https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/15/just-stop-oil-activist-is-first-to-be-jailed-under-new-uk-protest-law
Stephen Gingell, 57, thought to be first to receive prison sentence under new Public Order Act
The fact that the comment sections of these posts are always the same just shows how much oil propaganda has affected the situation.
That and people thinking protesting isn't deliberately meant to disrupt the daily lives of people in an attempt to force them to acknowledge there's a problem and do something about it.
By nature protests are supposed to be disruptive to the average person because it's the average person that decides what policies and laws we have.
The problem is the average person is too stupid/ignorant/tired/lazy to realize this and just sees it as a personal attack and reacts with pure emotion.
No. Protests are supposed to change the mind of the average person, or at least bring their attention to a given cause.
Holding someone's time to ransom doesn't help your cause, it just makes people resent you.
Has the UK become more environmentally aware since Just Stop Oil kicked off?
Do you not remember the protests for civil rights? The sit ins? The marches? The protests outside the white house?
Literally every part of what is protesting is based on disrupting everything for the average citizen so the govt is forced to make a change.
The point of protesting is to force action without violence. People blocking traffic or stopping people from entering certain businesses is exactly what protesting is.
Protesting isn't just rallies where people come together to talk about what they all agree on. It's actively forcing people to acknowledge the issue without resorting to violence.
Edit: I didn't see this was a UK post which is my bad but it's still relevant
Do you not remember the protests for civil rights? The sit ins? The marches? The protests outside the white house?
No? I'm from the UK, as is the subject of this article, why would we remember what happened in some other country? I'm also a millennial, would I even remember the protests for civil rights in your country if I had been from there?
Just food for thought is all, you have a point of course :-)
I'm from the UK. Also a millennial. Being ignorant about defining moments in world history can't be pinned on either of those things.
The suffragettes were pretty disruptive, even the peaceful ones. The bombing suffragettes were extremely disruptive.
Yeah I realized after I made the comment that this was based in the UK. That's my bad. I don't really have an excuse lmao
The commenter is being needlessly pedantic like they aren't aware of the Civil Rights Movement at all. Even assuming they weren't one of the people that studied it, the USA's Civil Rights Movement is a common topic of study in history curricula in the UK because it has a significant cultural impact and is an excellent study of protest, the importance of civil rights, racial tensions, and context of the USA which is a dominant presence across the world.
The Civil Rights Movement had an incredibly low popular support before the Civil Rights Act was passed.
Protests are meant to disrupt. No progress is made unless you have a moderate and an extreme movement. That way the status quo compromises to the moderates to prevent the extreme from gaining ground.
So frankly, Just Stop Oil is too gentle. We won't see change until people get extreme on their protests against fossil fuels.
The USA is a special case though, they refuse to change or progress socially until they have no other option, which means violence is often the only option.
More civilized countries will enact change long before this.
France is the reason change usually happens before things get violent.
I do hate the French, but not for that reason.
You do understand I'm agreeing with you, right? I'm well aware of what a guillotine was used for.
every country refuses to change or progress socially until they have no other option, which means violence is often the only option.
Sorry, but that's simply wrong. There's plenty of countries that change with the times.
New Zealand have enacted women's suffrage, gay marriage, and decriminanalising abortion with no violence at all, simply because the government of the time listened to the people.
Here's a quote from Martin Luther King that I think is very relevant:
First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."
Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
@Ilovethebomb @ThatWeirdGuy1001 Some protests are instead designed to raise the cost of an abusive behavior so the rich ruling class will buy less of it.
Don't waste time trying to speak truth to this kind of power, speak power to oppressors instead. Make sure they understand that we can match ANY level of escalation on their part.
This is how we killed Huntingdon "Life" Sciences: the public already opposed vivisection, but vivisection was on both sides of the ballot.
How is any of that related to blocking roads? How is that "speaking power to oppressors"?
Lol and you all wonder why most surface life on the planet is going to die along with most humans
I'm amazed at how few people realise this. I don't agree with jailing this guy but people seem to think that as long as a protest gets noticed by people it MUST be effective.
