266
Human rights experts warn against European crackdown on climate protesters
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2023
266 points (96.2% liked)
Europe
8324 readers
1 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Oh no. People were inconvenienced for a couple of days. The absolute horror. We obviously have to severely violate those scoundrels for several years.
Meanwhile oil executives have been actively working towards destroying all human life on the planet for decades without consequence.
You do realize some people need to get to hospitals , need to have access for treatment, get their kids, you know actual important things. “Inconvienenced for a couple days.. the absolute horror” is a crazy take. Why don’t they target the people that are actually causing the problems? Instead they target everyday citizens By doing stuff like this they actually are causing people to hate them and causing infinite more damage to the cause.
I agree with most of your comment, except for this:
For one, they do. But it gets much less coverage, so it may well be you never heard of such an action. Media rather reports on stories which affect many people, and more importantly, which are likely to generate outrage, clicks and shares.
Another reason is, it's much harder. To block a public bridge is much easier than preventing high ranking officials to get from A to B. In case of the bridge, all the information is openly available. You can even visit the location in preparation, no one will bother you. If you instead want to block a minister from entering a building, there is likely more than one way, and security in place to keep you out but allow them free passage.
Finally, resources are limited. An acivist group likely has no more than a few dozen people available, often less than a dozen. There's always more to do, and never enough volunteers to help out. So you naturally have to work efficiently, especially with costly activities which might get people detained for prolonged periods.
What good is it if you block a CEO from using his private jet, but end up in prison for months, and no one notices anyways because the news don't cover your story, and the CEO only got delayed for 10 minutes anyways because he can use the back entrance? Yes, you could also block the back entrance, but then you need more people for the same goal.
We can complain how it is unfair to hold the public hostage. But this seems to be the only kind of action which consistently gets good coverage, and forces a reaction (unlike demonstrations which can just be ignored, and thus are), with the available means.
Still I lost hope this approach works as intended. I think the strategy depended on the public to solidarize with the activists, due to their just cause and the urgency of the situation. Instead, many people (or is their number an exaggeration of the media?) solidarize with the state removing the obstruction by violent means.
This whole episode could be long over if people demanded their leaders to do what's necessary. Instead, the people "chose" to condone their lack of action. Climate activists have no where to go though. It's not a sport or leisure activity, after all. Changing for less efficient methods or to step down is not an option.
It's easier to steal a bike than to buy a bike. The difficulty of the task is wholly irrelevant as to its justification.
This was an explanation (in response to someone asking "Why?"), not necessarily a justification.
Apart from that, there are situations when we condone acts which are not justifiable in other situations. In case of emergency, break glass.
Please hold our governments to the same standard. Just because it's hard to decarbonize is no justification to not do it.
If they had targeted oil executives, I would be considerably more sympathetic. Eat the rich. Tax them into submission. Hell, you can throw them all in jail or a woodchipper, and I won't be shedding any tears.
But they didn't target oil executives. They deliberately interfered with the human rights of the general public, specifically, the right to travel. That's one of the most important rights we have. The freedom to travel underpins virtually all other freedoms, rights and privileges.
As it is, their sentences seem rather light to me. If "impeding travel" is nothing more than a minor inconvenience, then a suitable consequence would be to "impede" their "travel" for a time commensurate with the time they wasted. Lock them up. Except that the person-hours they wasted greatly exceeds the remainder of their expected lifespan. Wasting that much time is a rather serious issue, whether it belongs to an individual, or a large group.
3 years is a graciously lenient consequence for the degree of harm these gentlemen deliberately inflicted on the general public.
Surely, if they went out and harassed all of the individuals they impeded, one at a time instead of concurrently, they would deserve and receive a much sterner cumulative sentence than merely 3 years imprisonment. They are getting a massive discount on the amount of attention they stole.
How would you target an oil executive with the resources available to the group who blocked that bridge?
The willingness of your activists to do certain things is a resource, so don't freely assume here.
Maybe pull their little stunt somewhere in the vicinity of an oil executive? Maybe sabotage an oil well, or a pipeline? Maybe drive a bulldozer through their head office or their own home. I don't particularly care how they do it, so long as they target the right people for harassment. The general public is not that.
See, all these things are harder, riskier, more violent, more punished. You freely assumed what you probably don't have available.
It is easier for a soldier to fight a child, pregnant woman, or elderly civilian in an enemy's country than it is to fight an enemy soldier. Fighting the enemy combatant will always be harder, riskier, more violent, and more punished than fighting the non-combatant. But fuck you with a rusty bayonet if you think the difficulty of fighting the soldier justifies targeting the civilian.
I utterly reject the relevance of your argument. Frankly, I am disgusted and deeply offended by your "It's too hard" argument.
If you insist on subscribing to that argument, then I would respond that "making it harder, riskier, more violent, and more punished" for you is justified. If your justification for attacking the public is that "it's easier", the public is also justified in responding with any level of force necessary to convince you it's not easier.
Breathe. What a violent comment!
Comparing nonviolent protestors to armed soldiers fighting vulnerable people is wild. With all due respect, I think you lost perspective.
I'm not interested in continuing this conversation, also because I feel you're projecting violent things into my words.
No. I compared "oil executives" to enemy combatants. I compared oil executives to armed soldiers. Do not put words in my mouth.
Your argument is that "protesters" are justified in deliberately targeting the weak specifically because they are weak. That doesn't make protesters comparable to armed soldiers. That makes these "protesters" comparable to terrorists or war criminals.
Oh, is it "too hard" to even talk with me? Gotta go find someone "weaker" to harass? God, your argument is infuriating. Rarely do I see someone taking pride in their own cowardice.
Only criminals accept that their targets for hostility are illegitimate, but try to rationalize their hostile behavior anyway. Your argument here is vile and disgusting. I'm trying to remember that it is you making it, and not any of these protesters. I have to assume that you are misrepresenting them.