Filed under: Odds and ends, Other Events
The real reason Greenpeace was ejected from MacExpo
A few days ago we mentioned that Greenpeace had gotten kicked out of MacExpo in London and I hinted that it was the Apple Goon Squad that was responsible for their eviction. I was being cheeky, of course, as I am wont to do - but it turns out that Apple wasn't the sole complainant. In fact, it was Greenpeace's refusal to play by the rules that got them escorted out. Macworld UK has the scoop...According to Bob Denton, Event Director, the removal of Greenpeace had nothing to do its message or the materials being handed out. Bob said: "They paid money and had the right to be at the show." The problem started when a group of 12 Greenpeace activists gathered outside the show entrance and started handing out flyers and apples to attendees. Bob Denton said: "We want people to be cool and calm as they enter the show".
He explained to the Greenpeace organisers that it would be acceptable for two activists to stand by the stairs inside the show and hand out flyers, but the event management would not allow a gathering outside the main door.
There then followed a number of complaints about the behaviour of Greenpeace activists from four visitors and five exhibitors, one of which was Apple. Allegedly, Greenpeace attendees were invading other stands for mock photo shoots and replacing other exhibitors' promotional material with their own.
The problem came to a head when one woman complained that they had placed an apple in her child's pram and were taking photographs of him without her permission.
Despite several warnings, Greenpeace continued behaving badly and after two more visitors and two more exhibitors complained later in the day, Denton ejected the activists, citing clause 13 of the terms and conditions that Greenpeace signed, which prohibits deliberate and unprovoked attempts to create conflict as well as drunk and/or abusive conduct.
So there you have it. Radical activists taking the peace out of Greenpeace.
Thanks, Mike!
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Daniel D said 1:09PM on 10-28-2006
lol, liberal hippies ruin it for everyone.
Reply
mludd said 1:29PM on 10-28-2006
While I tend to be in favour of a lot of the protests that environmentalist groups stage sometimes I do get the feeling that certain factions are only out to get attention any way possible...
Reply
Aleks said 1:27PM on 10-28-2006
I wonder if the event director for MacExpo did it the Cartman way. Got rid of them with a fire exstinguisher and/or locked them in the basement.
Reply
Joe B said 1:30PM on 10-28-2006
Before this thread errupts into the usual unproductive left-wing/right-wing name calling, I think it's important to remember that the concerns that greenpeace are bringing up are important, and I think any reasonable person would agree that reducing toxic waste is something that all manufacturers should strive for. I'm not a big fan of Greenpeace's antics, which I think do more harm than good. (Look at Peta... makes all animal lovers seem like nut jobs) If you take reasoned look at it however, like most things, it's not a right/left issue. It's just the fringe of of right/left that make it look that way.
Reply
David said 2:01PM on 10-28-2006
With my loyalties to both the environment and Apple, I am torn in this case. I do think Greenpeace has a point, and I don't think the tactics described above go beyond "annoying" to "radical," as some of their others have done in the past. There is something powerful in disrupting, on whatever level, a gathering of self-satisfied accolytes of a cause, and if it had been, say, the Republican Convention, I would have been all for it. As much as I love the company, perhaps it is best that Apple, with all of its recent successes, is kept humble as it simultaneously takes over the world.
Reply
Steve S. said 2:01PM on 10-28-2006
It figures. A bunch of environmental activists handing out paper brochures decrying the waste of natural resources... If they're going to single out a corporation for their rape of the environment, why don't they pick on Sony? Think of all of those laptop batteries that are going to need to be properly disposed of.
Reply
John said 2:29PM on 10-28-2006
David,
So as long as it doesn't conflict with your personal views your okay with protesting. Haha... thats freedom of speech if I ever heard it.
i dont like the fact that greenpeace did what they did... and they broke their contractual agreement which means they should be booted... they sign the contract so they knew what they were doing when they were taking photos acting like morons ect...