Arguing with anger makes people who are already on your side agree with you, arguing with calm and logic might actually change a few minds though.
Just Stop Oil are the former and appears to me to be doing nothing to help the effort, do they think that people believe oil is good for the planet and that they're actually making others aware of the environmental impact? Nobody is learning anything but plenty of people are getting pissed off with the cause because it's unnecessarily disruptive and furthers nothing.
Edit: you guys proved the point phenomenally. There's the people already on their side agreeing, meanwhile at least 2 commenters who are anti oil are painted like we coat penguins in it for fun in our free time. Why do so many suggest it's either JSO or ineffective sanctioned protests? Could there not be something in between? What would be so wrong with protesting directly to MPs by the houses of Parliament? You could chain yourself to whatever if you need to make a strong point, throw oil/paint/whatever at 10 downing street, do something that the decision makers will actually notice and have people talking about you favourably. Most conversations about JSO are one side saying they're fucking morons, and the other side naively echoing this chamber like that has any chance at changing anyone's mind.
Ah well, lemmy seems even less flexible than reddit did with its views, so I shouldn't be surprised. There is no room for nuance here.
A JSO representative had a great interview with Alex O'Connor and he basically said that negative attention is still better than no attention.
Yeah and that's the exact outlook that I think is dumb. It might be true if they were trying to make the world aware of some very serious but largely unknown issue, but that's not what's happening here at all.
Nobody learns anything, FEWER people will sympathise with you, and you disrupt people's lives for exactly fuck all.
You must not work in advertising, because it's objective reality that negative attention is better than no attention.
They've been arguing with calm and logic for 30 years and it has changed absolutely nothing. How long should they keep doing it?
Yup. Unfortunately, these people live in an echo chamber of like minded people, so they never realize how far out of touch they are.
I don't think it's out of touch to understand how a protest works. If a protest annoyed you once and made you dislike the cause, that doesn't seem like the protest was doing it wrong, it seems like you were never going to be sympathetic to the cause.
Ironically, people on your side seem to specifically NOT know how protests work. Pissing off the masses does not bring people to your cause.
I'm also sympathetic to the cause and do a lot to improve my carbon footprint, but I'm the bad guy here because I believe that simply pissing off others will not reduce the worlds reliance on oil.
What has actually been achieved with these protests? Do people exist who didn't know oil was bad until they saw someone holding up traffic or chaining themselves to a football goal? It seems like disruption for disruptions sake to me.
You're completely wrong. There was never a protest that didn't piss off the masses. There was never a cause that didn't piss off the masses. Everything pisses off the masses because the masses are whiny crybaby snowflakes. So what is your solution? Sit back and let the government kill us?
You're very much wrong there, I'm actually quite sympathetic to their cause, and would like to reduce my carbon footprint. But stopping people from going about their day just gives the movement a bad name.
Why won't everyone just do their protests respectably (in that small square over there between 5-6pm on Tuesdays of the second week every other month).
The solution is to break the social contract on both sides.
Governments need to learn they answer to the people, not the wealthy.
Civil disobedience is what the history books say is the thing to do. Not what reality says is the thing to do.
Agreed. See Scheidel's The Great Leveler: Violence and the History of Inequality from the Stone Age to the Twenty-First Century.
My understanding was that he did some kind of tacit endorsement of necklacing. Can't recall if he was popularising songs that described it or something. However pretty sure he was not personally involved.
Yeah because we know democratic rights evolve just around the right to vote and nothing else on top of that
I'm sure North Koreans feel blessed with democracy and freedom every time they hit the polls LOL
The UK is truly becoming a fascist hellhole.
"You're allowed to protest, but only between 5PM and 6PM and you must get a permit and also don't bother anyone or make too much noise and also you must walk at the right speed otherwise you're just being a meanie and we're going to arrest you >:("
While I think some of Just Stop Oil's previous antics were counterproductive to the public image of climate activists, arresting someone because they didn't protest "at the right speed" is ridiculous. The whole point of protests is to be disruptive and bring attention to the protesters and their cause, and this is an incredibly mild way of doing it.
