as they really are warts and all.

            All the left wing solutions you mentioned are from within the current system.

            But soon its not going to matter anyway :)

        • Last comment…correct…but we also don;t claim charity status. Greenpeace are fakers and scum….plus I just bet they would want to ban hunting.

          • Polish Pride

            Yet actually care about the same thing you do – looking after the environment.
            You are no doubt correct.. there will be people in Greenpeace that want to ban hunting. If so then they need to be completely Vegan and never eat any meat products. If they do then their stance is completely hypocritical. Thats the first part.
            The second is that if the goal is to care about the environment…. We have introduced pests that destroy that environment which is home to many native plants and birds. Habitats that are 1000s of years old. They have 3 options
            1. let the pests destroy it – losing native wildlife and plants in the process
            2. continue to drop 1080 poison as we do now where the pests, native wildlife and farm animals either eat it dor drink from waterways that it contaminates and die a slow painful death.
            3. have hunters destroy the pests.
            It really is a no brainer and if anything hunting should be incentivised and 1080 removed.

            Do not hate Greenpeace and what they are trying to achieve. By all means hate their methods for these are at best very questionable and clearly illegal. That in my view is a valid and sensible position to take.

    • Mr Sackunkrak

      For the record, I hate Greenpeace with a passion. It is nothing more than a bunch of unkempt hippies who think they are beyond the law believing they are entitled to cause disruption and property damage over issues most of us could not give a big fat rat’s arse about (snails anyone?). Eco-terrorists is a pretty damn good descriptor.

      • PolishPride

        Interesting Sackunkrak … do you hate the corporates that go around destroying the environment such as primary forests or sea and marine life through oil spills with the same passion or do you give them a pass and just say ‘shit happens’….?

        • Mr Sackunkrak

          Its Mister to you. I love corporates. You are free to like or loathe whom ever you choose. What’s your point?

          • Polish Pride

            Just wanted to know if you were consistent or a hypocritical in your views. You confirmed which one you are.

          • Mr Sackinkrak

            Fuck you are an idiot. I hate Greenpeace, name a corporate and I’ll share my view on it, but as I said, I love corporates per see, which was your original question. Nothing hypocritical about that.

          • Polish Pride

            Unfortunately the fact that you feel the need to resort to insults perhaps also speaks volumes about your level of intelligence also. Perhaps but lets give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you misinterpreted my question..
            My original question was do you hate corporates that go around destroying the environment……
            eg Monsanto, BP
            The question was not do you hate all corporates.

          • Mr Sackunkrak

            Well frame your questions properly in the first instance. I love BP the dividends and the capital gain from shares I have in it have been fantastic. BP has delivered beyond my expectations in that regard. So yes, I love BP. I hate Greenpeace, that outfit has not produced a cent of value, and went so far as to demand a free tax ride.

            Do you love Apple?

          • Polish Pride

            Thanks for clearing up your WIFM stance when making decisions on liking or disliking an organisation. It certainly explains your hatred of Greenpeace – 1. you can’t profit from them and 2. and most imporatantly they target a company you do profit from. I am guessing that for you Ethics is just another word in the dictionary. You cannot be blamed for having these views though. This is exactly what the structure of the current system is set up to encourage. You have merely embraced it more than many yet probably fewer than some truth be told.

          • Polish Pride

            Sorry you asked do I love Apple – no. I couldn’t think of a single Corporate that I would apply the term love to ( I actually thought about this when I saw your question)….. Maybe Dunkin Donuts but then not sure you could call them a Corporate and it is more of a love hate reltionship I have with them.

          • Mr Sackunkrak

            In fact, you hate corporates, yet you use their products from the pc you tapped that stupid comment from, to the ISP that got it to the rest of us, the supermarket you shop at and the insurance company you protect your assets with. Guess what, they are corporates. I think that makes you the hypocrite dear Sir. Rediscover the cave corporates saved you from, see how you like that life.

    • insider

      So what you are saying is, it is a political organisation not a charitable one. Thanks for the confirmation.
      How often have you gone to a GP tree planting or beach clean up compared with the times collecting signatures, protesting and writing to MPs?

      • Polish Pride

        Never collected any signatures, not a Greenpeace member, prefer they keep their current status – none of their activities have ever adversely affected me. Have planted over 100 trees in the past year. Care about the environment and the country we live in. Next question.

        • insider

          Not a GP member? so your activities are completely irrelevant given this is a thread about GP. Your mind expansion seems out of control.

          • Polish Pride

            Illustrating you don’t have to be a Green peace member to give a shit about the environment and appreciate what they at least attempt to do.

