UK Climate Campaigners Get 'Utterly Disproportionate' Sentences
(www.commondreams.org)
from jeffw@lemmy.world to world@lemmy.world on 18 Jul 2024 23:46
https://lemmy.world/post/17699514
from jeffw@lemmy.world to world@lemmy.world on 18 Jul 2024 23:46
https://lemmy.world/post/17699514
#world
threaded - newest
They aren’t being penalized for the content of their speech. If they wanted to run around with signs that argued their point, nobody would have blinked an eye. They’re being penalized for dicking up British transport.
You can say what you want; that’s your political speech. You cannot try and disrupt the country if it isn’t doing what you want.
Russia’s going to go after you for criticizing the war. They have a problem with the political message. What you’re getting in trouble for here is for the disruption, not the message’s content.
A protest without making waves is just farting in the wind. Even if they do stand in the road, that’s not deserving of multiple years in prison.
Okay, ignore the protest part for a moment and look at the crime…
A group conspire to intentionally disrupt a major highway, breaking multiple violations including endangerment of motorists, major disruption of public and emergency services, and recruitment of 45 others to aid the intent, causing~ $3M in damages. And, yes, people of the publiic obviously sustained injuries but there is fortunately no known causation of death. This for 4 days resulting in over 700,000 people impacted and an estimated loss of 50,000 hours to the public.
Now that could be for whatever reason. The Tories, MAGA supporters, West Ham losing, or YouTubers; doesn’t matter. The law shows no bias or care and these actions, especially the conspiring and collusion, are certainly multi-year crimes.
Meanwhile, the cost of climate change and global warming far exceed every measure you’ve quoted, and yet nobody is being imprisoned for causing or accelerating them.
Obviously. But this court case wan’t about climate change.
Hopefully we’ll see more of those appearing as their comprehension of law is whittled away. When one loses, that will open pathways to the rest. The issue is that associated laws are vague and never envisioned such topics, so it is harder to have them stick than it is for a good legal team to wipe them off.
If they are going to break the law anyway, go violate an oil executive as hard as that executive is violating the planet.
I look forward to those causing climate disruption facing a judge.
Completely false, the legal system is entirely biased towards the interests of the ruling classes and big business.
Yeah, nah.
No. The “crime” is the means necessary to make the protest heard.
Which is less than nothing compared to the climate change and direct death caused by the fossil fuel industries out of pure greed every fucking day!
Get out of here with your Texas Sharpshooter fallacy bullshit!
Of COURSE it matters! You can’t just wave away their mission to basically save the world to make only the means matter!
By your metric, not only was Gandhi and Martin Luther King wrong, but so were fucking WWII resistance fighters!
Whether or not you’re white, YOU’RE the moderate MLK is talking about here:
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/683d9f89-efff-4fce-80ed-15a9ca883a2b.jpeg">
That’s not the job of a court to handle in a specific case. We do not want a justice system that bends to leniency or malice based on opinions external to the case. Do you understand why society adheres to the concept, “justice is blind”?
Since you’re dropping claims of fallacy out of context, I will help by putting it into context…
The court does not (and should not) care for what cause the sharpshooter in Texas murdered for, they are there to address the committing of murder and sentence justly so.
Unlike those principally involved in law, you have taken a side of personal opinion, making for a nightmare scenario of a judge. Though you obviously wouldn’t last long in the judicial system applying personal bias based on what you think is right over the law.
It’s deserving of being forcibly dragged off the street and chained to a lamp post for a couple days…
Then being locked up for a year for being chained to said lamp post?
You’re against democracy then? You’re advertising anarchy.
Democracy isn’t god given, it’s a societal contract. We decided to give certain powers to certain institutions, and these institutions should serve our interests as citizens.
However what I see currently is that these institutions are working for the interests of the super rich. If you’re a nazi, you’ll get a „you you you“ for supporting an ideology that attempts to overthrow democracy. If you’re protesting against climate change or genocide, you’ll get beaten up by the police, and apparently sentenced to long jail terms to set an example.