Also did the British government forget about the troubles? When folks cant peacefully protest shit tends to explode both metaphorically and sometimes literally. Oh wbo am I kidding the British government is full of dipshits. Give it to the inbred english aristocracy and oligarchy to repeatedly smash their dicks with a hammer.
Also did the British government forget about the troubles?
Damn right they forgot about Northern Ireland. They barely care about anywhere outside of London.
@vaultdweller013 @Ragdoll_X
IRA hell yeah! When the Easter Rising was shot down by British troops, the UK earned themselves 80 more years of war.
Are you crazy?! 5-6pm is rush hour! No it must be 2-3am, but if any of your neighbours are woken up, they must spend six months in a re-education camp kindly funded by our BP sponsors.
People have a right to go about their day, you can't have everyone with a gripe going around blocking roads all the time.
You are an awful status quo, please don’t rock my boat it’s working for me and I don’t care about anybody or anything else person.
Here's a quote from Martin Luther King that I think is very relevant:
First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."
Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
This. I don't care how righteous your cause is. Get the fuck out of my way and go stab an oil exec if you actually want change.
You would have volunteered to guard the concentration camps because if the Jews got out they'd make a ruckus.
There were Nazi Jews. There were even Jews who guarded concentration camps. Hitler didn't spare them.
Go do a slow march against the next Hitler and see how much they care. Then enjoy 6 months in jail.
If you're going to get six months for slow walking then you may as well make it six months for hurling rocks at Rishi Sunak.
As much as I loathe the civil disobedience tactics of movements like Just Stop Oil, Insulate Britain and Extinction Rebellion; I feel like attacking our freedom to protest like this is going to backfire.
This may push such groups into radicalism because "we're going to prison anyway, may as well go all the way."
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A climate activist has been jailed for six months after pleading guilty to taking part in a peaceful slow march protest on a London road.
The sentence handed to Stephen Gingell, 57, is thought to be the first jailing under a new law that critics say makes anyone walking in a road liable for prosecution for “interference with key national infrastructure”.
Gingell, a father of three from Manchester, was one of about 40 supporters of Just Stop Oil who spent about 30 minutes marching on Holloway Road in north London at about 4pm on 12 November, the climate campaign group said.
The campaign’s “guerrilla tactics” were cited by the Home Office when it introduced the Public Order Act’s tough new anti-protest measures to parliament.
Police began using section 7 to tackle Just Stop Oil’s protests at the end of October, arresting 60 people taking part in a march in Parliament Square.
A spokesperson for the campaign said: “Section 7 of the Public Order Act 2023, a law drafted by the fossil fuel lobby, was introduced in April by Priti Patel, and covers ‘interference with the use or operation of key national infrastructure’.
The original article contains 503 words, the summary contains 192 words. Saved 62%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/watch?v=o0JzBzA76n0
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
It's not really true, see: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/oct/22/just-stop-oil-van-gogh-national-gallery-aileen-getty
This is one donor, not "the person behind". The family made a lot of money on oil and has since entirely divested. The "heiress" in question is on the record saying she believes climate change threatens all of civilization and so she wants to put her fortune -- especially given that a lot of it came from oil -- to use stopping fossil fuels.
It's basically EXACTLY what a sane person with a functional moral compass should do in that position, but it's used as attack and slander regardless. Threads like this you ALWAYS see the right-wing talking points parroted faithfully by people who are either too gullible to do basic fact-checking or else are flatly disingenuous and manipulative.
Hey at least you’re unarmed and can’t fight back against your fascist government when they take your rights.
Reminds me of vegans stopping and harassing people going to like a restaurant or fastfood chain.
There is a right way to do and wrong way to do it. Making people mad isn't going to help the cause, but push them in the wrong direction.
