backtop

IT Greenpeace MacExpo Eviction Update
Marcus Yam (Blog) - October 30, 2006 6:52 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 38 comment(s) - last by rotylee.. on Nov 6 at 8:08 AM

Greenpeace flyer image courtesy of SetteB.IT
Attention mothers with babies: beware of Greenpeace

Late last week, we reported that Greenpeace was forced to leave MacWorld for reasons which, at the time, were quite vague.

Greenpeace's very vocal note of discontent with MaxExpo said nothing about why the group was kicked out. Greenpeace simply reiterated its message for Apple to produce its products in a more environmentally friendly fashion.

The only thing we heard from MacExpo organizers was that Greenpeace breached its exhibitor contract by taking unauthorized photographs.

Italian site SetteB.IT has much more on what happened on that day. With a better picture of the events, below is an English translation we received from the Italian author of the article:

Yesterday the Greenpeace team upset visitors and exhibitors both inside and outside the show. Organizers, XPO Group, received complaints from nine individuals at the MacExpo in London, they were annoying those at the show. According to Bob Denton, the XPO Group chief, a young baby being carried by its mother was presented with a green apple and photographed against the mother's wishes. After several requests by XPO Group for Greenpeace to restrict their activities to their stand, the company had no alternative but to ask them to leave. On Friday they were back on the nearby Underground Station, Kensington Olympia, demonstrating with apples and flyers but they again were causing a disturbance and so London Transport Police moved them off of the station. As setteB.IT has known Apple suggests to use the following statement about that: "Greenpeace violated MacExpo exhibitor agreement by booking a stand at the show with a false name. [...] After several complaints MacExpo asked Greenpeace to leave the show."

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Greenpeace Hates People (Especially Babies)
By Ibrin on 10/30/2006 10:17:52 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
...a young baby being carried by its mother was presented with a green apple and photographed against the mother's wishes.
Why is it that Greenpeace (and so many other similar groups) care so much about the environment, but so little for actual people?

When my daughter was an infant, I never wanted strangers to touch her. You have no idea who they are, where they have been, or what germs they carry. Infants and toddlers are much more suspectible to infection that adults.

And beyond that, it is simply rude. I thought Britons were the epitomy of propriety and manners. They must have imported the Greenpeacers...




RE: Greenpeace Hates People (Especially Babies)
By TomZ on 10/30/2006 10:43:20 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, you hit the nail on the head! Greenpeace and other groups place the environment ahead of the needs of people. Just like PETA absolutely puts animals ahead of people. Pretty irrational organizations, if you ask me.


By therealnickdanger on 10/30/2006 11:27:06 AM , Rating: 1
What I find most pathetic is that the people that willingly chain themselves to a tree or go vegan for "the sake of the animals" are often the same people that support abortion - the killing of our own kind. Anyone know what PETA's stance on puppy abortion is...? What about carnivorous plants?

*head asplode*


RE: Greenpeace Hates People (Especially Babies)
By TomZ on 10/30/2006 11:42:04 AM , Rating: 2
The reason it makes sense is that people who believe that abortion is acceptable don't believe it is killing of a human life. I'm not saying I believe that is right or wrong, and I certainly don't want to get involved in a debate about abortion here, but my point about bringing it up is that the moral contradiction is not as strong as it would seem on the surface.


By therealnickdanger on 10/30/2006 12:19:04 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, I pretty much figured my comment was wasted. People like to avoid the "a-word". It's impossible to argue morals with those who have none. And no, I don't subscribe to "individual morality" or "personal values". Those are contradictions of their own. Forgive me if I'm getting "too neo-con" on y'all. LOL


RE: Greenpeace Hates People (Especially Babies)
By Whedonic on 10/30/2006 12:37:13 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that groups like Greenpeace and PETA tend to go really overboard. But then again most people to give a damn about the environment or cruelty to animals, so I'm glad that those issues are brought into the light, though saddened that fanatics give them a bad reputation. For the record, I happen to be pro-choice, and recycle my junk when possible.


By Whedonic on 10/30/2006 12:38:33 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, meant to say "most people don't give a damn..."


RE: Greenpeace Hates People (Especially Babies)
By TomZ on 10/30/2006 12:44:36 PM , Rating: 2
Good point, but really the problem with PETA is that they support violence against people and property in order to accomplish their goals. They should be listed as a terrorist organization, just like any other.


RE: Greenpeace Hates People (Especially Babies)
By fic2 on 10/30/2006 2:07:24 PM , Rating: 4
What's wrong with PETA (People Eating Tasty Animals)?


RE: Greenpeace Hates People (Especially Babies)
By johnsonx on 10/30/2006 7:44:11 PM , Rating: 2
yep, if we weren't supposed to eat animals, they wouldn't taste so damned good, now would they?


