Gunns – the giant Tasmanian logging company – is suing 20 environmental activists and organisations for $6.3 million.
The company claims the greenies have harmed the company – by disrupting logging and woodchipping operations and also by vilifying the company to its customers and shareholders.
The case looks set to test the legal limits of activism and protest.
Extract:
Brian Walters: I don’t think anyone should say that the corporations shouldn’t have rights. They do have rights, and they should be able to access the courts. The question is, for what purpose? And the question is, what do we sacrifice if we allow them to just use their corporate power rather than their corporate rights? In the United States, following the huge explosion of SLAPP suits in the 1980s, nearly every state has now adopted anti-SLAPP suit legislation. It’s usually called Protection of Public Participation legislation, and under that legislation, if a corporation brings an action with the purpose of silencing public debate, they are liable to punitive damages in the courts. And that’s been applied, it’s meant a huge drop in the number of SLAPP suits, and an increase in the creativity of public debate within the United States. We should have that here.
And,
Brian Walters: Let’s look at it from a practical point of view. First of all, a corporation is much more able to access the justice system. The first reason for that is that litigation is expensive. That’s not just court fees which are considerable in themselves, but lawyers’ fees are such that the average person cannot afford to fund major litigation. But there’s another major factor: developers and industry groups generally enjoy tax advantages when they bring litigation. Because it’s part of their profit-earning activity, every dollar they spend on their lawyers’ fees is tax deductible. But the community group, or the individual who’s not engaging in profit earning activity, has to pay their own way, so there’s a big disadvantage at that point alone.
Just to give some examples: when Chris Masters of 4-Corners did his ‘Moonlight State’ report in 1988, that was a major contribution to the Australian community. That led to the Fitzgerald Royal Commission and a change of government in Queensland, and an alteration of the entire culture. He was still dealing with the litigation arising from that program 13 years later. That’s not just something you leave to your lawyers, you’re carrying around suitcases full of legal documents wherever you go, answering interrogatories, dealing, month in, month out with all of the immediate questions that you have to resolve for a court case. Where people are running professional lives, dealing with family responsibilities and just in that extra bit of time they have, campaigning to make the world a better place, if they’ve got to run a court case, they’re out of it. They’re shut out because of the sheer pressure of time. Not so for the corporation, they just give it to some officer in the corporation who can just handle that for them.
Damien Carrick: What do you say to the argument that, well, look, if you want to be engaged in activism, you have to cop it on the chin, you have to accept responsibility for your actions.
Brian Walters: Well I think that’s right, and indeed many activists have been prepared to be arrested and prosecuted for things that they have done out of conscience. But should we give this kind of advantage to corporations? In many of these cases, the situation is that the corporation sues with the prospect of gaining money, but the person sued has no such prospect. The best they can do, even if they win their cases and vindicate themselves, is have part of their costs paid by the other side. They’re going to be out of pocket to the tune of thousands of dollars, even if they win.
Damien Carrick: There’s a distinction, though, isn’t there, between waving a banner or speaking out on an issue and, say, interference with contractual relations, corporate vilification, obstructing people from going about their lawful commercial activity?
Brian Walters: I’m not aware of an offence or a tort of corporate vilification, and what does ‘interfering with contractual relations’ mean? It’s one thing to do so deliberately, as when a competitor interferes with somebody else’s contractual relations, but where you’re running a public campaign, in order to persuade the community to accept a different position and to change the mind of government in relation to things, then it’s difficult to see how the people who’ve got contracts which might be affected by government decisions should have a right to go to the courts about it.
Damien Carrick: It’s been put by a number of people that say encouraging customers not to do business with you is commercial vandalism.
Brian Walters: Well isn’t that just the counterpoint of advertising? If we’re allowing people to advertise in the community, shouldn’t we be able to say, look, hang on, we don’t like the way this industry, or this corporation, does their business. Did you know about this, this and this? Corporations have every ability to answer that, and they do.
etc, etc…
Read it all: The link:
meika loofs samorzewski
February 18, 2005 at 04:33
My URL links to a little social history, and commentary, on my growing up in Launceston in a Gunns neighbourhood.
Rachel Roberts
February 18, 2005 at 14:52
I’m reading The Corporation by Joel Bakan at the moment, it’s the book of the mini-series shown on SBS a few weeks ago. It makes very clear why Gunns behaves the way it does and paints a chilling picture of how corporations are trying to take over every aspect of our life.
Bakan says that corporations behave the way they do because they have to be concerned only for the profits of their shareholders. The only way they can be concerned about the environment, social repercussions of their actions, people’s health, or any other moral or legal obligation is if it helps them increase profits. If it is more profitable to destroy the environment, let people get hurt/killed, break the law, etc., that is what a corporation has to do.
What Bakan writes in this book makes sense of the apparently non-sensical behaviour of governments and companies that don’t act in the best interest of the general public. It’s a book that I think should be required reading for everyone.