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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
5 years is insane. That being said none of this protest is peaceful. Your using violence to block people from work, literally stealing from the poor who can't change a god damn thing. And it's absolutely worthless, this type of shit just pisses people off and makes them fight more against policy change.
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.
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.