By oTAL (blog) on 11/1/2006 8:55:19 PM , Rating: 2
*lol*
Well... Even though they do taste pretty well, I do plan on turning veg eventually (except for eggs and dairy which I just can't live without - hey... noobody's perfect...).
The reason is simply that I actually feel pain when I think of the way animals are treated throughout their industrialized life... check out "meet your meat" on PETA or youtube... pretty sad (although in a michael moore kinda way).


RE: Greenpeace Hates People (Especially Babies)
By akugami on 10/30/2006 3:53:39 PM , Rating: 1
And that's my whole problem with PETA and Greenpeace. I absolutely agree with their message about the environment. I've been known to carry trash (like coffee cups) for many blocks until I can find a public (or otherwise) trash receptacle that I can put the trash in rather than throwing it haphazardly around.

However, I do understand that in today's society, sometimes it would kill a company to move to being more green processes too quickly. In today's society, unlike the beginnings of the industrial revolution, companies like Apple, Intel, IBM, etc actually want to remain green but the economics of most situations is that producing electronics using lead and other poisonous materials is cheaper than going green.

Face it, if you want to be totally green, you're going to have to go back to using stone and wood tools and eating your meat raw because fire produces pollutants and metal is derived from smelting ore which requires fire.

That's not to say we shouldn't pressure companies into being more green, but let's show some respect all around and a little more understanding.


By therealnickdanger on 10/31/2006 3:55:57 PM , Rating: 2
Check out petakillsanimals.com. It's amazing what the press WON'T print about this supposedly animal-friendly organization...


By number999 on 10/31/2006 4:28:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
petakillsanimals.com
Although I don't mind looking at the site, before you recommend it you should look at the people behind the site, and they are the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), which is an food industry sponsored group, who are against any sort of activism against them or their members. One of their rants is against the people trying to limit trans-fats. They have been shown to increase the risks of cardiovascular disease. Some of the articles remind me of how the tobacco industry presented the facts of smoking.

I would take any industry sponsored news with a grain of salt. They do have a vested interest in promoting an agenda and they do like to hide themselves up with fancy names like the CCF. I like how their protection of my freedom corresponds with their desire to put their hands in my pocket.

Unfortunately, the only thing I get from PETA killing animals is basically from the website or something that is obviously plagerised and copied from the website. Nothing in the news search except for the billboards not being allowed in some state.

If true, I, like most people would find it truly disgusting but considering the source.... well everything on the web should be taken with skepticism especially sites like petakillsanimals.com.


By jskirwin on 10/30/2006 11:42:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Pretty irrational organizations, if you ask me.


Yep. They are very good at preaching to their choir, but suck at expanding their membership.


By isaacmacdonald on 10/30/2006 1:02:21 PM , Rating: 2
I don't understand your point. Why is it inherently irrational to be more concerned about/devoted to the needs of the enviornment than the needs of people?

I don't think green peace's tactics are terribly respectable or effective, but I do think there is something to the underlying philisophical inclination -- namely that in a market economy (where immediate human needs underly most action), "externalities" (eg: enviornmental impact) require special attention lest we risk catastrophic damage.


RE: Greenpeace Hates People (Especially Babies)
By TomZ on 10/30/2006 2:58:07 PM , Rating: 2
Well, it's simple really. When you consider the large proportion of the world human population living without proper food, medical care, shelter, economic/financial opportunities, human rights, etc., it makes the priorities of groups like Greenpeace pale in comparison. While I do not advocate destroying the environment, I don't believe we are on the verge of a great cataclysm as the media and politicians would have us believe. Therefore, I see don’t any real urgency in that area, especially relative to the day-to-day plight of many people suffering around the world.


By number999 on 10/31/2006 5:00:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
priorities of groups like Greenpeace pale
quote:
I don't believe we are on the verge of a great cataclysm as the media and politicians would have us believe

Well, I guess you don't believe in the Stern report, from the man who was once the chief economist of that left wing organization, the world bank (sarcasm), that the costs arising from ecological change could cost up to 20% of global GDP and that most of the impact is on those developing people in the third and second world.

I live in the urban first world where I am more or less insulated by small scale ecological variations. Those in the 3rd are not. Without some basic care of the environment, those in the 3rd world won't have even the basics for life. Overforestation, desertification and short sightedness can cause people to destroy the land they live on.

The Aral sea area is a disaster area from short term cotton farming. Now there's no fishing and the land has become non-productive due to salt. People are part of the ecology, you can't ignore that. If you do, eventually someone has to pay and you might be destroying the economic base that you need to actually support the people in the first place. Look at the north american Atlantic fisheries.

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/...


