The trial of a Texas pipeline company accusing Greenpeace of defamation, disruption and attacks during demonstrations against the Dakota access pipeline is tried on Monday in the North Dakota, in a case, the organization of environmental advocacy asserts threaten the rights of freedom of expression and its future.
The trial follows from the events in 2016 and 2017 on the crossing of the Missouri River, which was planned oil oil, upstream of the Sioux Tribe luxury reserve. The tribe has long argued that the pipeline threatens its water supply. Among the thousands of people who protested the project, hundreds were arrested.
The transfer of energy and its subsidiary Dakota Access allege intrusions, nuisance, defamation and other infractions of international Greenpeace based in the Netherlands and its American branch, Greenpeace USA. The US trial of $ 300 million also appoints the group’s financing branch, Greenpeace Fund Inc.
The trial before jury before the Mandan State Court, ND, is expected to last five weeks.
What are the details of the case?
The transfer of energy based in Dallas alleys that Greenpeace tried to delay the construction of the pipeline, to diffam the companies behind it and to coordinate intrusion, vandalism and violence by the demonstrators of the pipeline. The trial requires millions of dollars in damages.
The Dakota access pipeline has been completed and has been transporting oil since June 2017.
American pricing threats are fueling pipeline projects to review to stimulate Canada’s economic autonomy. Sam Samson de CBC looks at the changing dialogue and what is on the way.
Greenpeace International said that he should not be appointed in the trial because he is distinct from the two Greenpeace entities based in the United States, operates outside the United States, and its employees have never been in Northern Dakota or involved in demonstrations.
Greenpeace USA said that the complainants had not saved their complaints in the years following the demonstrations.
Earlier in February, a judge rejected Greenpeace requests to throw or limit the parties of the case.
What is Greenpeace’s position?
“If we lose, Greenpeace USA could face a financial ruin, finishing more than 50 years of environmental activism,” the group said in a statement.
Representatives of the environmental organization maintain that energy transfer simply wants to silence criticism from the petroleum industry.
“This trial is a critical test of the future of the first amendment, both freedom of expression and peaceful manifestations, under the [Donald] The administration of Trump and beyond, “the acting executive director of Greenpeace USA, Sushma Raman, told journalists.” A bad decision in this case could put our rights and freedoms in danger for all of us, whether we are journalists, demonstrators or anyone who wants to engage in public debate. “
Greenpeace USA has helped support “non -violent direct action training” on security and de -escalation during demonstrations, said Deeppa Padmanabha, the main legal advisor.
Energy transfer argues that “anyone engaged in training during a demonstration should be held responsible for the shares of each person during this event,” said Padmanabha. “It is therefore quite easy to see how, in case of success, this kind of tactic could have a serious serious effect on anyone who could consider participating in a demonstration.”
Earlier in February, Greenpeace International filed an anti-propeller action before the Amsterdam district court against energy transfer, saying that the company has been wrongly and should pay fees and damage resulting from its dispute ” without merit “. In 2024, the European Union adopted rules aimed at helping journalists, rights activists and public guard dogs defending themselves against prosecution intended to harass or silence them, including binding them in disputes expensive.
The Brass War of Brew between Canada and the United States on prices has aroused new interest in abandoned pipelines like Energy East, which would have delivered oil in Ontario and Quebec, and in the north of Gateway, which would have run towards the north coast of British Columbia. A new survey of the Angus Reid Institute shows that public support for the idea is developing and that politicians have thought about relaunching projects, but an expert affirms that pipeline companies may not be so interesting at the idea .
What does energy transfer say?
A spokesperson for the energy transfer said that the trial concerned Greenpeace not following the law.
“It is not a question of freedom of expression because they try to claim. We support the rights of all Americans to express their opinions and protest legally. However, when this is not done in accordance with our laws, we We have a legal system to deal with this, said the energy transfer spokesman Vicki Granado in a statement.
The company filed a similar case before the Federal Court in 2017, which a judge rejected in 2019. Shortly after, the energy transfer filed the prosecution of the State Court which realized.
The energy transfer was launched in 1996 with 20 employees and 320 kilometers of natural gas pipelines. Today, the company with 11,000 employees has and operates more than 200,000 kilometers of pipelines and related facilities.
