Submitted by je97 t3_120js00 in UpliftingNews
Comments
Callinon t1_jdl6959 wrote
We've done it before...
C0nkles t1_jdl7x65 wrote
And goddammit we'll do it again!
pkittyswat t1_jdlbm5i wrote
Word/s
Mtfdurian t1_jdldm05 wrote
Even though it's about the UK, I can sadly also attest that exactly the same thoughts go around in the Dutch government, under the lead of Shell's bed partner Mark Rutte.
Ormyr t1_jdi8vjc wrote
Less ethical lawyers staunchly support corporations and shareholders declaring climate protestors imminent threat: "(they) were coming right for us" and promise to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. /s
PoorlyAttired t1_jdhjcvl wrote
Guess which word the Daily Mail used when reporting this moral stand? 'Woke'.
JaymeMalice t1_jdjnyec wrote
As expected by the Daily Heil
Callinon t1_jdl6blw wrote
Can they define that? Because no one seems to be able to.
Kronoshifter246 t1_jdlcstc wrote
Ron DeSantis's definition is a hilarious example of saying the quiet part out loud.
[deleted] t1_jdhl930 wrote
[removed]
PaxNova t1_jdie90y wrote
Can anybody explain what he cab rank rule is? In the US, lawyers can choose not to represent somebody if they don't want, apart from perhaps public defenders.
Gallalad t1_jdkksjb wrote
These are barristers for the prosecution. Basically it's like if the state prosecutor said they wouldn't prosecute a case even if directed to.
veilwalker t1_jdkv4el wrote
As long as you aren’t in Florida the govt. usually leaves prosecution decisions to the office in charge of the area.
dragodrake t1_jdn5aeu wrote
In the UK the decision to prosecute is made by the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) who are themselves barristers/solicitors on the government payroll - however they do not prosecute the case in court.
The CPS keep a list of approved barristers for criminal cases who they can basically sub-contract the work out to, to actually prosecute the case in court on behalf of the crown.
The cab rank rule basically means those on the approved list arent allowed to pick and choose, the CPS assigns cases to the next in line and they are expected to accept the work irrelevant of the case. Its technically meant to work the same for people looking for a legal professional to defend them, they shouldn't be turned away based on the case, but in actuality its usually fairly easy to find a 'conflict' or a 'diary overlap' if you really don't want to do it.
Its also worth noting a bunch of the people who signed this declaration are not actually barristers on the CPS's approved list - so they couldn't prosecute these cases on behalf of the crown even if they wanted to, its just virtue signalling.
Airbornequalified t1_jdla29k wrote
Are they elected or appointed? While uncommon, these type of things happen occasionally in the us as well and the recourse is an election recall and re-election
Gallalad t1_jdlbabq wrote
Appointed. This is not a political job. Usually they're veteran barristers (trial lawyers) of at least 15 years who's job it is is to be the prosecutor on behalf of the crown (just a fancy way of saying the state), hence Kings Counsel.
Recourse here is that they're gonna be put before the bar and since they broken the cab rank rule which specifies that a barrister must take a case they are qualified for, provided they are available to do so.
Airbornequalified t1_jdlhxpj wrote
Ahhhh. Thank you for explaining that, as I didn’t understand the big issue
Gallalad t1_jdoemkw wrote
Its all good. Honestly its one of those things which I'm struggling to adapt to (I moved to North America) and the fact you are such a democratic society is sometimes jarring, partisanship is the norm. Like even your school boards, police and judges are elected. Back in Ireland I couldnt even elect my own senator.
CyberSkepticalFruit t1_jdlkm5f wrote
Barristers have to work the next case as it becomes available. They can ask the judge to be recused from the case if they have grounds, but I don't think a UK judge would accept the barristers reasons in this sort of case.
Elibrius t1_jdjkblt wrote
Whoa, is this people actually trying to make the world a better place
pawnman99 t1_jdlvwss wrote
By blocking streets and throwing soup at paintings.
Boblar t1_jdlx8wu wrote
Oh no!
Thank goodness the good guys were around to put an end to their savagery, and restore a sense of justice in between all their acts of corruption!
pawnman99 t1_jdlxdvv wrote
Yes. Destroying priceless works of art and halting emergency services will definitely stop climate change...
Boblar t1_jdlxzvz wrote
They will if we let them.
