Greenpeace: Off Their Medication?
Winston is aware that some NGOs think that psychiatric medications may be over prescribed. However, after reading the latest self-promoting article from Greenpeace, Winston is concerned that some individuals may not be receiving the psychotherapeutic pharmaceuticals they need.

The Greenpeace press release titled "Going to jail for clean air?" states that last summer, "protestors climbed a 700-foot smokestack in Pennsylvania to bring attention to the dangers of a dirty coal power plant and US President Bush's polluting energy plan. They took this bold, peaceful action to help keep communities that live in the shadow of dirty power plants safe..." Left unexplained are such minor details as how climbing a smokestack could rationally be expected to reduce air emissions or "keep communities safe". Does anyone doubt that if one of the protestors had slipped and been injured or worse that Greenpeace would be first in line to sue the utility?

However, Greenpeace's concerns seem to have shifted from air emissions to the fact that the protestors are facing prison sentences for their illegal actions. In a bizarre bit of Orwellian-speak, Greenpeace states that "We believe strongly in our activists taking responsibility for their actions and bearing fair consequences for our protests. But in our 34-year history in the US, no Greenpeace activist has ever been convicted of a felony resulting from a protest, because felony charges for peaceful acts are unwarranted and go against free speech."

Greenpeace seems to have a most peculiar idea of what constitutes "free speech." The article on Greenpeace's website is most certainly free speech and is not nor should be not subject to any legal restrictions. Trespassing on private property, on the other hand, and endangering not only the perpetrators but also potentially people who may have had to come to their rescue is not "speech" but crime.

The fact that the "activists" may have had a political motivation for their actions in no way diminishes either crimes committed or the punishment that may be imposed for breaking the law. Winston wonders if Greenpeace favors a double standard of justice.

Greenpeace appears to favor a rather lenient judicial standard for persons holding political views with which the organization agrees. However, Winston thinks it rather unlikely that Greenpeace would be quite as committed to their definition of "free speech" if corporate executives were to trespass on their property and use it as forum for promoting industry perspectives on environmental regulations and energy policy.