Greenpeace was found guilty of "deliberate use of falsification" and using an emotional scene in its propaganda film against seal hunting which "is undoubtedly false" (Oslo Municipal Court May, 1992) in neutral Norway.
Greenpeace had sued filmmaker Magnus Gudmundsson because of "Survival in the High North," where he accused Greenpeace of lies galore - spreading untruths about seal hunters, skinning seals alive, and "engaged in swindle and deceit" in the apparent staging of the seal-killing (there were witnesses). They shot no faces in their film, which might be considered mandatory in any true documentary. After the guilty verdict, they (Greenpeace) said they were "fully satisfied with the verdict" and would not appeal. Guess they figure nobody would ever hear about it.
That followed some terrorism - the intentional sinking of the only two small steam-powered whaling vessels in Iceland. There was only one small whaling station and very few people involved in the "industry" and no shortage of whales. David McTaggart, Greenpeace chair, skipped bail and ran in Rainbow Warrior. Greenpeace hadn't dare sue in Reykjavik, but tried (and lost) in Norway. The film, incidentally, was financed by a journalist, not the whaling commission. Greenpeace was not able to disprove anything; the film's maker fully documented everything.
The Greenpeace organization had seemingly paid people to torture animals in faked propaganda films, photographs and "news" stories. (Forbes Magazine, November 1991). If that sounds a bit "strong" as an accusation, consider as proof of those charges, the baby seals killing, removing the fetus from a kangaroo in Australia, and other spectacular animal events: The cameras filmed the killing, never the faces of the people doing the torture and killing.
Said founder Paul Watson: "It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe to be true ... you are what the media define you to be. (Greenpeace) became a myth and a myth-generating machine."
A final point: Why do they behave the way they do? Money. That's their real reason, to make money through maximum contributions. Some of the Greenpeace solicitors have been paid commissions as high as 38 percent, preying on perceived citizen guilt for littering or swatting a fly. That guilt gets translated into dollars, an "environmental absolution." And it all adds up to multi-millions for Greenpeace and their friends. Sad.