Those artworks will be useless with no one to view them. Poor political decisions and weak management disrupt more emergency responses than these protesters ever could.
Redirect your outrage. This is all just a symptom of failures of leadership; don’t blame the people doing whatever they can to reverse these trends. What are you doing about it? Voting ever further to the right?
pawnman99 t1_jdly3ms wrote
Not creating tons of additional CO2 by forcing thousands of vehicles to idle in the street, for one.
RoboFleksnes t1_jdm06bf wrote
If we keep the current course, the climate will collapse.
If all cars idle on the street from now until forever, the climate will collapse.
If cars idle for one day and it inspires change, the climate might not collapse.
pawnman99 t1_jdm1amg wrote
Oh? Is there evidence that these protests are inspiring anything other than annoyance?
RoboFleksnes t1_jdm67lq wrote
Are you asking if there's any evidence that protests cause change? Because there is plenty of that.
Or are you diminishing these protests specifically? If so, why?
pawnman99 t1_jdm6g57 wrote
I'm asking if these specific tactics show any signs of working. Because of they aren't, maybe the protestors should think about adjusting their methods. From the coverage I've seen, all they're doing is paying off the people in the middle instead of winning them over.
RoboFleksnes t1_jdmbydi wrote
As far as I can tell, it sure seems like the amount of protests and the participants of these protest is on the rise and has been for the last decade or so.
So it at least doesn't seem like it is alienating more people than it is fostering.
I agree that the coverage makes it seem like these are just some petulant children who make life bad for the average Joe, but to be fair, the same can be said for practically all protests. So maybe, just maybe, the coverage is biased towards upholding the status quo, and maybe we shouldn't listen to those who wants to uphold the status quo if that is keeping us on the path to climate collapse.
Gallalad t1_jdklj5j wrote
I understand the moral aspect but this is a bad precedent imo. These aren't just solicitors saying they won't be hired by certain corporations but prosecutors. If they set the precedent that a barrister can refuse to prosecute a case for political reasons then you create partisan barristers which risks ruining the impartiality of the legal system.
CyberSkepticalFruit t1_jdljtp5 wrote
They are literally self referring themselves to the bar over this.
alternatingflan t1_jdjd62e wrote
Watch out - a persistence of this kind of behavior may give lawyers a good reputation!
Divallo t1_jdkri1f wrote
The UK already passed a huge variety of strict weapon laws and now wants to crack down on peaceful protest for being slightly disruptive. Where is the line?
Food for thought. Putting peaceful climate protestors in prison for being mildly disruptive is itself disruptive.
From my POV it seems like the elites who own the economy are systematically pacifying the population and targeting who they perceive to be a threat viciously.
CyberSkepticalFruit t1_jdlk102 wrote
Well the weapon laws was because a man went into a school and started killing children, something a worrying number of people in the US doesn't think is a problem.
el_grort t1_jdmmdpl wrote
Yeah, we got our laws on guns because of Hungerford (which made the first big raft) and Dunblane massacres. They've also been perfectly fine, and iirc the Republic of Ireland manages well with similar gun laws. Northern Ireland allows guns for self defence, but Northern Ireland is a very peculiar and unique country.
The anti-protest laws were done by the post-Brexit lunge to the far right that Johnson and Truss spearheaded. It was not part of some major plot, it was the result of authoritarians like those two and the ERG suddenly being able to wield power due to a massive political crisis in the UK.
nataliepineapple t1_jdm6o3a wrote
How is a clampdown on peaceful protest anything to do with gun control? "First my school banned chainsaws, now they're banning mobile phones!"
BalkeElvinstien t1_jdipkax wrote
They're protester protester protesters
Capable-Raccoon-6371 t1_jdkof8n wrote
And by peaceful protestors they mean someone protesting at home, without contacting anyone, or going outside. Just chillin in their kitchen all mad and stuff.
MorganRose99 t1_jdliegs wrote
Can the lawyers be penalized for this
If so, that's insane, it's literally peaceful protesting
CyberSkepticalFruit t1_jdlkd4y wrote
Its up to the Bar.
johnn48 t1_jdiq2he wrote
“Peacefully Protest” is a nebulous term. It can vary from the bus boycotts of Birmingham to the march in Selma. However did “Unite the Right” White Supremacists have the right to rally in Charlottesville. When does a Peaceful Protest and march turn into an attempted insurrection. Does blocking a road, preventing access to an abortion clinic or meat packing plant cross the line. Does gluing yourself to work of valuable work of art or interfering in athletic games. All I’m saying is saying we won’t prosecute peaceful protesters is a slippery slope without clear parameters.