The suffragettes put acid in postboxes, chained themselves to railings, and bombed the Chancellor of the Exchecquer's house.
A few years ago, I read about how Mary Molony was an Irish Suffragette who disrupted a speech Winston Churchill was giving in Dundee by ringing a bell every time he tried to speak. She wanted him to apologise for remarks he had made about the women's suffrage movement.
I remember when I read this, it reeked of something awesome that you find online that's actually false (the story was shared on social media via a captioned photo with no sources), so I went digging for a proper source to check. I found some newspaper articles from 1908 and I learned that this event did happen, but also that people fucking hated Molony for this. There was a lot of "see, this is why everyone hates the Suffragettes". (Sorry for saying this and then not sourcing)
It makes sense that people would be salty - Churchill was an asshole, but also a great orator, so I can see why one might be disappointed in missing the chance to see him speak, but I was shocked at the level of vitriol aimed at Molony and other Suffragettes from the time. Until this I hadn't realised just how unpopular they were at the time. It's drastically changed my perspective on protests and public perception.
And what's interesting is that the suffragists (Millicent Fawcett chief among them) were at the same time working to peacefully lobby for suffrage, and yet they are not remembered remotely as much as the suffragettes.
What I personally believe is that the more militant wings of movements work best when they are bringing into focus something that the public already broadly believes. When people say 'I agree with their point, but not their methods', they're doing a whole lot of discussion of your issue, and agreeing with your message.
At the same time I think you do need the quiet lobbying to be done to effectively push for specific legislation. Both a carrot to offer government an easy path, and a stick to keep it in the public spotlight.
The only people who say this are people who are ignorant of history. Here's a quote from Martin Luther King that I think is very relevant:
First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."
Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
These people keep causing problems and inconveniencing everyone except the people that actually have the influence to do what they want.
The only thing they have accomplished is making "Just Stop" people look like clowns, and making everyone else dislike them and their message.
Just Stop Oil activists are among the worlds ultimate clowns.
Yes, it's the people who are protesting the thing that are wrong, down with them. Jail is too good for them, I saw on the news that five people were a little bit late to work that day, so obviously, we can't stand them.
Maybe you should stomach some of this contempt for the oil companies.
Just so you are aware, there are people who believe Just Stop Oil is intentionally trying to make climate activists look bad because some of their funds come from a member of the Getty family. I first became aware of the conspiracy theory when they threw soup on that painting. I do not have the opinion that they demonstrate behavior that is significantly worse than any other group.
I fund climate activism – and I applaud the Van Gogh protest
Aileen GettyThe Just Stop Oil protest shocked the world, but we must take disruptive action on the climate crisis before it’s too late
...
I am the daughter of a famous family who built their fortune on fossil fuels – but we now know that the extraction and use of fossil fuels is killing life on our planet. Our family sold that company four decades ago, and I instead vowed to use my resources to take every means to protect life on Earth.People often come up with theories about my motivation to engage in the climate movement. My motivation is clear: I am fighting for a livable planet for my family and yours. I am not dwelling on the past. I am looking to build a better future.
There's nothing you can say or do to make climate activism palatable to those people. It's best to ignore them, and steamroll them where it counts. The best revenge against them is stopping fossil fuels, and living well.
Also saw the news about blocking an ambulance and firetruck. Also blocking the road to the hospital.. Putting lives in danger
They were blocking electric cars Isn't that kinda bad messaging?
Just FYI, an electric car isn't environmentally friendly, a brand new electric vehicle is worse than using a second hand diesel car.
What we need to do is build working and viable public transport and to stop cancelling massive projects so the Tories can throw the cash at their mates.
Whilst absolutely true for the short term, the 'lifetime' emissions of a EV can be up to 70% lower than petrol cars in countries with renewable electricity, or 30% lower in the UK now with its mixed power generation.
Yes, if everyone switched to a EV today, the environmental impact would be immense due to manufacturing. But if they switched to it after their current ICE vehicle usable life has expired, longterm it would be better for the environment.