Reply
John C. Randolph said 2:42PM on 10-28-2006
David,
If you're an environmentalist, then Greenpeace is NOT your friend. They stage publicity stunts to raise money, while giving the whole environmental movement a reputation of irresponsibility. Getting thrown out of the Mac Expo is typical of their tactics; they knew exactly what they were doing, and you can see that they've gotten vastly more publicity this way than if they'd actually honored their contract with the Expo management.
If you want to help the environment, contribute to your local organizations, not the multi-national funding sponges.
-jcr
Reply
ronn said 2:45PM on 10-28-2006
Shouldn't the headline read The aclleged Reason Greenpeace was ejected from MacExpo? Especially since there's no indication that Greenpeace was asked to comment on/refute the charges by Denton.
Reply
Juliette said 3:08PM on 10-28-2006
Yeah, I can totally see what's wrong with being funny and giving out Apples.
By the way, Steve S. it turns out that Greenpeace conducted an INDEPENDANT study that showed that Apple polluted a lot more than Sony. Thta's the reason they're going after Apple.
Reply
David said 3:19PM on 10-28-2006
John and JCR: I thought the thrust of my message was that, while I disagree with Greenpeace's actions, I understood their impulse to perform them.
John, your interpretation of my message must have come from somewhere inside your own tortured soul. Although I was mostly referring to this one situation, I wrote in general terms about the right to disrupt any event. Obviously, I'll use as an example one I agree with, but I said nothing that would lead a reasonable person to the conclusion you made. Practicing what I preach, I shall not ascribe any sort of motive to your error.
JCR, I don't elevate Greenpeace to any heroic proportions, but the fact is, as you note, they are very good at generating attention to their cause. Having studied such movements from all around the political spectrum, it seems there is a time the life cycle of any cause for just such antics that will generate publicity, positive and negative. I think any such thing must be taken with a huge grain of salt, as I don't see publicity stunts as something to get worked up over. As John so astutely pointed out, I happen to agree with Greenpeace's message, but I say the same thing about, say, the Westboro Baptist Church. If one passionately agrees with a cause, it's not a difficult maneuver to applaud a group like Greenpeace for raising awareness of a message while simulateneously condemning their methods. It's called triangulating, and it happens all the time.
Apple has the opportunity to triangulate here, too, and I hope they take it. It would be a shame if they lost touch with the concerns of the people who support them.
Reply
Macobyte said 3:28PM on 10-28-2006
Greenpeace has been radical for a long time. Some might even call them a terrorist organization. For instance, did you know that they stick metal spikes into the trunks of trees in the rainforest? When someone takes to the tree with a chainsaw, the blade hits the metal, and the chainsaw ricochets backwards and injures or kills the operator. It's sad when an organization is more concerned with the preservation of plant life than that of human life.
Reply
Yorke said 12:43PM on 10-29-2006
Wait,
Greenpeace funded an independent study, but, they funded it.... they gave money to a company to tell them who is the most polluting technology company. That report cannot be trusted absolutely completely just because it was outsourced, it was funded, and whenever money changes hands, you now that that independent company is just going give the funder what they want.
I do agree with saving the environment.
I do know that greenpeace is ultimately doing the right thing. But why do some people bash them? Its not as if I trust YOU to handle my money for the environment.
Also, if you have ever run a non-profit company, you would now that you rely ENTIRELY on public attention to rake in the cash to distribute to the product, service or cause. If Greenpeace wants media attention, and they do it by handing out apple's, what's the problem? (Okay if they are drunk that is a problem but that has little if not nothing to do with greenpeace, thats just fanatics having to much to drink and looking for a fight.) BUT bashing people who are trying to save the future via media attention -> public knowledge and awareness -> more participants -> more governmental pressure -> more environmentally friendly laws -> co2 free future.
Get that?
Always look at the bigger picture, not just the small apple-centric society you are a part of.