By Cunthor01 on 10/30/2006 10:22:34 PM , Rating: 2
Funny, its the first time I thought of Apple as the lesser of two evils.


By tcsenter on 10/30/2006 11:56:25 PM , Rating: 2
>>Why is it that Greenpeace (and so many other similar groups) care so much about the environment, but so little for actual people?<<

See: definition of misanthropy

Its never their homes (built from murdered trees), nor the property it is built on (which at some point was pristine habitat), nor the personal internal combustion vehicles they drive (often flashy or trendy imports), nor the computers they use, nor the electricity they consume, et. al., that are part of the problem. After all, they are Very Important People.

Its all those 'other' people who are killing the planet (i.e. those who do not share their hate for humanity).

Environmental and anti-development extremists typically are affluent whites whose motives are purely selfish. e.g. Ryan Lewis and friends of Newcastle, CA.

Lewis lived with his parents in a well-appointed custom two-story home located in an upscale semi-rural community dotted with custom homes and ranch retreats. Lewis gleefully drove a full-sized pickup (gift from his parents). His parents own and operate the Sunset Ridge Orchard in Newcastle; a for-profit agrobiz.

On behalf of the ELF, Lewis and friends firebombed a development planned for affordable housing (i.e. working class folks who can't afford the kind of spread Lewis enjoyed). IOW, Lewis didn't want any of those 'little people' building houses that would spoil his own 'picturesque' view.

Typical econarcissist and envirohypocrite.


By number999 on 10/30/2006 1:49:55 PM , Rating: 2
Greenpeace got 9 complaints out of how many people they talked to at the mac expo? It doesn't say and it also didn't say that Greenpeace members weren't censured by higher-ups in the organization for their actions. Did over-zealous members go too far at the expo?

None of these questions are answered and yet people are jumping down GP's throat in this blog, sensing a vulnerability and wanting to vent their own opinions, especially against GP and PETA, PETA which had nothing to do with this story. You try to make your arguements sound reasonable or that you are coming from a reasonable place but you're not.

quote:
argue morals with those who have none...
quote:
Greenpeace and other groups place the environment ahead of the needs of people

These quotes show a judgement/stance on the issue(s) already.

quote:
that the people that willingly chain themselves to a tree or go vegan...
You're clumpling people together and attributing the most fanatical aspects of their beliefs to everyone who shares some of them. Some of Greenpeace's founding members actually support things like nuclear energy.

There is fanaticism in the organization of GP. I think you would need it in the face of trying to get their message across. But there equally exists fanaticism by the people who believe in the status quo and the pre-existing order and their moral/religious beliefs. Fanaticism of any type diminishes/reduces the arguementee in the eyes of the person with the belief.

The world isn't black and white, but shades of grey.





By TomZ on 10/30/2006 2:06:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
These quotes show a judgment/stance on the issue(s) already.

Yes, that's true. My priorities are:
1. Humans
2. Non-human animals, plants, and the environment

If you call that a judgment or stance on these issues, then I guess you’re right; I have already made up my mind. So what’s wrong with that?

And I’m sorry, if an organization condones lying/deception (in the case of Greenpeace) or violence (in the case of PETA) in order to get their point across, I tend to hold the whole organization responsible and judge them as a whole. I think that is entirely reasonable, especially when you consider these are decisions that come from the top of the organization, not from some fanatic splinter group within them, as you imply.


By number999 on 10/30/2006 8:32:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have already made up my mind. So what’s wrong with that?
What's wrong is that you aren't questioning anything about the article and are just venting. Marshall McLuhan wrote that the messages in media often just enforce the beliefs of the viewer. In it's own way, it foster's fanaticism of belief. Fanaticism, I've already commented on.
quote:
My priorities are: 1. Humans ....2... environment
What makes you think that environmentalists think any differently? Humans live in the environment and are part of it. The great fallacy is the belief that they are separate and that the man or the environment must be sacraficed for the other to prosper.
quote:
an organization condones lying/deception (in the case of Greenpeace) or violence (in the case of PETA)
Where in this article is GP lying in this case. As for PETA, they have nothing to do with this article. You don't like any organization of this type and this GP article gives perfect opportunity to vent about an org like PETA even though it has zero to do with the situation at hand.
quote:
decisions that come from the top of the organization,
And where is the reasonableness in that? You are privy to the inner workings of the upper management of GP? I'm amazed at your access. GP is one of the lesser in your face environmental organizations out there and negative publicity is not what it wants.
quote:
I tend to hold the whole organization responsible and judge them as a whole
This is so bogus and so easy to shoot down but the immediate example that comes to mind is so controversial it would get me flamed and has to do with where the US army is and what it's done. Is it right to judge other soldiers or US citizens for the misdeeds of the few?


