| |
|
Reading this article, the thought occured to me that this could technically be described as piracy. I mean, they've boarded a ship and taken over the running of it, even though the captain 'is still in control'.
Greenpeace have always managed to grab headlines with their activities in the past, and I do take my hat off to the people who go out and do this, but this action is venturing into a grey area. When does the moral justification for activism no longer outweigh the fact that you're breaking the law?
Point: The crew of this vessel are, for want of a better term, prisoners of Greenpeace. The activists are preventing them from reaching shore by refusing to let the pilot on board.
Point: The vessel needs to be refueled before it can return to the US. How is Greenpeace suggesting this be achieved without the vessel berthing at a harbour? Are they going to front the cost of having a tender vessel sail out and resupply the cargo ship?
So where does one draw the line? Is there in fact a line? At what point do actions like this to more to damage the cause than further it? |
|
|