(apple was 4th on that list I remember and you ask why are they being targeted, its because whenever apple releases anything, the world notices, no-one notices when sony or dell does. SJ has appeared on international news 29 time in the last 3 years to talk about the iPod or Macs, anyone from dell or sony... 0, because no-one cares. People notice when apple does stuff, people notice when apple vs apple occurs, and people have noticed this)
Reply
Anon said 3:32PM on 10-28-2006
I don't know why they always seem to have to go overboard with this sort of stuff, it really reflects poorly on them as an organization. While I think their ideals are a good one (in a very general sense), the way they seem to go about it leaves something to be desired.
Reply
Scott said 4:16PM on 10-28-2006
David said..."I wrote in general terms about the right to disrupt any event."
Let's be clear -- no one has "the right to disrupt any event". In fact, I'd say people have the right to hold an event they expend their effort to plan and organize, without disruption. Just because you think you have something important to say doesn't give you the right to get in people's face about it. To speak about it, yes, but there are responsibilities that go along with them that are often forgotten (usually by PETA, Greenpeace, Anti-Abortion groups, and other holier-than-thou moralizers).
To interfere with someone else's right to assemble is called "civil disobedience". If you choose that route then you also must be willing to accept the consequences of infringing on others' rights.
In other words, Greenpeace had every right to SPEAK their minds. But when they chose to interfere with others' rights to speak and assemble then they lost their right.
And bitching about it demonstrates a breathtaking level of ignorance about the true meaning of rights and of freedom.
Reply
Mike said 3:42PM on 10-28-2006
Agreed with the above comment. Knowing nothing previously about Greenpeace, this type of publicity does not give them any credibility or cause me to want to support their cause. Their actions speak louder than words, so I question the integrity of their organization, not environmental movements as a whole.
If the media didn't feed consumers with every bit of crap they could get their hands on, this publicity stunt would have been worthless. It's only because we publish it on a blog that they get any attention for it at all. Sure maybe it's raised awareness a little, but at what cost to the bigger picture?
Reply
Derek said 4:02PM on 10-28-2006
"For instance, did you know that they stick metal spikes into the trunks of trees in the rainforest? When someone takes to the tree with a chainsaw, the blade hits the metal, and the chainsaw ricochets backwards and injures or kills the operator."
Riiiggghht. Tree spiking has always been fully disclosed to logging companies, and there has never been a reported injury or death to a logger attempting to cut down a spiked tree.
Yes, Greenpeace represents the worst and least accountable of the environmental movement (which is why Paul Watson left to found Sea Shepherd), but let's keep away from blatant lies and generalizations about the environmental movement, who after all, are trying to protect the planet from the REAL lunatics who will trample over anything (planet, animals, humans, the future) in the short-sighted quest for a better fiscal quarter.
Reply
Clair said 4:10PM on 10-28-2006
"Alleged"? They're not in a court of law... yet.
While I agree with some of the things they're saying - we should do what we can to preseve what we've got... (In very simple terms: Don't s**t where you eat.) GP has very bad habits which drive me to go find the old McDonald's styrofoam containers and pray to them.
Reply
narco said 4:26PM on 10-28-2006
Greenpeace was ejected for the same reasons why they choose to pick on Apple in the first place. Publicity. Apple is supposedly the 4th "ungreen" company, yet you don't hear news stories about the other three. Everyone knows Apple is a total press darling, so they choose to pick on Apple more to bring awareness. They were obviously being a little rowdy here so that the press would cover this story as well. Sure, it makes them look bad to most people, but others will still think Apple is a dumping toxic sludge in the ocean or something.
Fishes,
narco.
Reply
John Allen said 4:46PM on 10-28-2006
I'm going to share with you all a sad truth:
All environmental organizations are just political fronts. They are tools of a particular political party. The Sierra Club is essentially an alarmist propaganda tool of the Democratic Party. Greenpeace is the same way with the ultra-liberal front. They don't care as much about the environment as they do getting their politicians elected. Greenpeace only cares about its publicity.
Reply