No more Protest

[lightinthebox]

Regardless of your views of Just Stop Oil, we should all be worried.

This has gone through easily because people hate Just Stop Oil, it’s an easy target and has fooled people.

We should not be celebrating lengthy jail sentences for planning protests, we should be scared about what this means.

Not just that, but if peaceful protests equal a jail sentence then what’s to stop people from going to violence if they know they can’t protest.

People should stop and think, ignore your prejudice and see the bigger picture.

You're getting hysterical now and making even less sense. Try a sedative.

@XChrome I'm not the one supporting JSO and their criminal campaign. You are.

@XDownwiththissortofthingX also self serving bollocks. We small folk don't need you or JSO to educate us on the climate crisis. We understand it full well and thy at people like you are part of problem preventing realistic solutions through fantasy demands about the pace of possible change.

I studied geochemistry at university. None of the lecturers even agreed with the theory of CO2 driving temperature due to the geological record showing CO2 trailing temperature. I guess they're just not the scientists you're referring to.

Like equating JSOs actions to fighting Nazis, is something people should be ashamed of?

Not affiliated with JSO. Never said I support them.

Where did I say that? Answer; nowhere. In fact, I have said quite the opposite, that what they did is not okay. My objection was to calling it terrorism, simply because that is bullshit.
Lying about other posters certainly doesn't help you look less hysterical.

We only have your word on that, which means nothing. "Somebody I know said such and such" is never a valid argument. The reality is that the science is settled. Get over it.

Please don’t call what JSO did terrorism. It makes 9/11 sound less extreme, have some sense of scale and judgement.

Agree. It's an insult to real victims of terrorism. It massively trivializes terrorism if people being inconvenienced is called terrorism.

They have mentality of terrorists - i.e. 'do what we say or else'.

The screenshots posted earlier on the thread also showed them comparing themselves to the French resistance and the government to Nazis in court.

I think they're are terrorists who just haven't started killing..... yet.

😂😂😂

Just because they weren't wielding knives, guns or explosives doesn't make the harm they caused any less real. It's their total disregard for the life or deaths of others. They knew that people might die because of what they were doing and regarded this as acceptable. When you reach a point of indifference about the life or death of other people in pursuit of political aims, you are a terrorist. JSO are led by terrorists who would allow people to die in pursuit of their political goals.

They belong where they are. In prison serving long sentences. It's naff all to do with the legitimate right of protest and free speech that continues to exist in this country.

Outrageous sentences.
I am hoping there will be an appeal.
For a functioning democracy we need to preserve the right to non violent protest.
Sometimes civil disobedience is what it takes - and some of the more effective protests have succeeded with the use of non violent direct action.
Yes, if you participate in nvda you expect consequences - but this is disproportionate.
I despair that some people are so apathetic about the world they live in that they cannot even understand why others are not.

Can you honestly look at 9/11 footage and say that’s the same as JSO?

You're invoking the largest mass casualty terrorist attack in history. Of course what they've done isn't on that scale, but it doesn't mean that they're not using terrorist tactics to achieve their aims.

They were planning much worse, but were stopped by undercover information.

No I can't. But I never said it was the same. You, or someone like you in thought, has used a false comparison between the two to downplay criminality of the JSO leaders who were sent to prison.

I accept they were tried as a public nuisance and not as terrorists. That's right and proper. But in a non legal sense, they set out to terrorise British people.

Now, if they were disrupting slavers from taking their chattels to market, or pr eating pills from trafficking women, in a targeted way, you might have a point about non violent civil disobedience.

But they weren't were they.

They were stopping kids getting to school, they were stopping people from attending medical appointments and receiving emergency care. They were targeting the livings of working people.

And they were doing it on an indiscriminate basis because they were indifferent to the needs of these people. Or the harm they caused.

And I'm being generous. I think they knew the harm they were causing to those people and that was the point (fuckers that they are). Because in their twisted way, they thought that brought attention to their political demands.

And if you can't see that, and the difference with legitimate protest and free speech, you need to reevaluate your life choices and find a moral compass.

It can only be dubbed terrorism if you do something to intentionally cause deaths, injuries or at least some sort of physical harm. By your definition, everyone who drives recklessly could be considered a terrorist. Terrorism isn't about potential for harm and unintended harm. It's about inherent harm and directly causing it.

I'll give you an example of when a protest becomes terrorism. We had a protest near where I live, the infamous trucker convoy, where for three weeks they belched out choking fumes and ear splitting noise 24/7, making the entire downtown unliveable, disrupting the work of a lawful government and causing people to have breathing difficulties and illness from the carbon monoxide. The also attacked people, tried to burn down a building, and had a cache of weapons because they intended to try to take down a lawful government by force. In addition they did intentionally block ambulances by blocking the entrance to a hospital. That was terrorism, albeit not on nearly the scale of a suicide bombing. People were intentionally harmed and they used violence.

XChrome · Today 04:52
Punishing non-violent protesters criminally is what fascists do.

Communists also, but maybe it’s ok when they do it.
Sorry, I don't follow you. What do you mean about communists

Communists also punish non-violent protesters.

My moral compass is to not cause harm. The only difference is that I can see beyond myself and consider future generations,

@XChrome are you in the US? If so, what do you know about UK, specifically English law and custom. Our concepts of free speech and lawful protest are different to those in the US.

Thanks for the clarification.
It's never okay, no matter who does it.

Okay, so your moral compass is not to actively cause harm.

But if it is clearly foreseeable that someone could be indirectly harmed by your actions, and is then so harmed (because they die in ambulance on the M25), that's okay is it. Not your fault. Not your problem. You've got clean hands. Because their sacrifice was for your cause?

Give your head a wobble. And learn the difference between north and south. Your compass is broken.

No, Canada. I 'm not talking about UK law and customs. I'm talking about the definition of terrorism. Surely we can all agree that, since we speak the same language, the word has the same meaning.