A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
Those who make peaceful protests impossible make violent rebellion inevitable.
Right? If it's years in prison either way, they're about to find out what real eco terrorism looks like when protestors are ready to go all in.
I'm constantly surprised that the endless unmonitored miles of oil pipelines don't ever bombed.
“In an opinion article in The New York Times, columnist Ezra Klein wrote that "[a] truer title would be 'Why to Blow Up a Pipeline'", characterizing Malm's answer as "[because] nothing else has worked". Stating that Malm was "less convincing" about "whether blowing up pipelines would work here, and now", Klein argued that there would likely be political consequences to sabotage, including imprisonment of climate activists as well as political repression.[13]”
Whelp, Erza Klein can eat the whole of my ass.
Seems like a reasonable position to me. He's saying that the argument amounts to "may as well try" and that it doesn't get into specifics of what the actual material consequences of the action would be, which is a fair critique. He doesn't say that the argument is wrong, just that it's not fully explored.
And he is right that retaliation by the state is the only truly foreseeable consequence, and that is a big deal. It's the main reason to avoid picking fights with the state unless you're in a position to win those fights. What "winning" looks like is up for debate and depends on your goals, but you have to consider the response.
It sounds like this is a question that can only be answered with empirical testing.
That actively works against the cause because it would do so much harm to the local ecosystems
That is a short term problem for trying to fight a long term catastrophe.
I would prefer to not cause a mess, and further harm natural spaces, but as you can see. Not only are passive demonstrations not effective, they have severe jail time. So at this point, i see it as the most logical step
And as these sentences get handed down and there are more political prisoners and martyrs, more people will start to think that way.
Current eco activists tend to be very conscientious and considered about what they're doing. As it gets more popular, you'll get people joining who are considerably less measured in their actions, and the likelihood of drastic actions increases.
Well a lot of them run through more or less suburban areas. So doing it there would have lower environmental impact while greatly raising awareness of how many pipelines run through populated places.
That would almost certainly only hurt poor neighbourhoods, and that's easy for the media to sweep under the rug. They've perfected the art of dehumanising the poor.
I think the reality is that we don't know the consequences. I mean, I'm not saying it shouldn't happen, but the effects are impossible to predict.
That's probably why environmentalist movements that tend to be full of only the most conscientious people have shied away from it. They would want to know what they were getting into first.
If things get bad enough that ecoterrorism becomes popular and a wider array of people take up the cause, we'll probably find out the answer to these questions.
I guess that's what they're aiming for, to turn the general public against protests (even more).
Absolutely. From the end of the article:
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.
If the sentencing is gonna be that bad for something minor, maybe dramatically up the ante next time.
Drunk drivers that crash and actually ended up disrupting traffic get lighter sentences than this.
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.
Holy shit. 5 years for "conspiracy to cause public nuisance". Holy shit.
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.
Not allowed evidence, not allowed a defense, and the crime was a zoom call where they tried to recruit people to block a highway. 5 years in prison.
Holy shit, are you guys okay in the UK? Blink twice if you need help.
Blinking? Straight to jail!
Insurrectionists doing less time than these hippies. Y’all are crushin’ it down there…
M25 leads me to believe this is GB not the US
It says UK a few sentences in.
In for a lamb, in for a sheep.
In for a peaceful protest, in for sabotage
This has got to be appealable right? Thats insane!
Jesus that's a crazy sentence
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.
Sentencing remarks [pdf] https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/R-v-Hallam-and-others.pdf
Kier Stalin