So, Greenpeace Likes ISDS Now, Does It?

Or, you know, raging hypocrisy?

Surveying the varied claims of the left is always an exercise in spot the hypocrisy. Which gives us this fun example right here concerning Greenpeace and that $660 million court judgement against them.

I’ve mentioned around here about how the left just hates, despises, the ISDS system.

What is being said is that if you nick someone’s property then you’ve got to pay for it.

Well, is not issuing an exploitation licence that you said you would nicking someone’s property? That’s clearly arguable (I would say “Yes!” but then that’s me) so, where do we go to argue this?

The courts controlled by Greenland, the very people we’re having the argument with? Or some neutral venue. Say, where the Govt of Greenland appoints a lawyer, the company appoints a lawyer and we draft in a third neutral to balance as they chew it over? Which is what the ISDS system actually is.

Governments can do whatever the hell they like. Sure. But they do have to pay up for contracts they’ve already agreed to. And an unbiased court to decide upon what is a contract and what are damages seems like a damn good idea.

This is what The Guardian is arguing against. The Guardian’s position actually is that any government should be allowed to steal anything with no comeback or payment.

Seems a bit off really, doesn’t it?

And:

And, as they say, domestic politics might well mean people breach proper law and therefore and thus we need to have courts outside the country to be able to deal with this clash between democracy and the rule of law and civil rights.

Cool, I agree.

Except The Guardian doesn’t. As I’ve pointed out just recently they think that international courts, outside that influence of domestic politics and insulated from the vagaries of democracy are an appalling thing. A violation of all that is good and holy in fact.

And now we come to the Greenpeace verdict. As reported in The Guardian, of course:

The environmental group, which had expressed concerns before the trial about getting a fair hearing in oil and gas country,

Oh? So courts can be biased, can they? It’s necessary to have a neutral and independent venue? My Word:

The verdict is not the end for this case – Greenpeace has said it will appeal to the North Dakota supreme court. Legal experts believe the organization has a better shot on appeal, citing the jury’s ties to the oil and gas industry and the broad disapproval of the protest among local residents.

Democracy, the will of the people, is to be put to one side in favour of that independent and unbiased venue, is it?

Gosh, that is a surprise now, isn’t it children? When it’s the left being rodgered it’s the rule of law and its impartial application that is paramount. When it’s the left doing the rodgering everyone’s arsehole is fair game.

So, can we say “hypocrite”? Yes, that’s right, hypocrite.