It isn’t anarchy to try and force politicians to change. Protest is supposed to be disruptive as others already mentioned.
Can you share a source where a Nazi has done the exact same thing as posted above? If you can’t, why are you even comparing?
It’s not about ideology. It’s about a law. If a Nazi were to block the highway, they’d get the same treatment.
You’re delusional. Not everything is a conspiracy mate.
It surely helps calling someone who isn’t of your opinion delusional.
I see you’re from Germany as well. How about the farmer’s protests? How about farmers threatening our vice chancellor and dumping waste on a high way and injuring people with this? How was the reaction, do you remember? Yes that’s right, our government gave in to their demands.
How about literal Nazis murdering people (NSU) and our institutions covering it up. I could go on and on, but the point is, it’s a very bad look on you to defend Nazis lol. I see from your post history that you’re also defending Israel’s genocide, makes sense for trolls like you.
It surely helps calling someone who isn’t of your opinion a troll.
See, that’s the thing with trolls. You call me delusional and all, you’re like “but Nazis would never do this” and then I show you an example where Nazis actually do this and much worse things and not only get away with it but actually rewarded.
And then you have nothing left to say. That’s why you’re a troll.
Nope, never said that.
Nope, you didn’t. It’s completely unrelated to the topic at hand. The book of law is a bit more complicated than your moral compass.
You’re taking every argument and every source out of context just to make a point. It’s no use arguing with you.
This kind of disruption is exactly what climate change is doing - negativity affecting people just trying to go about their lives and make ends meet. Dumb decisions are being made which causes people with no choice in the matter to suffer.
The question is - why are you angry when poor people do it (on a limited scale, for a few hours) but not angry when rich & powerful people do it (to everyone, forever)?
That's the genius of this kind of protest.
Your take is however literally madness. It would be like you protesting on here that somone trying to get people medicine to survive if they raced across town disrupting traffic and you supported them being jailed.
I hope they can keep it up. The stupid attached to people not understating the impacts of climate change is appalling and will collapse civilisation. That’s literally what XR, JSO etal want to try and do, prevent the collapse of civilisation and raise awareness of that so we do something. And people be like “my Uber Eats driver delivered me a cold buger, jail those protestors for life!!!?”
I get you’re not brave enough to do this yourself but you’d think you’d at least support those who are!
This isn’t anarchy mate. There are laws in a democracy too. You’re making no sense.
Laws that the rich don’t have to play by, only the common folk. So why keep playing?
If the rich are stupid enough to block highways they will get the same punishment.
What conspiracies are you talking about? Do you have any specific sources where certain people have higher privilages in the judiciary system of the UK? You cannot make strong claims like that without a source of a lawesuit.
I didn’t mean direct examples of when the rich were blocking roads, I meant more like why can major corporations continually polite the environment either though dumping illegally or spills and never see jail time.
The rules aren’t the same.
Because they don’t violate laws doing that. It’s very simple actually.
You’re suprised that people that violate laws get punished. And equally you’re suprised that people that don’t violate the law don’t get punished. Huh?
That’s because they’re not playing by the same laws. Good job, we came full circle
Yes they do. But a highway public disturbance law doesn’t exactly apply to that, so. What’s your point exactly?
Are you dense or argumentative?
You just have no idea what you’re talking about. You just want to spread baseless conspiracies to get some internet points. Congrats on that.
“In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.”
That’s the only kind of protest that works ffs! Banning and criminalizing disruptive protests is a means of silencing dissent and always has been.
That’s what the liberals said to the original Italian antifascists too. And what “regular white people” in India and South Africa said to Gandhi. And what American liberals said to Martin Luther King.
You may think you’re being magnanimous by supporting their right to silently protest in a corner where nobody notices them, but by advocating against effective means, you’re squarely on the side of the politicians and corporations that they’re protesting against and victimized you.
So our prisons are so overfilled that we’re letting some people out early, but we have space for this?
Well obviously… What’s more important? The well being of the population, or the ability of the ruling class to suppress any resistance? Gotta keep those oil barons happy!
