Those who make peaceful protests impossible make violent rebellion inevitable.
Right? If it’s years in prison either way, they’re about to find out what real eco terrorism looks like when protestors are ready to go all in.
I’m constantly surprised that the endless unmonitored miles of oil pipelines don’t ever bombed.
“In an opinion article in The New York Times, columnist Ezra Klein wrote that “[a] truer title would be ‘Why to Blow Up a Pipeline’”, characterizing Malm’s answer as “[because] nothing else has worked”. Stating that Malm was “less convincing” about “whether blowing up pipelines would work here, and now”, Klein argued that there would likely be political consequences to sabotage, including imprisonment of climate activists as well as political repression.[13]”
Whelp, Erza Klein can eat the whole of my ass.
Seems like a reasonable position to me. He’s saying that the argument amounts to “may as well try” and that it doesn’t get into specifics of what the actual material consequences of the action would be, which is a fair critique. He doesn’t say that the argument is wrong, just that it’s not fully explored.
And he is right that retaliation by the state is the only truly foreseeable consequence, and that is a big deal. It’s the main reason to avoid picking fights with the state unless you’re in a position to win those fights. What “winning” looks like is up for debate and depends on your goals, but you have to consider the response.
It sounds like this is a question that can only be answered with empirical testing.
That actively works against the cause because it would do so much harm to the local ecosystems
That is a short term problem for trying to fight a long term catastrophe.
I would prefer to not cause a mess, and further harm natural spaces, but as you can see. Not only are passive demonstrations not effective, they have severe jail time. So at this point, i see it as the most logical step
And as these sentences get handed down and there are more political prisoners and martyrs, more people will start to think that way.
Current eco activists tend to be very conscientious and considered about what they’re doing. As it gets more popular, you’ll get people joining who are considerably less measured in their actions, and the likelihood of drastic actions increases.
Well a lot of them run through more or less suburban areas. So doing it there would have lower environmental impact while greatly raising awareness of how many pipelines run through populated places.
That would almost certainly only hurt poor neighbourhoods, and that’s easy for the media to sweep under the rug. They’ve perfected the art of dehumanising the poor.
I think the reality is that we don’t know the consequences. I mean, I’m not saying it shouldn’t happen, but the effects are impossible to predict.
That’s probably why environmentalist movements that tend to be full of only the most conscientious people have shied away from it. They would want to know what they were getting into first.
If things get bad enough that ecoterrorism becomes popular and a wider array of people take up the cause, we’ll probably find out the answer to these questions.
I guess that’s what they’re aiming for, to turn the general public against protests (even more).
Absolutely. From the end of the article:
Separately on Thursday, three airports were granted high court injunctions against fossil fuel and environmental activists protesting at their sites. Leeds Bradford airport, London Luton airport and Newcastle international airport were given injunctions banning protesters from trespassing or causing a nuisance.
Removed by mod
The hypocrisy is strong with this one. Must be a Republican.
I’m from Germany. What is wrong with you man? Your comment is a testimony of how fucked up your country actually is. Get your shit together.
Besides, this post is about the UK not the US. Not everything is about the US. Infact, you’re not as central in international discussions as you think you are. Most people in Europe don’t give a shit and are just laughing at your rediculous attempt of a democracy.
Re read your posts and think real hard this time. You know, about violence you would like to inflict on the violent protestors. I am sure you can figure it out. And calling you a Republican is not about calling out where you are from, just that you share their qualities, specifically their penchant to be nothing if not hypocritical, and projecting.
What even is a Republican? Isn’t the US a two-party system? So everyone has to be classified with exactly two opinions? Not more and not less? Like I’m either Rep or Dem? Answer is: I’m neither. Not my problem that you can’t vote for neither but you don’t need to classify me as your two parties.
Not really, there are two parties with political power, but people run the gambit of political ideology. In this case i am using “republican” as a derogatory descriptor, based on your wish for violence against people who are violent but don’t agree with you.
Read this again.
Getting someone fired for missing work isn’t helping your cause in ANY way.
You want to protect workers? Shitting on people who try to protect the environment isn’t it.
Ban union busting, ban arbitrary firing, set up a worker protections.
Do those things first. Then come complain.
Grow some class consciousness.
I do. I however approach it with a pragmatic strategy. Blocking traffic doesn’t work. It doesn’t change minds, it doesn’t change policy. It prevents hourly workers from getting paid.
I agree with every thing you have said, except the execution. It hurts poor people and doesn’t change policy.
If anything the richest people are the ones driving to work. Cars are expensive.
I can confirm that this is not the case.
Is bicycling and public transit not cheaper than owning a car?