    • paranormal

      Au contraire – shame on you proud greenie for failing to understand (on purpose?)what is going on. No-one is saying greenpeace must stop lobbying. All that is being said is that they are clearly not a charity and should not be able to rort the tax system.
      I thought you green types wanted to stop the tax dodgers.

      • Polish Pride

        Paranormal perhaps it is you who have failed to understand what is going on. Where do you think the drive for Green Peace losing its charitable status is coming from. Its not a hard one. The companies they protest against perhaps!?!
        Those same companies that don’t like Greenpeace having the resources to shine bright sunlight on their more controversial activities!?! Those same companies that have 100 times the resources at their disposal than Green Peace does>.
        But no, understanding that doesn’t really fit with your argument now does it.
        Yes Greenpeaces methods are controversial. Yes they have people who have broken the law. That is what we have Laws for. What they have never done is caused the amount of environmental destruction and degredation as the company practices they drag into the sunlight for the population to see.
        Or perhaps you own shares in some of those companies and your true motivation is more around the impact that they have at times had on company profits by forcing those companies through public pressure to act in a responsible and ethical manner…

        • paranormal

          Or maybe Polish pride it is driven by a desire for truth and just how much people are sick and tired of greenpeace lies, deceit and histrionics? But then again that wouldn’t fit in your worldview would it? You should build a bridge – and get over yourself.

          • Polish Pride

            No bridge required – you almost hit the nail on the head. Remove Greenpeace and you summed up the problem very nicely…. try – maybe it is driven by a desire for truth and just how much people are sick and tired of lies, deceit and histrionics.

    • In Vino Veritas

      Interesting Proud, that you claim MP’s need to be “interested in the real facts”. I would suggest that the “facts” as presented to you by Greenpeace are less likely to be factual than anything the Government has in it’s hands. It might surprise you to know that one of Greenpeace’s original founders, Patrick Moore, resigned because Greenpeace had abandoned science and logic in favour of emotion and sensationalism. Which is pretty much what we see now. Also, originally Greenpeace (formerly “Don’t make a wave”) was set up because they claimed, nuclear testing would create a tsunami. It didn’t. Pretty much like everything else Greenpeace have protested about – it didn’t and it hasn’t.

      • Polish Pride

        And that is a prime example as to why they should go back to Science and logic. It will always be a far better argument to then get emotion behind from the public than half truths and scaremongering.

        • Mabel_Gruntfuttock

          Interesting arguments you mount. I had assumed that the Polish part of your nom dr plume was based on patriotism. I see now that it refers to the quality of your argument – as in putting a shine on a turd.

          • Polish Pride

            Vs your argument!?! No wait that can’t be right you don’t appear to have been able to formulate one. Perhaps you didn’t understand my argumements for if you did I have said 4 main things
            Govts and corporates don’t always have your or the environments best interests at heart.
            Green peace Attempts to take both to task when it comes to the environment
            Giving a shit about the environment is not a bad thing
            Cannabis is good.
            Interested to know which of my arguments is polishing a turd.
            If you are intelligent enough to formulate a response of course.
            As for the name 6 gen kiwi with a polish wife. But then it has caused a lot of people to fall into the trap of making stupid bordering on bigoted comments like you did. See if you can do better next time.

          • Bunswalla

            The second one

          • PolishPride

            If not Greenpeace Buns then who? You? Me?
            Personally I’d rather they did it on my behalf. What they do has never hurt me in anyway shape or form.
            Have they hurt you?
            My support for Green Peace came about when Mossad agents came to this country and bombed the Rainbow warrior for protesting French Nuclear testing in the Pacific. That bombing killed a man who had a family.

          • evv

            Mossad agents? As in, everyone who does something hard to track but shady is a Mossad agent? the people prosecuted and jailed were DGSE, I believe … the rigid rightwing dissenters of French security. in their other manifestations, they seem anti-Jewish to me at least. they are headquartered I think in the south of France, which is the home of anti-semitic right wing ultra-nationalists like the Le Pens.
            what an original thinker you are!

            PP, your four main arguments are faulty. And you recommend fixing society by looking at life through a curtain of chemicals. Plus you say it’s okay to break the law, if the avowed purpose is something you personally approve of. Trashy talk!
            PP, you are not Nandor T, are you?