Yes. Make space for these turds!
“They annoy me, so they should be locked up!”
Clown. People like you are why this country is barreling into authoritarianism. Even under Labour.
It’s not about my personal annoyance. It’s about breaking the law. There are laws in a democracy too, you know that right? Laws don’t make a democracy authoritarian either. These are just stupid uneducated statements.
They have just as much freedom to protest as everyone else has. Everyone is the same under the law. If they think they can break the law without punishment, they are simply wrong and stupid.
How do you think former democracies turn, like the Weimar Republic turned into Nazi Germany?
It started with legislation.
Also, this country already has deeply authoritarian aspects, such as GCHQs immunity to the public and their tapping of the internet backbone and storage of the data with no accountability. If that’s not authoritarian, I don’t know what is.
Also, remember that NotMyKing protestors in London (ORGANISED PROTEST) were arrested en-masse for NO reason, only to be released when the event was over. But yeah, we’re “not authoritarian”.
Little and declining every day? What, are you only okay with it if they’re standing with signs in a corner where they can be conveniently ignored?
Oh yeah, I forgot, only lobbying fossil fuel companies get that privilege. Destroy the environment and become immune from repercussions. Score!
The law is being changed to slowly ban effective protest, does that mean it’s okay to crush protest? No! To say it is just because the laws were passed in a democracy (by either stupid or malicious politicians) doesn’t make it just, or any less authoritarian.
Also consider that the FPTP election system is deeply undemocratic to begin with, where a party with about 30% of votes can gain a majority despite the majority actually voting against them.
Good.
Edit:
That’s it?
Gonna switch my “Good” to “Well, I guess it’s a start”.
Did an oil derrick write this?
My assumption is that they’re aiming for a penalty sufficient to get people to stop doing stuff like this. You don’t punish for the sake of punishment, but to deter. If they stop, there’s no reason to have more-severe penalties. If people keep doing it anyway, consider the penalties not a deterrent, then I’d assume that sentences will increase in severity.
www.bbc.com/news/articles/c880xjx54mpo
Yeah, it’s good rhet we stop people from trying to stop Humanities end. climate change will fuck you and your children for the next multi digit generations and frankly I wonder if there will be humans left when this is over, but sure… Lets celebrate jailing those that are trying to stop it.
If you’re going to break the law anyway, go target an oil executive or burn down a gas station. Just stay the fuck out of the road.
Why is the road so sacred? Aren’t there multiple roads all going to the same places?
It’s not the road. It’s the travelers on the road.
They aren’t blocking the road. They are blocking the people from going home, going to work, looking for a toilet, picking up their kids, buying groceries, visiting their families, trying to get to the hospital before the baby comes or grandma dies…
It’s one thing to be slowed down by someone who also has places to be, things to do, people to see; a fellow traveler who is sharing the road.
It’s something entirely different to be stopped by a selfish prick whose sole intent is to prevent others from completing their journey.
Their intention is to protest how we are ignoring climate change, you know, the civilization ending catastrophe. There are road delays all the time, for construction, crashes, event traffic, weather, floods, electricity outages, etc. Do you get this upset for every one of those events?
I’d argue “share the road” includes uses such as protests, marches, bike races, whatever. It’s a public good, you don’t have the final say on “approved” uses. Traffic in my town is insane on game day, do I get to jail the sports teams organizers for the disruption for 5 years? Someone probably shat their pants due to the delay, where is their justice?! Boggles the mind that a trivial delay causes this much outrage. Car brain is a hell of a thing.
The intention is to obstruct people from traveling. The purpose behind that intent is irrelevant as that intention is completely unacceptable.
There are, indeed, road delays all the time, caused by people attempting to share a shared resource.
JSO isn’t sharing a shared resource. They are monopolizing, privatizing that resource, excluding anyone else from using it.