SilverNicktail t1_jdiqhq4 wrote
It's most definitely a response to the UK government passing multiple laws to criminalise protest. The state has made it clear that they will prosecute and harass any protest they don't like, and you'd better believe that includes climate protesters.
[deleted] t1_jdj7frt wrote
[removed]
Usfamilyman67 t1_jdj74l1 wrote
I had the same initial thoughts. I’m all for peacefully protesting but are disruptive behaviors considered peaceful?
Sonacka t1_jdktzh2 wrote
Disruption is peaceful as long as there is no violence or damage done. You could shut down all of the roads in a city with a protest and as long as there is no property damage, violence, verbal harassment and ambulance/fire engines are able to pass through then it's peaceful.
georgepearl_04 t1_jdm5bok wrote
I don't think running into racetracks trying to kill/seriously injure drivers is particularly peaceful.
Sonacka t1_jdntbam wrote
That doesn't sound peaceful, do you have a link to any articles on that?
georgepearl_04 t1_jdnw9bt wrote
Sonacka t1_jdsal3n wrote
They were not trying to injure or kill the drivers. I agree that it might have injured or killed drivers/race staff but I do not think those protestors had any thought about how dangerous it would be for others if they entered the track. They are idiots that would have thought they would shut the race down. Nowhere in that article does it say they entered the race track with intent to kill or injure, only that their actions could have harmed people.
I don't agree with the actions of those protestors and believe they should be prosecuted but they were not trying to injure or kill people like you say.
georgepearl_04 t1_jdupklc wrote
You'd have to be brain dead to not realise that you were going to seriously hurt someone/kill them. They are extremely fortunate that Russell crashed out Zhou otherwise they'd already be dead/facing murder charges.
Sonacka t1_jdwgwub wrote
I'm going to go out on a limb then and say that they are brain dead. They are extremists who want to make headlines and also get arrested. If you think about it like that then stopping formula 1 makes for a great headline. How will they stop formula 1? By standing on the track so the cars can't go round. They are not smart people, their logic could legitimately be as flawed as that. Just because you, a rational person, can see the immediate flaw in their logic doesn't mean they can.
gooferpubs t1_jdlbckk wrote
Then what these protesters have done isn’t peaceful. They have repeatedly caused massive indiscriminate congestion of roads, including stopping emergency services.
Sonacka t1_jdlnvqu wrote
Did they stop the emergency services? Or did the traffic that was blocked up block the emergency services?
pawnman99 t1_jdlw39o wrote
Well, they caused the congestion, so I'd say they stopped the emergency services.
Sonacka t1_jdntdvg wrote
They didn't cause congestion, the number of cars did. If the cars weren't there or pulled to the side then the emergency vehicles could get through.
pawnman99 t1_jdnukhl wrote
The emergency vehicles could get through a chain of people blocking the entire road?
You guys are even more optimistic than I thought.
Sonacka t1_jds9j90 wrote
Yes. I don't know if you know this but most people have functional legs and can walk. Those that don't will have another way of moving out of the way for emergency services...
pawnman99 t1_jdsiqrs wrote
Like... waiting for the police to show up and remove them?
Sonacka t1_jdsme6y wrote
Do you have any evidence or links to articles that say these protesters stopped emergency vehicles from passing? Or are you just grumpy that these people blocked the roads for regular cars for a while?
pawnman99 t1_jdss35x wrote
Sonacka t1_jdszcbc wrote
Source 1 was definitely irresponsible of the protestors. Glueing yourself to something on the road is very irresponsible. Even if they didn't mean to delay the fire engine they are in the wrong.
In source 3 it paints the picture that the protestors were blocking emergency services, but the last part of the article shows the fire engine made it through, and still made it to where it needed to go within 14 minutes. The reversing ambulance appears to be reversing to face the protestors. Either it's going to ram through them, or maybe there is room for the ambulance to go through?
