Canadian company X-site apologises for Greta Thunberg sexualised image, says 'Will do better'

Alberta-based oilfield company X-Site Energy services has apologised for a sexualised image of renowned environmentalist Greta Thunberg that has been doing the rounds on the internet. The image had stoked a major controversy after an image of a pornographic sticker emerged showing teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg being sexually assaulted, with the company’s logo superimposed on the sticker.

X-Site Energy Services had initially denied producing the sticker or being associated with it. Thunberg had responded to the tweet about the sticker calling it an act of desperation. “They are starting to get more and more desperate...This shows that we’re winning,”she tweeted.

The tweet had caused worldwide uproar prompting X-Site Energy Services to release a statement saying, “We recognize that it is not enough to apologize for the image associated with our company logo on the decals that circulated last week. This does not reflect the values of this company or our employees, and we deeply regret the pain we may have caused. We have let our employees, our families and our customers down with this careless action but, just as we are committed to help reduce our industry's environmental footprint, we are committed to learn from and correct our mistake. We will do better”.

Canadian company X-site apologises for Greta Thunberg sexualised image, says 'Will do better'

The sticker was met with outrage in Canada, as the company that made it was accused of producing child pornography. However, a statement by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) said that, while offensive, the sticker did not meet the criteria for a criminal matter.

Under Canadian law, any pornographic depiction of a person under the age of 18 can be considered child pornography. But, the RCMP told the Huffington Post that it is not certain or specifically stated that the person in the sticker is Greta Thunberg, and that while it had been analysed by “experts in child exploitation matters”, it did not meet the threshold of a criminal matter and so no investigation would be underway.