Ele Ludemann: Red & political

Federated Farmers is calling for GreenRedpeace to lose its charitable status:

. . . “Greenpeace need to be held accountable for their repeated illegal activity and the spread of harmful misinformation,” Southland Federated Farmers president Jason Herrick says.

“How can they be recognised as a charity when they’re breaking all kinds of laws trespassing on private property, vandalising public property, and intimidating the community?

“Last night’s vandalism of the world-famous trout statue in Gore reinforces why these activists need to lose their status as a charity. I think it’s a total abuse of charitable status.”

Herrick says Greenpeace’s vandalism of the statue and welcome sign is a shameless attempt to divide the small rural community and spread anti-farming propaganda. . .

In April, Federated Farmers called for the Government to immediately strip Greenpeace of its charitable status after the group’s illegal occupation of Port Taranaki.

Charitable status in New Zealand is intended to support organisations that advance public benefit through education, relief of poverty, and other recognised charitable purposes.

Under the Charities Act, organisations must operate for the public good and not primarily serve political or advocacy purposes.

Herrick says he sees Greenpeace’s ongoing illegal activity as clear evidence that it no longer meets these criteria for charitable status.

“There are plenty of amazing, honest charities doing fantastic work out there – but Greenpeace is not one of them.

Many environmental groups do far more for the environment without the political, and often illegal, activities undertaken by GreenRedpeace.

“It’s become little more than an extreme activist group that’s disrupting legitimate businesses and spreading harmful misinformation – repeatedly and deliberately.”

Federated Farmers lodged a formal complaint with Charities Services in April, requesting a formal inquiry into Greenpeace’s conduct and eligibility for charitable status.

A copy was also sent to Community and Voluntary Sector Minister Hon Louise Upston and Minister of Internal Affairs Hon Brooke van Velden.

The complaint focuses on Greenpeace’s repeated involvement in premeditated unlawful protest activity.

That includes the 2024 protest at Fonterra’s Te Rapa dairy factory where seven individuals were arrested, and last year’s occupation of Straterra’s Wellington office, where five were arrested during a staged lockdown.

“We urge Charities Services to act decisively on our existing complaint and strip Greenpeace of its charitable status quickly,” Herrick says.

“I can’t see any way they meet the requirements for registration under the Charities Act 2005.

“Hardworking Kiwi taxpayers should not be forced to subsidise their illegal attacks and extremist political agendas through tax breaks for their donors.

“Law-breaking groups cannot hide behind charitable privileges while threatening livelihoods with misinformation about farming.”

Herrick says it’s not just Greenpeace that needs to be held accountable for how it’s operating as a charity.

“I think Charities Services and the Government need to be held accountable too and answer some tough, but fair, questions about how this rort of the rules is being allowed to continue.

“There is absolutely no way Greenpeace should be allowed to constantly break the law and still be recognised as a charity.”

It would be more accurate for the organisation to be called Redpeace and for it to be recognised as a political organisation than a charitable one.

Family First was deregistered as a charity because it was deemed to be more political than charitable. Greenpeace is far more red than green and very political.

The Charities Commission declined to register GreenRedpeace for the same reason but that was overturned by the High Court.

Greenpeace was embroiled in a decade-long legal battle with the Charities Commission to become a registered charity. The Board of the Commission had denied registration of Greenpeace because it had engaged in political advocacy. This culminated in a historic case in the Supreme Court (Re Greenpeace of New Zealand [2014] NZSC 105). The Court remitted the decision back the Commission in light of its decision that political advocacy could be a charitable purpose if the advocacy was to the public benefit. . .

By that reasoning could it be argued that political parties are charitable and if environmental activism is in the public interest why not Family First’s advocacy for families?

Regardless of the answer to those questions, vandalism and other illegal activates are not in the public interest.

Ele Ludemann is a North Otago farmer and journalist, who blogs HERE - where this article was sourced.