Source 3 shows the ambulance struggling to get through traffic. I don't know the layout of the roads but again it doesn't look like the protestors are blocking the road and stopping the ambulance from getting through, it's the amount of traffic in the way stopping the ambulance. Again though, people glueing themselves to the road is unacceptable.
Source 4 is a very weird source. The protests may or may not have contributed to the amount of traffic (I honestly have no idea, but for the sake of the argument, I'll agree that they did). The two people had their car hit after being in standstill traffic for four hours. That is not the result of the protests, that's just the result of a criminal driver. The 40 minutes for the ambulance to get there is very high, but it doesn't say how long the ambulance should have taken on a regular day, so maybe it's not much higher?
pawnman99 t1_jdt0bsv wrote
Do you really think the protests are unrelated to the amount of traffic on the road? And that the amount of traffic is unrelated to delaying emergency vehicles?
And yeah, protesters are acting irresponsibly. That's my whole point.
Sonacka t1_jdtb21p wrote
The protesters are related to the amount of traffic stuck on the road. But they aren't related to the drivers poor ability to let emergency vehicles through. They should all leave enough room for them to pass, just like the protesters did in one of your sources. Some protestors are acting irresponsibly I agree.
Itsumishi t1_jdkbg9z wrote
Disruptive describes literally every type of protest. Peaceful or otherwise.
Usfamilyman67 t1_jdsz4v8 wrote
Unfortunately the peaceful protests never make the news. It’s only the thugs that destroy and loot that you see on the news.
Itsumishi t1_jdt4mx6 wrote
Peaceful has nothing to do with disruptive though. Disruptive is literally the point of a protest. If its not disruptive it isn't a protest.
People standing on footpaths/roads with signs: disrupting pedestrians/traffic.
Boycotting a company: disrupting sales.
Standing outside a building chanting: disrupting people's access to employment or generally being noisy and disrupting their work.
pawnman99 t1_jdlw0gg wrote
I wonder if throwing soup on 200-year-old paintings is considered "peaceful".
nataliepineapple t1_jdm7tnx wrote
If the protesters don't get their way, the consequences to humanity will be far more severe than the loss of a few paintings. I'd happily see every old painting covered in soup if it resulted in meaningful climate action.
pawnman99 t1_jdmihvd wrote
Maybe you should go ahead and get off the internet, since those servers are powered by fossil fuels.
Heliolord t1_jdkesin wrote
Fiery but peaceful type protestors or the regular kinds who just carry signs?
coldfunk t1_jdo7jxx wrote
No, they haven't. The lawyers who have said this aren't able to prosecute them anyway, it's a dangerous performance piece which is going to make MOP who don't know better (and much of the mainstream media) believe that those who do prosecute choose to do so. They don't. We have the cab rank rule which prevents barristers picking and choosing the cases they represent. This is a list of non-criminal and retired barristers, academics and solicitors, none of whom would be called upon to prosecute because they wouldn't be allowed to.
If you want to know the truth about this have a read of the thread by Alex Wright (@alexwright174) or of the secret barristers timeline on Twitter.
AutoModerator t1_jdhibbf wrote
Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.
All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
hecramsey t1_jdl3jwx wrote
marked by freedom from dispute, strife, violence, or disorder"
[deleted] t1_jdlvb5w wrote
[removed]
Dinin53 t1_jdm5inv wrote
There is a very good reason that Justice is depicted as wearing a blindfold. These barristers are flying in the face of that. It is not up to them to legislate from the bench or decide what is right and wrong. People who commit crimes or break the law invariably believe that they had a valid reason for doing so. It isn't up to barristers to decide if that reason is legitimate; it is up to a jury of peers of the accused. By refusing to prosecute based on their own political views, these barristers are effectively perverting the natural course of justice in this country.
Juuna t1_jdmcw9m wrote
Ok. So what is peaceful? Glueing yourself to the street "seems" peaceful until you realize you are ruining peoples days or even lives. Is throwing milk on the floor in a supermarket peaceful? Or are you ruining peoples day at work having to clean up your mess? What about throwing paint on a politicians home? Is that peaceful certainly no one got hurt right?
Lots42 t1_jdrzpff wrote
This comment is a trap. Nobody respond.