If everyone switched to an EV today, the electric grid would collapse and there would be mass catastrophe.
These protesters have a good point but they are extremely short sighted. We simply cannot just stop oil. We can slowly phase out oil usage, which is what most major economies are doing. Which is why these protesters look like clowns to anyone paying any attention at all.
If you go to the just stop oil website, they are very clearly talking about stopping all new contracts, not existing ones. It's perfectly possible to achieve this.
The whole of "stop oil" is about stopping "oil, gas or coal" use.
it's true it does take quite a lot emissions to build one. However in the long run it's much better.
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/are-electric-vehicles-definitely-better-climate-gas-powered-cars
https://www.entergynewsroom.com/article/are-electric-vehicles-really-better-for-environment/
A valid protest targets the perpetrators of the offending acts, not the victims of those acts.
Harassing people for having been victimized by a bad actor is not a protest. It's a temper tantrum.
So protesting is only ever acceptable if the only people impacted by the protests are precisely the offenders being protested. If anyone else is affected, protestors should go to jail for their heinous crime of protest. If the very people the protest target make themselves inaccessible to protesters, then protest is not allowed.
"The quarterback stole our lunch money, so we're going to beat up the chess club."
That's you. That's what you sound like.
If you want to be apt about this, it's more correct to say "The quarterback stole our lunch money, has been doing that for years, we asked the principal to step in, but they did nothing and gave the quarterback school funds. We put up banners asking the rest of the students to join in ousting the principal, but they did not pay attention, most of them didn't even know there were banners as the school paper didn't report on it. So now we are blocking the entrance to the school to bring attention to it.
"Also, this weirdo on the internet keeps saying we are doing things just as bad as the quarterback because they had to take the side entrance, fucking weirdos man"
Blocking the school doors would actually affect the quarterback, as well as all the other students. JSO isn't blocking the school doors. "Beating up the chess club" is the much more appropriate analogy to JSO's idiotic methods.
The equivalent of blocking the school doors would be something like picketing fuel stations. Same operational concept: inconveniencing people to bring attention to the cause. Except now, the people suffering that inconvenience are actually a part of the oil production and distribution chain, and not just some random people going about their lives.
They have been picketing fuel stations, refineries, more. It doesn't work, you obviously didn't take notice. What's the point in doing something that doesn't work, just, well I was going to say so "you" aren't inconveniced but you never were inconveniced you're just mad that someone else might be.
They did that for 40 years, and you didn't give a shit and nothing changed. Every effective protest has been more than holding up signs. It's caused inconvenience and disruption to society so that society takes notice .
So... anyone driving a car?
Not saying they are the worst perpetrators, but if you're saying it should only target offending acts then "just stopping oil" should be righteous in grinding pretty much every vehicle to a halt.
The further up the chain you go, the more respect I will have for your cause. Target fuel stations instead of the general public, and we can talk.
Why are the poor petrol station workers the ones who should be bothered instead of people driving cars? It's not going to annoy Shell, as a global mega corp, any more impactfully by blockading one of their stations. Its just the same annoyance with less impact and visibility.
The objective is to "stop oil", is it not? With oil gone, those "poor petrol station workers" are going to be out of a job anyway. They're part of the problem: they make their living selling oil. As employees working in the industry, they are legitimate targets for protest action.
You don't need to confine yourself to annoyance. Once you're actually targeting someone profiting from the sale of oil, you can escalate your protest.
Go dismantle their fuel hoses. They all have breakaway fittings to avoid causing serious damage if someone drives off with one. Go pull down some fuel hoses and put some pumps out of commission. Jam card readers. Hit E-Stop buttons. All are simple (albeit illegal) nuisances that don't actually cause property damage, but will disrupt operations and gain attention.
Want to go further? Target car dealers that sell only or mostly ICE vehicles. Go spray paint a red line separating the front and back halves of their lot. Tell them the front half of their lot is for electrics and plug-in hybrids only. Find an ICE vehicle in front of the red line,, and their dealership will be targeted for protest actions. Again, because these are legitimate targets working against your cause, you can escalate well beyond simple annoyance.