          • Polish Pride

            Apologies was the french not Israel, simple mistake from being too lazy to google just prior to going to bed.
            “what an original thinker you are!” only if you want to read significantly more into it for the purpose of supporting your argument than what is actually there.
            “And you recommend fixing society by looking at life through a curtain of chemicals” – wow, and all this time I thought Cannabis was a plant.
            No I recommend fixing society beacuse the current system has many flaws and does not have the answers. In fact the current system is the very cause of many of the problems. Cannabis mere helps remove the constraints and constructs imposed by society that stops you thinking of solutions outside of the current system. It helps removes the blinkers. It helps take down the veil.
            Cannabis has been used for many many centuries. No one has ever Od’d and died from using Cannabis.
            Drink Alcohol by any chance do you…….?
            I agree with breaking the law where the law is unjust and is not to protect the people it should be protecting. Laws such as this should never have been made in the first place.

    • Mr_Blobby

      You stupid Muppet.

    • Owl

      Hi proud greenie welcome. You are always welcomed. The greens are socialists though nothing wrong with this, however green party actually need corporates to survive. Can I go no further than body shop. Lawless made her money out of Hollywood dollars. Now that’s a gas consuming place. Frankly the most important part of greenies are they are Boring. Just really boring people. Russell Norman is really boring.
      Boring boring boring boring people…yawn coring…you are not a charity, snooze, bad luck…boring boring people.

    • Hippy!

  • Hillary

    Who is the Minister that is meant to be overseeing the Charities department in Internal Affairs. Is it Tremain or Goodhew? They should have rocket put up them for allowing activist groups to rort the system so badly. Doesn’t National care that these groups are rorting the tax system???

  • Symgardiner

    I’m definitely not in the tree hugger camp…
    BUT I would prefer to see a relaxing of the political aspect of the charities definition. It is quite a deterrent for any charity to advocate publicly and politically against government policy. Everyone, including organisations, should be able to lobby… although it should be transparent.
    So I would defend the legal lobbying and protest of Greenpeace, SST, Tobacco, churches, Iwi, whoever without losing their charity status.

    • insider

      Advocacy is quite acceptable for charities, but it has to be balanced against its real work. Red Cross, Presbyterian Support, Barnardos etc all carry out practical charitable work, while advocacy is an adjunct.
      What practical environmental work does Greenpeace do and how does it compare to its advocacy budget? (‘consciousness raising’ doesn’t count)

  • 2ndAmendment

    Prosecute them as an “organized economic terrorist group”

    close them down; disenfranchise the lot; jail the leaders.