U_wind_sprint t1_jdkyuww wrote
Ok, but get out of the road please
Existing_Ad1428 t1_jdijibe wrote
Peaceful protestors should never be prosecuted. Why is that even up for debate? It’s the protestors who destroy, litter, and cause public disorder who should be prosecuted, regardless of what they’re protesting against. Someone throws soup on a painting in a museum? Jail. Someone throws paint on a person? Jail. Someone attacks a police man? Straight to jail. Someone just putting up a banner and raising awareness around an issue? Absolutely fine and many times even needed!
Vermaxx t1_jdl4hzi wrote
As of 2019, the full EU was 6.4% of ghg. The US was 11. China was 27%. China is more than the USA plus EU plus India. You can almost fit in Indonesia too.
Protestors risking criminal charges to fight a system that at best would barely slow world collapse even if it fully ended TODAY, in a reality where Biden says we'd need "at least" another decade, deserve to be prosecuted.
Sepof t1_jdm4gw1 wrote
Uhh... so if no one ever protested or advocated for anything to be done.... do you think anything would be?
​
This isn't a case of "protesting is the clear answer to sold all problems." It's a case of "protesting is one of the few things we CAN do to ensure the people that CAN do something, do."
​
Your logic is bad. I hope you've already realized this, considering everyone is telling you the same thing.
ohheyisayokay t1_jdliffu wrote
"We aren't the worst offender, so don't ask us to stop offending" is not a compelling argument.
And I'm not even sure what you think if we expand your views beyond this one issue. That collapse is inevitable, so we'd better keep law and order today even if it hastens chaos tomorrow? That we shouldn't try a little bit because it's actually going to take a lot? That people should accept that they're doomed and just sit down with that quietly instead of making elected officials uncomfortable about inaction?
Sepof t1_jdm5d8d wrote
This guy's logic is profoundly troubling. What's more troubling is that his vote counts as much as ours. And there are tons of people like him, who literally can't think past their own completely meaningless existence.
​
Not that any of us have much more meaning, but christ.. at least we are trying to continue the species and planet. Imagine thinking "welp, shits bad but it isn't directly my fault, so might as well just lay down and enjoy my job at Wells Fargo til it all ends."
Vermaxx t1_jdlino1 wrote
What exactly do you think the incredibly small amount Britain contributes matters? If you were talking about US activism, I'd accept that.
Britain is too small to help anything.
ohheyisayokay t1_jdptzdx wrote
"What difference does a single grain of sand make?" asked every grain on the beach.
Even if the amount Britain contributes doesn't make a difference (and if you had IVs of poison dripping into your veins, don't tell me you would leave one on just cause it wasn't the one dripping the most), Britain's actions make a difference. Countries look to other countries as examples. Countries feel pressure from the actions of other countries. Britain might not make the biggest difference, but they can set an example.
Or Britain can sit, lazy as a turd on a log, and do nothing because "why should I be the first one to do a good thing? Why should I stop doing a bad thing if someone else is doing it worse?" and let everyone else feel comfortable pointing at everyone else instead of doing anything, and we can all go down pointing.
So no, Britain isn't going to solve the climate crisis on its own. But asking it to stop being part of the problem isn't crazy.
Vermaxx t1_jdqo7ew wrote
Demanding it cease 100% to economic AND military detriment, in the face of an expansionist and belligerent competitor who won't ever stop, that is crazy.
ohheyisayokay t1_jdtcbrz wrote
You keep ping ponging between this nirvana fallacy argument and a straw man argument to justify doing nothing.
So far you have argued against stopping anything because
A) it's unreasonable to ask for 100% cessation and you imply that 100% or 0% are the only options B) you assume China will never stop C) you apparently believe that you should only do what's right when everyone else is already doing it.
You assume, and I think incorrectly, that taking decisive climate action will be too Britain's detriment. You seem to forget that an oil dependency is a military liability as well as an economic liability, and where most of the oil in the world comes from.
If you can't think of a way in which the rest of the world can pressure China to take action, you lack imagination.
Vermaxx t1_jdte468 wrote
How does one pressure the new world power once that nation takes control? China will never have to cooperate because they either stay second rate (and we won't invade) or they supplant the west (and we won't invade).
You're a zealot. If I'm not saying anything values then stop tagging me. I know I can't convince you you're wrong, because you fully believe the world will end soon. I've heard them say the world is ending soon for thirty years. The only thing that changes is the reason and the date... but no missed dates ever force an admission that things aren't as dire as claimed. The warnings just get more dire and the demands get more extreme.