Marches, bike races, even protests can be acceptable, so long as detours are available to bypass the obstruction. In all of these cases, the roadway is marked “closed” before the last intersection before the obstruction, so traffic can choose a different path. But such courtesies don’t achieve JSO’s intent. The courtesy of a “road closed” sign completely defeats their intention of preventing people from traveling. They want as many people as possible trapped for as long as possible, and that makes them a bunch of fucking assholes, no matter how righteous their cause.
Tribal Police in Arizona had the right approach to this sort of idiocy.
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable“ - John F. Kennedy
I want a peaceful revolution more than anything, but it’s clear that it’s impossible. Join the IWW today.
I don’t know what the laws are like in the UK concerning firearm ownership, but I can’t imagine they’re on the side of arming the peasantry.
You can obtain guns, but there are limits and requirements to try to make sure they’re being stored properly and only bought in reasonable numbers for legitimate purpose.
I assume if you write in “I want to provide security for protestors” on your application, they wouldn’t be too inclined to consider it a legitimate purpose.
They would not be amused.
By and large guns don’t provide security.
There are a lot more creative ways to protest violently though!
It’s not about protesting with the intent to commit violence. I think the police would be less inclined to escalate things if people were carrying long guns at the perimeter of the protest. It’s easy to commit violence against a group of people if you’re reasonably sure they’re all unarmed.
I think we kinda misunderstand what the other person is saying/what they imagine the outcome to be. There’s a crass culture difference here.
In the UK (and presumably most other European countries) the police would 100% escalate things if they see someone with a gun near a large aggregation of people. Carrying guns like that is simply illegal and the only reasonable deduction is that you carry a gun because you want to use it - i.e. you are about to commit murder.
Police violence against protesters is usually limited to water cannons and tear gas, maybe rubber bullets. Protester violence is rare, sometimes throwing rocks, maybe Molotov cocktails and burning cars.
It’s the same in the US. The question is “How do you organize your protest such that the police won’t attempt to disperse/subdue you and give you a 5 year prison sentence?” The power the police (and the state in general) has is derived from their ability to commit violence without reprisal. That’s how it works in every country on Earth. The only meaningful way to deter them is to be organized in a way that says “We have protection. Fuck around and find out.”
I would assume the police would have the tools to fend off people using “mechanical weapons,” like bows, maces, spears, etc. They also have gas masks and the like to deal with chemical agents, like pepper spray. I’m not an advocate for using fire or explosives as a weapon, as they tend to cause too much collateral damage. So what else is there to be done than having a number of people carry around firearms, possibly loaded with less-than-lethal rounds (if they’re even legal), and hope that they won’t have to use them?
The reality of the situation, as far as I’m aware, is that the state has grown tired of people protesting. They’re sending out their goons to subdue people with violence (or the threat of violence) and ruin their lives with indefensibly-long prison sentences. Marching around completely defenseless while under this type of rule is pure folly.
So you’ve tried basically nothing and are ready to reach for a gun?
I’m doing a lot, I’m a trained union representative in the IWW and I’ve been active for a few years there. Lots of grass roots organising and direct action. But this isn’t about me, it’s about systemic issues and those in power aren’t going to be willing to give up that power without a fight. We have to be ready for that fight or we will lose and have to deal with the consequences. Do you think violence was justified against fascism in the 20th century? If so, why not in the 21st?
Please stop using that phrase. It’s now used by everyone and their grandmother to promote their little evil extremist shtick.
We want gays and LGBT imprisoned or executed! If you don’t make my peaceful revolution possible you make a violent revolution inevitable!
Edit: the paragraph above is an paraphrased example of how right wing extremists talk. I’ve hung around in conservative areas on reddit, and people quite literally talk like that.
Let’s say we stop using that phrase. Everyone and their grandmother with evil extremist shticks keep using it.
… how is that better?
You do know that Stonewall was a riot right? LGBT rights were not achieved by hanging some rainbow flags from a truck and drinking champagne in a topless outfit
It’s in the nature of the far-right to co-opt the language and aesthetics of others, especially the left. That’s why the nazi party called themselves national socialists.
