If they really are as ashamed as they say they are

Peru is planning to extradite the Greenpeacers who scratched up the Nazca hummingbird site.

Castillo told the Guardian that Peruvian authorities had identified six members of the group who participated in the protest at the Unesco world heritage site last week, adding that prosecutors have filed charges of attacking archaeological monuments – a crime punishable by up to six years in prison.

But the minister said Greenpeace had refused to name all the protesters – leaving Peru no choice but to pursue it “through our legal means”.

“Greenpeace says it wants to take responsibility but in not giving us the names so that those responsible can appear before a judge in Peru it is refusing to do that,” he told the Guardian. “It’s a contradiction in terms.”

“It makes you wonder if they really are as ashamed as they say they are.”

That sounds consistent with their stunted non-apology that carefully avoided mentioning damage or harm and just talked about having “offended,” as if that were all they’d done.

Archaeologists say footprints left by the activists could remain in the arid desert ground for decades. Castillo said that footage of the protest showed the activists acting as if they were on a “picnic”.

The still photographs certainly show them taking no care at all about how they treated the site – standing on it in their trainers and kneeling on it in their blue jeans, as if it were the sturdy linoleum floor of their kitchen.

“It’s not a matter of money. The destruction is irreparable,” said Ana María Cogorno, president of the Maria Reiche Association, named after the German archaeologist whose groundbreaking research on the Nazca lines from 1940 onwards saw them gain recognition and protection.

The hummingbird etching on which the Greenpeace stunt was laid was the “only one of the lines which was completely untouched and perfectly conserved,” she said. “It’s one of the symbols of Peru,” she added.

Siiiiigh. I didn’t know that. I didn’t know it was the only completely untouched site.

After a meeting with Greenpeace’s executive director, Kumi Naidoo, on Monday, Peru’s minister for culture, Diana Álvarez-Calderón, said the group’s failure to reveal the protesters’ names amounted to a “ kind of cover-up”.

And adds insult to injury, if you ask me.

In a blogpost on Tuesday John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace UK,made clear his disapproval of the stunt, which was apparently organised to highlight the slow progress of the United Nations climate talks in Lima.

“For many years, Greenpeace offices around the world have been making concerted efforts to reach out to and collaborate with communities everywhere. We understand the importance of being a respectful ally who can learn from our partners and ensure the work we do reflects and supports all communities. This action did not measure up to that commitment. But this activity is not who we are. It is not what we believe in, and this is not what I believe in,” Sauven wrote.

That’s disgusting. It’s just a bunch of PR babble saying how nice they are and how well they mean. Obviously they don’t  understand the importance of being a respectful ally; if they did they wouldn’t have pulled this stupid stunt.

Kyle Ash, a Greenpeace spokesman, said that the group had taken “every care” to avoid any damage. “The surprise to us was that this resulted in some kind of moral offence. We definitely regret that and we want to figure out a way to resolve it.”

The group did not take “every care”; you have only to glance at any of the photos of them in action to see that. Stop telling self-admiring lies!

Greenpeace sucks.


  1. jenniferphillips says

    and AGAIN with the “moral offense” schtick. Oy.

    God damn it, you pearl-clutching Cultural Preservation Warriors, get over yourselves already! No one has the right not to be offended when a completely benevolent environmental group has a very important publicity stunt point to make, so we’ll keep minimizing your prudish, blinkered reaction in a succession of notpologies until that sinks in.

    *drillls into the fucking ground with rage*

  2. latsot says

    They didn’t take any care, let alone every care. They didn’t even think there was any care to take. After thinking and thinking and thinking about doing this thing.

  3. says

    Sounds exactly like the babble you hear from gov’t offices all over the world when they’ve just done something to f**k over their own citizens actual best interests. Wonder if if the executive director has a political background?

  4. says

    You don’t “take responsibility” if you don’t DEAL WITH IT. Everyone on the ground that day should be charged, as well as everyone who organized the entire stupid endeavor. Saying “we take responsibility” and then not naming names is nonsense.

  5. sonofrojblake says

    Wow. Didn’t think they could do down any more in my estimation. Sucks to be proven wrong.

  6. freemage says

    Dammit, I used to like Greenpeace, but this is just… Guh!

    The only honorable way to get away with withholding the names of the individual protestors would be for the highest-ranking person involved in this stunt to step forward and submit to trial. A, “This was my idea, I’m not having my subordinates punished for my shitty decisions, and I realize someone must answer for it,” stance could even be seen as respectable. But as it is? Fuck Greenpeace.

  7. says

    There’s one sure way to get Greenpeace to turn over those names for extradition. Greenpeace is dependent on donations, so go after the money.

    Encouraging people not to donate and boycott Greenpeace would be a start. The Peruvian government could try to file a lien or similar measure against Greenpeace’s assets. The US and other governments are doing this on charities they (perhaps falsely) allege are “financing terrorism”, so why not do it to Greenpeace which actually has caused damage?

    Some might try to compare this to the financial strangulation of Palestinians, but that doesn’t apply. Greenpeace members won’t starve to death if the group’s finances are cut off. They simply won’t be able to afford to fund stunts like this one, which would probably save a few more historical sites from damage.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *