To think the judge was right to throw the book at Just Stop Oil?

[StripedPiggy]

Five Just Stop Oil activists, including leader & XR founder Roger Hallam have been sentenced to up to 5 years in jail for blocking the M25 & other main roads.
Their intention was to cause gridlock on roads in the South East. The disruption they caused resulted in people missing medical appointments, flights & business meetings.

Well done to that judge. The criminal justice system is right to pass serious sentences on these fanatics which will act as a strong deterrent to others who might try to cause mass disruption, and put people’s lives in danger, to further a political agenda, whatever it might be.

If Roger Hallam cares so much about democracy then he could vote Green, write to his MP, or stand for election as an MP instead 🤷‍♀️ But no, that would be too boring for him wouldn’t it.

There’s causes that I feel passionately about but that doesn’t make me feel entitled to upset other people’s day to day lives for it. Instead I write to my MP etc.

Hey, @Grumpy12345, I applaud your civicmindedness and pragmatic approach to activism, curtesy of our democracy. I too do these things. As have thousands before us. It is a vital part of the process of slowly, glacially, trying to influence change. We are so lucky to live in a democracy.
But how do we trust our elected leaders to truly act in our best interests, with an eye to the future, past the current electoral cycle? How do we hold them to account on behalf of today's toddlers, or babies yet in utero? When time really is of the essence?
Are you familiar with the term 'the Overton Window'? It represents the range of policies or ideas which can comfortably occupy mainstream discourse -generally in media and politics‐ without being perceived as too niche or off-the-wall. Prior to the climate actions of the spring of 2019 (notably Greta Thunberg and XR), the Overton Window did not stretch to include the steadily worsening climate emergency. Now it does. Shifting the Overton Window was a clear initial objective of Extinction Rebellion. (Many would wish it wasn't so, hence the rise in largely bot-driven climate-denial.) My point here is that decades of letter-writing, petition-signing and donations to worthy and hardworking organisations did not manage to achieve the changes which compounded actions of an unprecedented nature managed to secure in a short space of time in 2019. I am middle-aged and was brought up by very active environmentalists in the 70s: if I know anything, it is that change is painfully slow, even when time is short.

If you don’t trust our elected leaders to truly act in our best interests, with an eye to the future, then why don’t you stand for election yourself? Why doesn’t Roger Hallam?

It's not the inconvenience to themselves that's the problem though, is it? I had the greatest respect for the Greenham Common women and the Bypass protesters. They put themselves on the line. They 'inconvenienced' a lot of people directly associated with the specifics of the protest. I've got a lot of time for the Greenpeace members putting themselves in the path of the whaling boats.
So I'm really trying to see this in the same light. The biggest reason I can't is the ambulance business. It's one thing being willing to die for your cause. It's a different thing to impose that on someone else who just happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Now, I can see your opening argument about those dying because of our collective actions in the West. But by your own argument, one life is not less important than another. Globally, people are dying, yes. And yes, those deaths are preventable. It is possible to care about the global deaths and still give a toss about the person in the ambulance. Yes, it's a preventable death at a higher level, but it's also preventable at the immediate moment by just letting the ambulance through.
Missed appointments is an inconvenience. Dying, when you might have survived if the ambulance got there on time is a little more than an inconvenience. Broken windows, chucking soup on a painting which won't permanently destroy it is an inconvenience.
I've BEEN on protests for a few different things. Not once did we not move out of the way for an ambulance. Not once.
For me, that's all they have to do. Get out of the way of the ambulances.

@ObelixtheGaul, that's the point I'm making, it is equally distressing. Both preventable. We have to work harder at holding the really uncomfortable truth that our everyday lives and comforts are negatively impacting the lives of people in faraway places. And count ourselves very, very lucky that those who suffer the most from our lifestyle choices are the least likely to be able to call for any kind of reckoning to set that record straight. For now.

And like you, the emergency service vehicles are a sticking point for me too. They have had prior notice, free and easy access, special escort and been waved through without question on all actions and marches I've attended.

It's interesting to draw parallels between earlier anti-war protests, road protests, crop protests, protection of certain species (eg foxes and whales) or habitats, and to some extent more recent HS2 protests. Identifiable 'targets' which could be dismantled, occupied or besieged, or access to which could be disrupted. Trying to 'get to' the collective dependency on fossil fuels is trickier.

Missed appointments is an inconvenience

Missed appointments can be a lot more than an inconvenience. They can mean the difference between catching cancer at a treatable stage and not. They can mean conditions becoming entrenched and intractable. They can mean months more of pain and suffering waiting for an appointment. They can mean months more of not being able to work due to chronic pain.

Missed funerals are not an inconvenience either.

We should not minimize the suffering JSO decided to inflict on others, deciding on the public’s behalf that their suffering as non-consenting individuals was worth it.

And like you, the emergency service vehicles are a sticking point for me too. They have had prior notice, free and easy access, special escort and been waved through without question on all actions and marches I've attended

But ambulances did not get through. The disruption JSO caused, and intended to cause more, made that impossible. As they knew. And you do understand that emergency vehicles have blue lights as they are going to events that mean time is critical? You really should not be patting yourself on the back for ‘letting them through’ when you are causing a delay that, as a minimum, leads to prolonged suffering and may lead to death or disablement.

As pp said, this is nothing like the other direct action where activists put themselves at risk, not others. JSO actions are arrogance and entitlement to harm others on an extraordinary scale. Those prison sentences are well earned

As pp said, this is nothing like the other direct action where activists put themselves at risk, not others. JSO actions are arrogance and entitlement to harm others on an extraordinary scale. Those prison sentences are well earned

And I say this as someone who has previously engaged in direct action, of one of the types you named’ where the person I put at risk was me. I say this as someone engaged in campaigning now where the person I put at risk is me. And as this person I whole heartedly condemn the actions of JSO. Their immoral arrogance is deplorable.

@Oopthathill, to clarify; I have not engaged in direct action with JSO.
I am trying to speak to the frustrating rhetoric which says
"Why don't they just x, y or z..." (people have been doing that for half a century)
"People will just be put off" (the climate emergency doesn't care if Sam from Taunton is 'put off')
"They shouldn't moan about their sentences..." (arrest and imprisonment is part of the plan; no-one disputes that ‐the lengths of the sentences are indicative of a hardening of the political climate and worth noticing).
And so on.

Missed appointments is an inconvenience

you could say the same about 4 years in prison.

How did you feel when the junior doctors went on strike? That had a far more direct impact on people’s medical care, health, survival… yet mumsnet were largely supportive as I recall.
Meanwhile climate destructions will have a far more devastating impact on the future of humanity than a less that inflation increase in wages for a group of middle class professionals on this little island of ours.

I am sure it will be, but if you commit a crime, particularly one that threatens the safety of other people, you can rightly be sent to prison under our justice system.

Deflection arguments are really tiresome. They really just highlight that you know the position of JSO is indefensible, so you have to deflect onto something else.

But FYI I did not support the Doctor's strike. Though at least, as pp has highlighted, that is a legal action conducted within specific legal parameters, unlike JSO. There is no 'Mumsnet view' either btw, we are all individuals with our own opinions. Not that any of this is at all relevant to JSO or the morality of their actions.

And ' its climate change! We can do anything to anyone and its justified because its climate change!'

Is exactly the type of immoral thinking I am refering to. Put yourself at risk for your principles. That's what direct action used to mean. You have absolutely no moral right to put non-consenting strangers at risk.

It’s not a deflection. It’s an argument illustrated through comparison, to invite people to reflect that the same harms caused in a diff context might be seen very differently- it helps highlight people’s prejudices and biases.

Totally agree, I’m not against them being jailed.

Its not bias or prejudice for people to think that those who deliberately plan criminal acts, to disrupt transport systems to the whole of the SE, systems that are relied on to provide medication, food, for emergency vehicles, for people travelling to health appointments, for people travelling to work and funerals and all manner of essential purposes, to cause chaos that risks lives (and has led to deaths as PP have pointed out), and for that to be planned by people with previous convictions and who are on bail and who are escalating in their actions, its not bias to think the justice system was right to give stiff penalties under the parameters set by the law. Its hard to understand why anyone could read the facts and NOT agree that the upper end of the sentencing parameters were justified in this case.

It does, however, reveal your bias that you think others are biased for agreeing with the sentencing.

People who refuse to make changes in their own life to help mitigate climate change are putting non-consenting strangers at risk.

Maybe we need to start prosecuting them?

My goodness, what an utterly desperate argument.

You could not more clearly articulate the weakness of your position.

What changes do you suggest we all make?

The ones who threw the soup at the Van Gough sunflowers painting have been found guilty of criminal damage today. Bailed to return for sentencing, will be interesting to see what they get. The pink haired one has already had a six month prison sentence last year.

@Grumpy12345, the question is not why I don't stand for election.
The question is whether our elected leaders are acting in the best interest of the electorate.
They should be, that's the mandate with which we invest them.

So when climate science conclusively affirms anthropogenic climate change as the source of irrevocable harm to weather systems, livelihoods, food and energy security and water supply as well as biodiversity, we are right to question what political leaders are doing to a) amplify this fact, and b) prevent further harm.

We already have some committed leaders advocating for the environment in the Green Party. Good! Did most people get behind them in the recent general election? No. Even our electoral first-past-the-post system is skewed against green agendas gaining significant traction. Parliamentary politics and electoral cycles are not working in our favour as far as limiting harm caused by the climate emergency is concerned.

MP’s aren’t elected to act in our best interests. They’re elected to represent their constituents. If MP’s and ministers make negative changes to people’s lives in the interest of preventing climate change then constituents who aren’t bothered about climate change will just vote them out at the next election and the new MP’s will reverse all their changes.

I’m not saying this is morally right. But that’s how democracy works. Even a system based on proportional representation would not have a majority Green vote.

I often think of the Martin Luther King quote about those who opposed direct action to end racist segregation….:

I must confess that over the past 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 his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler 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 cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.”

You're right, I'm making the assumption that we elect leaders because we want them to act on certain issues as it would be on our best interests. This is of course totally subjective.

I've experience of PR, and one positive outcome is that, as overall majorities are rarely the case, coalitions are usually formed, in which parties with a smaller share of the vote can negotiate on key issues such as climate.