  • cossackstomper

    Great Article on the Kyoto Scam that Greenpeace helped force through.
    The Kyoto Protocol treaty that promised to save the world was born in the corridors of big business. The name Enron has faded from memory since 2001, when the company nose-dived in flames amidst charges of bribery, fraud, graft and price fixing. Without Enron there would have been no Kyoto Protocol.
    In the US in 1990, the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) determined by statute how much pollutant an operator of a fossil-fuelled plant could emit. Enron had already helped to establish the market and become the major trader in EPA’s $20 billion-per-year sulphur dioxide ‘cap-and-trade’ programme, the forerunner and blueprint for today’s carbon credit trade.
    This exchange of emission allowances caused Enron’s stock to rapidly rise. It became a billion-dollar-a-day commodity trader, owning and operating US-wide natural gas pipelines, and buying and selling contracts and their derivatives to deliver utilities such as coal, natural gas, electricity, and internet bandwidth.
    Across the Atlantic Maggie Thatcher had demonised CO2 in a successful right-wing move to smash the coal industry and deliver a blow to unions by replacing coal-fired electricity stations with nuclear reactors, a payback favour to Shell and Dupont for in exchange for campaign pledges. Enron saw financial potential in continuing Thatcher’s crusade against CO2-emissions in the US and possibly globally.
    The problem was CO2 is not a pollutant, and EPA had no authority to cap its emission. After taking office in 1993 Al Gore became infatuated with the idea of an international environmental regulatory regime. He led a U.S. initiative to review new projects around the world and issue ‘credits’ of so many tons of annual CO2 emission reduction.
    Enron aggressively lobbied Clinton and Congress, seeking EPA regulatory authority over CO2. Enron’s philanthropists lavished millions on environmental groups that supported international energy controls to “reduce” global warming.
    Profits from alternatives, Enron calculated, would more than compensate for lost coal profits, so it acquired both the world’s biggest wind power company, GE Wind, from General Electric, and, together with Amoco, the world’s biggest solar power company.
    Enron saw itself as the only trader in the new barter world of carbon credits but needed governments to establish a global tax on carbon. Utilities would be required to pay billions for permits or close coal plants which would have favoured natural gas or other kinds of power plants, driving up prices for those alternatives. Enron would make money both coming and going – from selling permits and then their own energy at higher prices.
    Enron started financing global warming hype, offering grants to scientists – but asking for results favourable to their interest – “proof” that humans were responsible for the excessive emissions of CO2 through fossil fuel burning.
    For momentum they needed alliances with the green movement including Greenpeace, and because some individuals were standing in Enron’s way they asked President Clinton to harm reputations and the credibility of scientists who argued global warming was an overblown issue. Enron executives worked with the Clinton administration to create a scaremongering climate science environment.
    Lobbying the president to shut off public debate on global warming, Enron requested Clinton to appoint a bipartisan Commission for high-level trashing of dissident scientists. The plan was that once the problem (imminent global catastrophe) was in place, the solution (Enron’s services) would be put into operation. They wanted to minimise public challenges and for the science to be “settled”.
    Meanwhile Enron commissioned its own internal study of global warming science. It turned out to be in agreement with the same scientists that they were trying to shut up. The leaked report concluded: “The very real possibility is that the great climate alarm could be a false alarm.” Self-censoring them, Enron never made its own findings public.
    It all nearly worked, but West Virginia, normally a Democrat stronghold, voted for Bush because the state runs on coal, and the industry made a pre-election deal with Bush to not endorse Kyoto.
    The Kyoto Protocol was coordinated under the auspices of the UN. The money was funneled through the U.N.’s Global Environment Facility. Only the US was not a signatory because if Kyoto was ratified and in full force, Americans would lose up to $400 billion each year, up to 3.5 million jobs and $6,000 each year per household. It was too much to ask of Americans, just for large energy companies to pocket millions.
    Enron collapsed in a quagmire of bribery, misinformation, energy price manipulation and the use of political connections to exert pressure on energy boards. Their CEO committed suicide. Governments realised treaty dealing would wreck every economy it did business in.
    In NZ the 2002 Labour government was forced to sign the Kyoto Protocol because the Alliance Party had self-destructed and Labour needed the Greens for support in Confidence and Supply. Part of the cost of that support was our signature to Kyoto.
    Since the Rio Conference in 1992, the greens have tried using the threat of global warming to induce Protestant guilt in us all, to cap growth, change lifestyles, and attack America, western prosperity, and the car. Schoolchildren are bullied into believing the planet somehow needs saving.
    Playing the climate-change card at the G8 Summit, the final Gleneagles’ declaration showed that even the leaders of the developed world had no intention of sacrificing growth and economic success for an ascetic global warming religion, and deftly swapped capping greenhouse gas emissions for an emphasis on technological innovation and imaginative development.
    With the Kyoto Protocol effectively dead, the 2009 Copenhagen conference turned into a fiasco. Delegates mostly discussed the date of the next conference.
    The Kyoto Protocol was born and died in the world of corporate greed for financial advantage. The green infrastructure it developed still works hard to retain influence and prestige through political power-broking. The Kyoto Protocol has never been about the climate.

    • kowtow

      Thanks for the post.
      I take it you’ve seen the doco “Enron The Smartest Guys in the Room.”?

  • BJ

    The only ‘charity’ in GP is of the benevolent giving (donations), to preserve the lifestyle of those in the organization roaming the seas in large ships burning lots of fuel but neither transporting, supplying, producing or in fact contributing anything other than to the justification of their own lifestyle.

  • AnonWgtn

    I have asked Greenpeace for as copy of their accounts, so I can see where the money goes. I do this for all charities I support (3 years accounts are best).
    They do not have audited accounts as a charity.
    Try asking a collector how much of any donation goes offshore (40% I believe).
    They would not have a clue as they are told to just get (collect) money.

  • Polish Pride

    Yes and if only we could get all of the corporates that they target to Act… Um… I don’t know….how about RESPONSIBLY… and take responsibility for the damage they cause to the environment or stop doing it in the first place in a number of instances.

  • Guest2

    Will it is quite interesting because the Greens require the key votes of students. Students need to understand two points – firstly when you vote for the Greens in NZ they vote for a self declared communist in Russell Norman and secondly once in power your kids well not be allowed to learn what subjects they want – the STATE will tell you. On that basis alone – the Greens are not a charity.

    Fitzsimmons gave the party status as a Green Keeper for NZ – Russell is a political beast who is only interested in serving socialism because he has a “chip on his shoulder”

    Bring back Fitzsimmons

  • Bat Crazy

    I cant think of some religious charities that can tick more than a few of those boxes.

  • Bat Crazy

    *can think