But ultimately, they’re right - if we remain placid in the face of the erasure of the rights of minorities, they will have their way. The media and electoral politics have been fully captured by the ruling elite, who would rather have an authoritarian theocratic dictatorship than an equitable world. Our only option is a revolution at this point - as peaceful as we can make it, by withholding the working class’s labour from the elite while supporting one-another - but it is almost entirely impossible that they would allow our revolution to remain peaceful. Therefore, those of us who can must be ready and willing to fight on the behalf of those who can not.
I am going to continue to use the phrase because it contains a powerful truth, my hope is that people who see it and hear it will move even slightly more towards accepting the reality of the situation that we’re all in, and start working on building solidarity, mutual aid, and getting involved in activism outside the realm of electoral politics.
i don’t understand your second paragraph at all. sounds like you don’t know what peaceful means.
My second paragraph was an example of how tight wing extremists use that very same phease.
Its always "you have to adopt MY extremist and violent policies which I think are really peaceful, or I’ll threaten with a violent revolution
but what do I give a shit if that’s not how I say it… like ok, so right wing cunts lie. not news… I’m telling the truth.
How to Blow Up a Pipeline
Oh fun, cause a serious ecological disaster and give the ultra rich an excuse to take even more money from the government for repairs plus they get to ratchet up security using our money, probably let them silence meaningful arguments by labeling people terrorists too.
How to Blow Up a Pipeline (film):
I’ve seen people caught in paedophile hunter sting operations get less prison time than Just Stop Oil did.
the people who give the sentences can only sympathize with one of these groups.
4-5 years in prison each for discussing a highway protest (that never happened) on a Zoom call…
The article seems poorly worded as it did happen: www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c880xjx54mpo
Even then it looks like the police stopped the traffic. The protestors were just up in the sign poles holding their own signs for people to read. It’s not safe but to blame them for the actions of the police? That’s crazy town.
Good - these people are a fucking menace. Their antics are potentially putting lives at risk (re blocking emergency services). Personally these groups should be classified as a terrorist organisation and dealt with accordingly.
<img alt="" src="https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/6c133e4f-3c1f-43eb-b570-c291641f151b.png">
Obviously you’ve never had your journey blocked by these nob-heads…if you have well you must be masochist.
Oh no! My journey!
Perhaps you don’t value your time or the safety of those around you. But there are those of us who do.
I have no problem with protests but when you directly affect or impede people who have nothing to do with what you’re protesting it is a very serious issue. In this case it is equal to a conspiracy to kidnap someone.
Says the person who thinks inconvenience should be illegal.
Freedom of movement implies the freedom not to move (while in the middle of a road), not the freedom from temporary obstructions.
Interesting… so what are your thoughts on the practice of Kettling then? Police have used this tactic on protests that were properly permitted but may run afoul of the incumbent parties views.
Using your logic this seems like it is just a small inconvenience for the protesters.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettling
Awwh, you think being detained by cops is the same thing as road closures? Next time they start doing construction are you gonna file kidnapping charges? XD
It was a simple question which you’ve decided to not answer and instead make a snide remark.
So I’ll ask it again what are your feelings on the practice of Kettling? It seems like if you’re ok with being illegally detained by protesters, you would be just as ok with being illegally detained by police?
Road closures are not
Pretty simple leading question, of course. If you want to equate police malfeasance with protesters who dare cause any sort of disturbance to the status quo, then that sounds like a “you” problem.
I see, so when police violate an individual’s rights it’s malfeasance on their part. Yet when protesters that you happen to agree with violate those rights in a shockingly similar manner, it’s a disturbance and the individual should “get over it” and it’s their problem.
It was indeed a very simple question which you tried to side step. You seem to understand how an individual who doesn’t have a stake in your cause could feel victimized by actions that directly affect their safety and liberty. But you and the protesters don’t care about those particular victims, you want just the attention.
Ah, I see. You don’t recognize any moral difference between a traffic jam and police detainment.
That’s hillarious.
It is disingenuous to conflate a generic traffic jam that happens naturally, with intentionally blocking traffic and conspiring to detain people for the purpose of publicity.
