Climate activist Greta Thunberg has been charged with a public order offense after being arrested at a demonstration against an oil industry conference in London.
My point was that I don’t think it’s absurd for it to not be legal to completely block access to a facility, and that if it were established to be completely legal, malicious groups could cause quite a lot of harm. The law cannot be selectively applied to causes deemed noble, and you probably don’t want the government having the power to decide which those are.
There’s a difference between inconveniencing someone and making it impossible for them to operate and conduct legal affairs. Again, if some group of people were pissed off at you for whatever reason, should it be legal for them to block you from entering your home?
Even in strikes, picket lines don’t make it physically impossible to enter a workplace; they only make in significantly more unpleasant. To flip this, would you defend the right of oil workers to physically prevent Greta from leaving her hotel? Because the law cannot distinguish between these situations. Either this is a legal protest tactic, by any and all parties, or it isn’t.
Thunberg was among dozens of protesters who chanted “oily money out” and sought to block access to the hotel on Tuesday.
I should be clear, I’m basing this off of this line in the article; if they were just standing outside and chanting and access wasn’t prevented, I’d wholeheartedly agree that this would be a gross violation of free speech.
Everything you are describing are the constraints that have been placed there by those in power. The mere fact that you are focused on the idea of angry people stopping you from going where you want to shows that it works. The baddies aren’t the people destroying the world. It is the people who are forcing you to walk around to the back door of the hotel. It is the people who forced you to make a left on 5th street to get to work.
As for “What if they were neonazis”: Honestly, sure. Because if I have pissed off the klan to the point they are organizing protests in front of my house, I want them to. I want people to see just how readily the police protect nazis. And I want to know that I need to go into hiding.
Because if all protests and strikes have to be done in a way that inconveniences absolutely nobody: Nothing will ever happen.
Ultimately, this is philosophical difference in how much we value rule of law and individual rights and how willing we are to sacrifice them for causes we deem as more important. Everyone has their own line there, so I won’t fault you for having a different one than me.
Personally, I’m not convinced that protests of this nature really accomplish anything of consequence, but I may be something of a cynic. I’d much rather see pressure aimed at politicians who can actually enact changes over simply annoying some oil executives that will only ever pursue profit as much as legally allowed.
“rule of law” is literally the status quo. You are saying it boils down to how much you value the right to protest and seek change versus the protection of those in power.
Also: Politicians are controlled by “special interest groups”. Such as oil executives who are well known to use lobbyists and bribes to continue destroying the world. Protests like this are about getting others to become and stay aware of that in the hopes of either pressuring politicians to do their fucking jobs or to get concessions from oil companies to “save face”.
If you keep all protests in a designated location so that you aren’t inconvenienced: you accomplish nothing. Well, other than protecting the people killing the planet.
You are not enlightened. You are actively siding with the oil execs and praising the boys in blue for stopping people from complaining. Decide if you are okay with that or not.
If you have to tell yourself that I’m some heartless bootlicker, go ahead. Personally, I feel pretty fine with myself and think I’ll manage to live with an internet rando thinking I’m a simp for big oil. Enjoy your day.
My point was that I don’t think it’s absurd for it to not be legal to completely block access to a facility, and that if it were established to be completely legal, malicious groups could cause quite a lot of harm. The law cannot be selectively applied to causes deemed noble, and you probably don’t want the government having the power to decide which those are.
There’s a difference between inconveniencing someone and making it impossible for them to operate and conduct legal affairs. Again, if some group of people were pissed off at you for whatever reason, should it be legal for them to block you from entering your home?
Even in strikes, picket lines don’t make it physically impossible to enter a workplace; they only make in significantly more unpleasant. To flip this, would you defend the right of oil workers to physically prevent Greta from leaving her hotel? Because the law cannot distinguish between these situations. Either this is a legal protest tactic, by any and all parties, or it isn’t.
I should be clear, I’m basing this off of this line in the article; if they were just standing outside and chanting and access wasn’t prevented, I’d wholeheartedly agree that this would be a gross violation of free speech.
Everything you are describing are the constraints that have been placed there by those in power. The mere fact that you are focused on the idea of angry people stopping you from going where you want to shows that it works. The baddies aren’t the people destroying the world. It is the people who are forcing you to walk around to the back door of the hotel. It is the people who forced you to make a left on 5th street to get to work.
As for “What if they were neonazis”: Honestly, sure. Because if I have pissed off the klan to the point they are organizing protests in front of my house, I want them to. I want people to see just how readily the police protect nazis. And I want to know that I need to go into hiding.
Because if all protests and strikes have to be done in a way that inconveniences absolutely nobody: Nothing will ever happen.
Ultimately, this is philosophical difference in how much we value rule of law and individual rights and how willing we are to sacrifice them for causes we deem as more important. Everyone has their own line there, so I won’t fault you for having a different one than me.
Personally, I’m not convinced that protests of this nature really accomplish anything of consequence, but I may be something of a cynic. I’d much rather see pressure aimed at politicians who can actually enact changes over simply annoying some oil executives that will only ever pursue profit as much as legally allowed.
“rule of law” is literally the status quo. You are saying it boils down to how much you value the right to protest and seek change versus the protection of those in power.
Also: Politicians are controlled by “special interest groups”. Such as oil executives who are well known to use lobbyists and bribes to continue destroying the world. Protests like this are about getting others to become and stay aware of that in the hopes of either pressuring politicians to do their fucking jobs or to get concessions from oil companies to “save face”.
If you keep all protests in a designated location so that you aren’t inconvenienced: you accomplish nothing. Well, other than protecting the people killing the planet.
You are not enlightened. You are actively siding with the oil execs and praising the boys in blue for stopping people from complaining. Decide if you are okay with that or not.
If you have to tell yourself that I’m some heartless bootlicker, go ahead. Personally, I feel pretty fine with myself and think I’ll manage to live with an internet rando thinking I’m a simp for big oil. Enjoy your day.
For some reason you can’t have a reasonable discussion in this thread. I agree with everything you’ve said above.