By TomZ on 10/30/2006 10:55:45 PM , Rating: 2
I just have a few minutes, so I'll just respond to one of your points.
quote:
Where in this article is GP lying in this case.

It was reported that Greenpeace violated the contract and terms and conditions of the trade show by registering itself under an alias. I hope you're not going to argue that the decision to do this was by some rogue marketing employee? No, clearly this was a planned strategy.


By peternelson on 10/31/2006 9:26:43 AM , Rating: 2
They probably registered the stand under the CAMPAIGN name "GREEN MY APPLE".

I don't have a problem with that. And the organisers may not necessarily have had a problem with that.

Don't forget that all 9 complaints might have been caused by one obnoxious activist. We just don't know. Since GP works with volunteer labour, they can't afford to be too choosy and maybe failed to screen out some with an unprofessional mindset.

The idea seems good to have such a campaign and stand (assuming the details underlying their campaign are true) but the execution has gone a bit astray.


By drank12quartsstrohsbeer on 10/30/2006 3:10:13 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
You're clumpling people together and attributing the most fanatical aspects of their beliefs to everyone who shares some of them.


I bet you do that very thing when talking about Republicans.


By number999 on 10/30/2006 7:36:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
when talking about Republicans
Did I even mention politics in or where I stood on the entire thing? I am taking a skeptics view but it's quite obvious that you have already labeled me and what my views are.


DT=CRAP
By blwest on 10/30/2006 10:30:08 AM , Rating: 1
We get to hear about crap like this while the BBC news service actually posts something useful to technology.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6090394.stm




RE: DT=CRAP
By retrospooty on 10/30/2006 10:35:22 AM , Rating: 2
Well you could see how they can easily miss that major news that could effect everyone on the internet while focusing on everthing Apple (3% marketshare) says and does. LOL



RE: DT=CRAP
By TomZ on 10/30/2006 10:41:02 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think that's an entirely reasonable criticism. DT did cover this topic generally already just a couple days ago:

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4717

Also to be fair, since the conference just started and there have been no decisions or other outcomes, there's really no news there in the BBC article except that some folks are discussing the problem.


RE: DT=CRAP
By blwest on 10/30/2006 12:17:21 PM , Rating: 2
That article is about domain names kkthxbye.


RE: DT=CRAP
By TomZ on 10/30/2006 2:07:09 PM , Rating: 2
Mostly, yes, but I believe the article also discussed the topic of U.S. versus international control of ICAAN and/or the Internet. That's what I was referring to.


RE: DT=CRAP
By ZmaxDP on 10/30/2006 1:41:55 PM , Rating: 2
Wow,

That was a really good article. Let me sum it up for everyone else... The IGF was a waste of time, and reading the article about it is a waste of time. Nothing was accomplished, a lot of people talked in vague terms.

What a great story. I'm so glad you posted it here to prove that DailyTech sucks. I mean wow. I don't think I'll ever visit DT again seeing the kind of cutting edge journalism you've so kindly provided. Hopefully you won't ever visit DT again either so that other "less informed" people won't have to be "educated" by reading your fantastic posts.

Thanks again.


Yo the bitch is scewed
By rotylee on 11/6/2006 8:04:02 AM , Rating: 2
if this bitch was so worried about the child contracting diseases from others, why was she at a public expo.?





RE: Yo the bitch is scewed
By rotylee on 11/6/2006 8:08:13 AM , Rating: 2
if she was at a political rally wouldnt a politician grab her baby and kiss it, ect, ect......
and if it was a priest just think of what might have happened.


LOL
By therealnickdanger on 10/30/2006 10:13:49 AM , Rating: 2
I honestly have nothing valuable to comment about. I just think this is funny.




Oh the wise people
By olz on 10/30/2006 7:39:24 PM , Rating: 2
True enough, the hysterical behaviour of some PETA or Greenpeace members is irritating, to say the least.
Yet, using fur isn't really necessary anymore...
And to try to curb the pollution should me mandatory. Gone are the days when the american administration could play on studies conveniently financed by polluting industries to claim that the climate change was not proven. Ridiculing Greenpeace can be useful because even them should have a counter-power.
But educating, lobbying to convince individuals, and even to force governments, companies to act to preserve the environment is vital.




Let Apple speak
By peternelson on 10/31/2006 9:31:03 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not impressed by Apple's comments on the story.

They might have addressed the real issue.

Like why is Apple not working faster to remove nasty chemicals from their products.

Like why is Apple continuing to make combo screen/pc products that are obsolete faster than if they launched upgradable cpu modules.

If Apple wants to comment, let it comment on these!




"People Don't Respect Confidentiality in This Industry" -- Sony Computer Entertainment of America President and CEO Jack Tretton

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki