Alternative facts from the left

[viper37]

It's not something Quebec media will cover, despite the fact it concerns one of our companies.


Greenpeace admits its attacks on forest products giant were 'non-verifiable statements of subjective opinion

Greenpeace, after repeated attacks against Canada's biggest forest products company for "destroying," Canada's boreal forests, now says that it was merely stating an opinion about the logging activity, not a fact.

[Grey Fox]

Environmentalist != Left

[derspiess]

Greenieweenies are pretty solidly left.

[Berkut]

That isn't an alternative fact, that is argument over legal semantics.

It doesn't address at all the core claim that Greenpeace is making about those companies.

Dumbfuck morons will of course pretend it is Greenpeace admitting they were lying or something, because that fits their narrative, but that isn't remotely what Greenpeace is admitting to here.

[viper37]

Environmentalist != Left

Greenpeace and Équiterre are solidly to the left, they will refuse to work with any political party or organisation advocating the use of free markets to tackle environmental problems.

[viper37]

It doesn't address at all the core claim that Greenpeace is making about those companies.

Actuall, it does.  All of Greenpeace claims in this case have been proven factually wrong.

Dumbfuck morons will of course pretend it is Greenpeace admitting they were lying or something, because that fits their narrative, but that isn't remotely what Greenpeace is admitting to here.

Lots of $$ are in play, so of course they won't admit to lying right away, that could cost them a lot while they still have a chance.  Instead, they're trying to weasle their way by saying it was "just an opinion".

[celedhring]

So, reading the article these guys lost their "sustainable practices" seal three years ago but apparently calling them forest destroyers - an obvious figure of speech - amounts to libel. Whatever.

As leftie alternative facts go - and I'm sure you could find plenty - this one seems weak.

[Grey Fox]

Environmentalist != Left

Greenpeace and Équiterre are solidly to the left, they will refuse to work with any political party or organisation advocating the use of free markets to tackle environmental problems.

Ok but not all of us overly care about what Greenpeace thinks about anything.

[Berkut]

As leftie alternative facts go - and I'm sure you could find plenty - this one seems weak.

No kidding. I despise Greenpeace for all the *right* reasons and I find this crowing from the right to be not just silly, but willfully ignorant. More embracing Teh Stupid.

It looks like a Bretibart article.

[viper37]

So, reading the article these guys lost their "sustainable practices" seal three years ago but apparently calling them forest destroyers - an obvious figure of speech - amounts to libel. Whatever.

They only lost it due to intense lobbying by environmental organizations.
Other companies much much worst elsewhere still have their seal.
That is part of the reason why Resolute is sueing them.

[merithyn]

So, reading the article these guys lost their "sustainable practices" seal three years ago but apparently calling them forest destroyers - an obvious figure of speech - amounts to libel. Whatever.

They only lost it due to intense lobbying by environmental organizations.
Other companies much much worst elsewhere still have their seal.
That is part of the reason why Resolute is sueing them.

So the argument is "We're not as bad as those other people! We just have these lefties bullying us!"?

I'm guessing the seal came from a government entity? If so, in order to take away the seal THREE YEARS AGO, they had to have found fault, regardless of who was bullying whom. Right? And if they haven't gotten it back, it's because they presumably haven't earned it back. Correct?

The government should tell the company the same thing that I told my kids for years: Don't worry about someone else is or isn't doing. You're being punished for what YOU did. I'll worry about the others, and you worry about getting yourself back into my good graces.

[viper37]

So the argument is "We're not as bad as those other people! We just have these lefties bullying us!"?

there's a dispute going on to protect the caribou.  Resolute does not operate in the area where the caribou is threatened, according to Quebec government's scientists.

I'm guessing the seal came from a government entity?

No, non profit entity composed of various and dubious individual.  The Quebec government has backed Resolute in its fight against the greens idiots.

If so, in order to take away the seal THREE YEARS AGO, they had to have found fault, regardless of who was bullying whom. Right? And if they haven't gotten it back, it's because they presumably haven't earned it back. Correct?

They haven't even tried.  Too politically charged until they win their suit.  Greenpeace tried a SLAPP defence, but it didn't work.
There's a also a dispute with the Cree, but it's only tangentially related to the forest issues. 

The government should tell the company the same thing that I told my kids for years: Don't worry about someone else is or isn't doing. You're being punished for what YOU did. I'll worry about the others, and you worry about getting yourself back into my good graces.

This is exactly what the government and local authorities in the area concerned have done.
http://www.resolutefp.com/Sustainability/Forestry_and_Fiber_Sourcing/Forest_Certification/

They still have their other certification.

[crazy canuck]

There must be a language issue here.  The news report is simply about a defence being argued in a US Court case that the comment was not defamatory because it was a statement of opinion.  The only thing that made it newsworthy is that the CEO of the Plaintiff is trying to frame the defence as the defendant changing its story now that it is being sued. Something which the Defendant denies and  judging from the scant facts actually reported in that article - justifiably.

[HVC]

Opinion is a defence to defamation? That seems like an odd loop hole.

[viper37]

There must be a language issue here.  The news report is simply about a defence being argued in a US Court case that the comment was not defamatory because it was a statement of opinion.  The only thing that made it newsworthy is that the CEO of the Plaintiff is trying to frame the defence as the defendant changing its story now that it is being sued. Something which the Defendant denies and  judging from the scant facts actually reported in that article - justifiably.

there's a lot more to the story than this simple account.  French CBC and La Presse have made an extensive coverage of the dispute, it really didn't look good for Greenpeace.