The two are not nearly the same.
There’s no such thing as a “traffic jam that happens naturally”, they all have causes, ranging from individuals directly responsible for collisions to failures of design and implementation that cause congestion during normal use by daily commuters.
If they all get a pass for “causing traffic” then why are you singling out protesters as an exception?
What is the difference between involuntary manslaughter and murder?
Burden of proof. Involuntary manslaughter doesn’t require prosecutors to demonstrate intent or malice aforethought.
Why don’t highway engineers get charged with manslaughter when their designs result in death?
“doesn’t require prosecutors to demonstrate intent or malice aforethought.”
The protesters displayed all of the traits you mentioned. By conspiring and planning to commit unlawful actions. The protesters displayed intent to break the law detain/disrupt the travel of innocent bystanders (illegal in itself) and potentially endangering their lives in the process (super duper illegal).
Highway engineers can be charged with manslaughter if they display willful ignorance, intent to break the law or have demonstrated that they were deceitful in acquiring a position they were not accredited for. Generally speaking that is very hard to prove in court especially when dealing with a large corporation with legions of lawyers to back them up. Hence why it is rare.
It is not so hard to prove with a dozen or so activists who have a history of such actions which are wildly unpopular and illegal. Hence why they are charged.
But there are examples such as the recent Boeing 737 Max disasters where criminal culpability for engineers and managers have been proven. I’d argue the punishment or rather the settlement isn’t enough in this particular case, but that wasn’t your question. Your question was why aren’t they charged.
Are you talking about conspiracy to commit murder or conspiracy to commit minor traffic violations? XD
So the protesters would be innocent of everything except minor traffic violations.
With what, “disturbing the peace”? XD
I answered all of your questions, yet once again you fall back on downplaying the seriousness of the crimes they were planning.
Putting “XD” at the end of every one of your statements doesn’t make them pithy, smart or relevant. It just shows me you’re pedantic to the point that you can’t string together a coherent argument without leaning on whatever the current zeitgeist is.
Hopefully the law will prosecute those activists and put them away for a long, long time.
Which might be the back of an ambulance…or perhaps you are going to see a relative who is dying… but hey who cares about that?
Oh no! My shifting goalposts! Waves wand: “Argumentum ad Passiones!”
Did it work? Is he gone?
Two hours waiting for a taxi. Magnificent save, my man.
🎵 Don’t stop! Believing!
lmao
What puts more lives at risk, protests or the massive global famine that the climate is rapidly headed towards causing?
Oh for the record I was involved with Just Stop Oil but left two years ago - I realised the the organisers actually don’t care about climate change but simply won’t to cause disruption.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/a93b62b3-6025-4bb5-8a20-e6c668ae032b.jpeg">
Says the one regurgitating the Daily Mail narrative 🙄
yawn🥱
According to the BBC it was actually the police who stopped traffic. All these guys did was hang out up by the route signs with some signs of their own.
“Just fight for the government you want” says the liberals ignoring that every time anyone even tries to think about changing things this happens.
Nothing can change while those ruling think keeping order and decorum is better than having to listen and change.
Nylon rope ✅ Polyester harness ✅ Plastic hardhat ✅
Oil stopped ❌
Anyone participating who are pro vaccination are also pro oil as there are chemicals made from the petroleum industry used as agents in vaccines.
You don’t want to stop oil. You want to be more critical of how we use it. Oil is great. Plastic wrapping on everything and unnecessary travel for bullshit work assignments are bad.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/be71b376-6886-4bfc-8686-f2b9ec9620c3.png">
You can be critical to the society you live in, while still living in it. Doing otherwise would require suicide or get you jailee by said society.
You can’t be against the resources that you are positive to use. You should take the straws from the last guy and build yourself another strawman somewhere else.
If you want modern medicine, you want oil. Doesn’t mean you want private jets and cruise ships too.
But you know best since you know everything.
You can hit, rape, and kill other peasants but god forbid you dare touch the profits of our owners.