Not in my specific circumstances, no.
deleted by creator
I thought the title was going to be a little click-baity, but it wasn’t. 5-year and 4-year for planning to disrupt traffic is horrible. As the article points out, the dissonance between this sentencing and the actual harm caused by large-scale polluters is insane.
If the sentencing is gonna be that bad for something minor, maybe dramatically up the ante next time.
Drunk drivers that crash and actually ended up disrupting traffic get lighter sentences than this.
This is fucking spot on and honestly I’m disgusted thinking about it.
So endangering the public, disrupting traffic, and potentially killing someone because you crashed your car while shitfaced is better than planning a protest I guess.
Oh yeah I forgot…of course the crime of offending and defying the ultra wealthy oil barons is worse than potentially killing a not rich person. They own basically everything at this point.
Holy shit. 5 years for “conspiracy to cause public nuisance”. Holy shit.
If you punish peaceful activism this hard you make violent activism more appealing. If you’re going to prison for years either way you might as well really fuck shit up
Especially after the events that transpired last week. Politicians need to show the people that opposing them nonviolently IS viable. It’s in their own best interest.
Otherwise it’s “fuck the rules, let them try”, and based on history they WILL try.
Not allowed evidence, not allowed a defense, and the crime was a zoom call where they tried to recruit people to block a highway. 5 years in prison.
Holy shit, are you guys okay in the UK? Blink twice if you need help.
Blinking? Straight to jail!
Insurrectionists doing less time than these hippies. Y’all are crushin’ it down there…
M25 leads me to believe this is GB not the US
It says UK a few sentences in.
In for a lamb, in for a sheep.
In for a peaceful protest, in for sabotage
This has got to be appealable right? Thats insane!
The sentences are excessive and unjustifiable, but it wasn’t just one zoom call that was taken into account - three of them including Hallam were already on suspended sentences and all of them were on bail at the time of the “offence.” I do not think that any of them should be imprisoned but the full details are not being given in the reporting.
Sentencing remarks [pdf] https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/R-v-Hallam-and-others.pdf
Jesus that’s a crazy sentence
Removed by mod
You know who’s the first to suffer from the continued climate crisis? Poor people, working people.
The people taking it seriously and demanding action are the ones serving the interests of poor and working people.
If you want to help poor people in need, then advocate for strong labour laws and a robust welfare state. None of this regressive pearl clutching shite that doesn’t help anyone except the ruling class.
I’m sure that sounds great when you aren’t stuck in traffic at your hourly job, while the middle class protests because they have the time and money. It doesn’t work. You have the correct idea supporting them and advocating for change. But the execution is failing here. It does not progress your goals.
I’ve been stuck in exactly one protest-caused traffic backup in my entire life. But I’ve been stuck in backups for: crashes, rush hour, road construction, trains, sportsball matches, concerts, sausage festivals, triathlons, university dorm move-in, and even crews painting the lane lines, more times than I could even begin to count.
Why no tears for the poor wage slaves being stuck with the shittiest of transportation systems when it’s experiencing its usual failures?
Does 👏 not 👏 work
Really not that hard a concept.
If you’re talking about the automobile-based transportation system, yes, I agree that it does not work, but I disagree that it is not a hard concept. It doesn’t seem like it should be, but it is. It should be gobsmackingly obvious that it doesn’t work based on simple observations through the windshield, yet so many people just can’t grasp it. As for disruptive protest, the case is not so straightforward, and many people will argue that it’s the only form of protest that actually works.
Does 👏 not 👏 work
Change up the strategy.
you do realize that you saying it over and over again while plugging your ears doesn’t magically make it true, right? and that people generally just consider this behaviour childish, right?
When you consider the violence to property or to the economy over people, you lose any respect i could have for you. I argue against your definition of violence. And you are essentially relegating protest to only where it could not have any impact in the first place.
I didn’t know what to tell you. It doesn’t work. You are hurting your cause because your sense of justice has seen it work in the past. There are more effective ways than pissing EVERYONE off. You need to be more pragmatic in your thinking.
I’m still waiting for these more pragmatic ways to be effective…. I am sure relegating protestors to somewhere more convenient helps your cause, but historically it doesn’t help the cause of the protest.
Yep been waiting quite a while now. I am sure silent solidarity will convince law makers to not take that lucrative lobbying money any day now.
I’m not saying protesting isn’t an answer. Only that blocking major roadways just pisses people off, hurts those most vulnerable, and has a net effect of pushing voting right.
To be honest, i don’t think blocking traffic would work either. I would inconvenience the government or corporations directly. I am more for eco-sabotage i guess
Who said anything about violence?
Kier Stalin
