THE "GUNNS 20" SITUATION

This page has some of my thoughts on a particular tactic of Gunns Limited (the Tasmanian logging compay). For a factual and informative explanation see The Wilderness Society's website. Search their site for "Gunns 20".

This page was composed in 2004 and is behind the times now.

Gunns have filed legal suits against 20 members of the public that have formally objected to what they have done in their neighbourhood.

It seems these objections are legitimate. The people concerned aren't troublemakers or even "tree huggers". They are just ordinary residents whose living has been badly affected by Gunn's activities. Well, they really aren't ordinary residents. They have had the courage to stand up to Gunns.

I heard one explain to me that he moved to his present property because he was surrounded by forest, birds, wallabies and possums. Now Gunns have removed the forest (can't remember how much) and there is no wildlife (don't they try to poison all wildlife?). And log trucks are always going past, compared to the peace that was there.

I saw a film of an area of forest that they had worked and it was a bit hard to watch. Especially when I saw a collection of possums that were dead and dying.

So, what have these people done? Nothing. Just the stuff some people do when bad things are happening around them. Talking to other people, writing letters, ... that sort of thing. Sticking up for themselves.

And what is Gunns response? To sue 20 people, the remaining 20 who haven't been discouraged.

This seems to be the new corporate trick - to scare off objectors with the threat of legal suits. It may have been started by McDonnalds when some people objected to what they were doing. The end result was that McDonnalds were methodically found to have breeched all their own claims of good practices. They just didn't have truth on their side and the legal system had to acknowledge that. The legal system still allowed McDonnalds to demand $40,000 from the two protesters but apparently don't want to collect any money. They have done enough damage to their own reputation.

There are some differences in the situations of the McDonnalds protesters and the "Gunns 20". I don't think the McDonnalds victims were directly impacted upon by McDonnalds activities ... I think their protest was more an act of conscience.

Gunns have had a direct impact on the neighbourhood as well as the dismaying features of their practices. They aren't dependant on public relations. This is Tasmania. I believe the legal system is more easily influenced by politics, big business and other pressures.

An update for 2005:
Apparently the Gunns case was went before court and was rejected because it was so sloppily composed. I understand they were told to go back and rebuild it, to be presented at a later date. I haven't heard anything more on it's progress but the The Wilderness Society's site will have all the relevent facts.