What you've laid out there are a few ideas for much less legal and much less exposure rich disruption. Annoying small businesses profiting from the sale of oil vehicles and fuel isn't going to make them pack up and start a new business and it's certainly not going to get more exposure to the cause. Sure it's an escalation, but you only want it so you don't have to sit in a traffic jam.
The article is about someone getting jail tome for a peaceful protest which is quite outrageous. Getting jail time for actual vandalism would be less outrageous.
…but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: ‘I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action‘ …
Or you could say these protestors are regularly getting in headlines, showing that there's an escalating culture of absolute rejection of social mores so long as major, vital changes don't happen. Creating serious problems for bureaucrats and elected officials that forces a response that often makes those officials and bureaucrats look like assholes.
The protests are factually inconveniencing and causing problems for people that have the influence to get policy changed, at least so long as democracy is functional. You aren't going to be able to protest an oil magnate. They are not accessible for protest.
Your thesis is that people will vote against climate protestors just because they were late getting to work one day. If that's correct, we may as well get out the Flavor-Aid because this world's beyond saving. Everyone needs to be reminded and thinking about this crisis. Every day. It needs to be front and center. Time is running out. We have the solutions needed to avoid catastrophe, but too many are simply not aware and thinking about how terrible the danger is and need daily reminding.
We seem to be forgetting that protests once involved burning down neighborhoods and executing rulers. Which really is what we should be doing, given the enormity of the problem. This is a more civil compromise. Don't buy into the media powers that want to turn you against anyone expressing discontent.
If the Earth Day protests happened today, the media narrative around them would be "Look at all these fuckers, on the streets, stopping me from getting to the gas station to buy a Slim Jim!" It's fucked. The attitude is fucked.
The protests are factually inconveniencing and causing problems for people that have the influence to get policy changed, at least so long as democracy is functional.
The only policy they are affecting is the policy on jaywalking.
If the Earth Day protests happened today, the media narrative around them would be "Look at all these fuckers, on the streets, stopping me from getting to the gas station to buy a Slim Jim!" It's fucked. The attitude is fucked.
Yes, that is the effect that JSO is achieving with their idiocy. They are fucking that attitude right into the general public.
They're not specifically targeting their protests to inconvenience the influencers, politicians or industries supporting the licensing of Big Oil. The majority targets making a large spectacle, with a significant amounts of criminal damage - something to become news-worthy.
Not once have I seen them promote alternative policy changes for oil & gas use. They're also not promoting projects dealing with climate change.
They're certainly getting exposure, but they're not winning the public vote. I agree with their cause, but I despise their methods.
Ah, more ways you aren't allowed to protest to add to the list.
Let me know if you've got more Unacceptable Protest Options (UPOs). I'll maintain the list for you.
Here's your litmus test: when the public's general response to your actions are to call for American-style policing, you've fucked up, big time.
You can't make a fascist individual stop being a fascist individual with words. Only violence works.
Even worse, the public general response is to roll their eyes and laugh at the short sighted, uninformed, naive idiots.
The time and effort you put into typing this comment, would have been better spent discussing the more important, relevant and dangerous issues you can find simply in the headline. 1- big oil has our politicians in their pockets. 2- The UK government is putting people in jail for protesting, not rioting. And so what if you're late for work? Are you so overpaid that you prioritize getting to the office on time over a protest to avoid planetary genocide? Turn off your car and join the march!!
The time and effort you put into typing this comment would have been better spent overthrowing your corrupt government and replacing it with an incorruptible one. Or at least a less corrupt one.
Ah, but why do that when you can scold random people on the internet for not joining a protest you admit is pointless?
And is it not pointless to protest when the government is corrupt? They will not care after all since they're in someone's pocket...
Look around the world and say how many protests against corrupt, tyrannical governments actually work instead of being squashed into silent submission?
Now I'm not saying you shouldn't do something about it, but to do something that actually works instead of just walking down the street with a sign and then calling it a day once you've pissed off enough people.
I did achieve something through protest: pushing out an invading army. Beirut 2005. But please tell me more about your inconveniences.
Agreed they should show up to the oil executives houses drag their families out in the street and hang them from the streetlights from shortest to tallest.
What are they going to do put them in prison? The same thing they do for a slow walking.
They did attack trucks at oil refineries. Do you know what the lasting impact was? Nothing. It didn't even make the news.
The only people who fall for this propaganda from upholders of the status quo are ignorant of history. Here's a quote from Martin Luther King that I think is very relevant:
First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."
Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
You're quite right, they never go after the politicians, or anyone with actual power. It's always the average guy that ends up copping it.
@Ilovethebomb @RightHandOfIkaros The higher level politicians are better defended. It is often necessary to strike at targets that are both high value and soft. For every general secure in their fortress there are a dozen war profiteers just begging to be dragged to the front to clear their own mines.
For every general secure in their fortress there are a dozen war profiteers just begging to be dragged to the front to clear their own mines.
People driving to work aren't the enemy.
@Ilovethebomb The big multinational oil companies ARE-and their execs and those of their major stockholders have names and addresses.
Since peaceful protests are getting so much whining about an obstruction less than that created by a minor functionary's motorcade and now prosecution, I suggested targetting those execs personally as we did over HLS. Tell Shell etc to "Ask the FBI about Huntingdon Life Sciences"(they are US based but have offices globally).
They go after politicians and people with actual power all the time. You ignored it because it didn't inconvenience you.
No, that's basically misinformation.
There's a major donor who's the daughter of a family who's previous generation made money on fossil fuels and has since divested and wants to distance themselves. Based on the fact that it is now clear how utterly destructive fossil fuels are.
Conservatives / climate deniers use some parts of this fact as part of a campaign to discredit the organization and keep the media narrative around these protests on "oh, this style of protest does not match my aesthetics so it must be bad" instead of "the climate is on fire and the perpetrators are getting rich doing it and we should ALL be in the streets making noise and inconveniencing people until something is done."
Go picket gas stations. Same technique, similar level of disruption, but now the affected parties are actually part of the oil industry, and not just random people going about their lives.
And how is picketing roads for cars any different than that?
It's fucking not and you know it. You just don't like protests.
Picketing roads targets the general public. Obstructing traffic violates about half of the articles in the UN declaration of Human Rights.
There are plenty of things they can do to draw attention to the issue and effect meaningful change. Get 20 people together with cans of spray paint. Paint a simple line separating the front and back halves of a car dealership.
Then start posting flyers and social media posts, telling that dealership to move all of its ICE cars behind that line. Only electrics and hybrids are allowed in front of it. If you find any ICE cars in front of that line after a certain date, the dealership will be targeted for protests. Now that they are targeting an entity actually supporting the oil industry, the gloves can come off.
Next day, go paint a couple more red lines at different dealerships.
I like the way you shifted from gas stations to car dealerships when you realized that your first attempt really was the same thing.
And now you're okay with vandalism and threats of property crime, but making some people a little late to work oh that's unacceptable. So long as the protest has no effect on you personally you won't ban it. Thanks.
I didn't shift anything; there is a big difference between targeting the general public and targeting gas stations. I've posted some thoughts on such approaches to gas stations in other comments.
The point is that there are a whole host of viable targets to choose from. You don't have to pick between just impossible to reach oil executives or random members of the general public. You can take aim at any number of viable targets in between, and take a wide variety of approaches toward them.
You are correct, I have few qualms with minor property damage in the course of non-violent protest, where such damage is necessary and reasonable for achieving an important goal.
The right to travel is sacrosanct. It is secondary only to the right to life itself.
Impeding a person's travel violates about half of the articles in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Yes, I have a big fucking problem with the cavalier attitude that JSO has toward stopping traffic.
Because random people don't go to gas stations? Only oil industry executives buy gas? What are you smoking?