[deleted] t1_jdtxccl wrote
[removed]
Vermaxx t1_jdteg52 wrote
Let's also talk about the fact that "peaceful protest" doesn't lead to prison. Rioting and property destruction do. These attorneys are defending terrorism.
ohheyisayokay t1_jdttrrw wrote
>Let's also talk about the fact that "peaceful protest" doesn't lead to prison.
Oh my god, do you actually believe that?!
Vermaxx t1_jdtvbff wrote
Unless you're colloquially referring to "jail" as "prison," then no. Civil disobedience results in misdemeanor charges. Obstructing roadways, attacking people, using violence or property destruction are all possible avenues for FELONIES, which can lead to prison. Committing felonious acts for shock value to cause political change is one definition of terrorism.
ohheyisayokay t1_jdtxp3e wrote
Oho! You almost got me with this one. It almost looked relevant, until I remembered that prison time has fuckall to do with whether prosecutors being charges or not.
Did you lose track of the history of the conversation? We're talking about UK prosecutors refusing to prosecute for peaceful protests, and you're changing the subject to "peaceful protests don't lead to prison time."
Almost!!
Vermaxx t1_jdty76m wrote
How does someone go to prison if they're not charged with a crime? The sign says "no prison." I'd expect prosecutors to know what level of charges they're vacating and be technically precise. Ergo, they're not planning on sticking to misdemeanor charges, they plan on excusing felonies.
ohheyisayokay t1_jdujp5i wrote
What the fuck? You have to be trolling at this point. Otherwise I am alarmed by how confused you are.
Let's look at how far off you are with this stretch:
-
You apply US legal terms to UK legal matters. The UK has no misdemeanors and felonies, that distinction was legally abolished in the mid 20th century.
-
You are now taking a sign you saw in a photo of a protest and applying its text to the intentions of a wholly separate group of people: the prosecutors.
-
You pull your bizarre logic from all over the place, whether it's connected or not. Assumptions about the US legal system, assumptions about the intent of the lawyers, and extrapolations from the text of one sign at a protest.
You're reaching hard and ignoring facts in favor of your conjecture.
Sepof t1_jdm52q6 wrote
Suppose a group of passengers on a boat suddenly notices that the boat is sinking due to a small hole, but that they all have buckets of varying sizes they could use to offset the incoming water.
​
Using your logic, only passengers with large buckets should bother throwing out water, because they will have the most impact.
​
In a life or death situation, WHICH THIS IS, do you think this is a wise decision if you want to give your boat time to reach shore or find rescue?
​
If small contributors do nothing, China certainly will not. Protests create pressure, which can and ALREADY HAS had an impact.
​
It's a good thing for you that society has built up safety nets for people with poor survival skills, cause yours are lackin.
Vermaxx t1_jdn09mk wrote
China NEVER WILL. Their goal is to supplant the west economically and then militarily. They're just watching us collapse ourselves.
Sepof t1_jdnv9ew wrote
That's rather presumptuous to assume you know the intentions of a country you've likely never been to, know little about, and don't even speak the language of.
That being said, what is the goal of the US then? Seems like both countries are competing for the same thing...
The point is, advocating for a species-wide common goal shouldn't be a bad thing. Whataboutism on humanities survival is laughably stupid.
Vermaxx t1_jdnwe4w wrote
Name a single up and coming world power that had ever settled for second best. Name one that didn't use violence once their competitor collapsed economically. I really don't understand this China apologist crap. They're humans, run by an authoritarian regime. The only goal is more power, not peaceful stagnation.
[deleted] t1_jdoclgn wrote
[removed]
nataliepineapple t1_jdma4zc wrote
"Protesters risking criminal charges" is the problem. It shouldn't be illegal to protest - even if the problem they're complaining about isn't a big deal to you.
But your numbers are meaningless if half the stuff in the EU and US says "Made in China" on it. We are absolutely a big part of the climate problem.
Vermaxx t1_jdn0lob wrote
There's a lot of "protest" actions that absolutely should be illegal, for the exact reasons we see things escalate when those laws are ignored.
If nothing is illegal, nothing is risked, and nothing is gained. The civil rights movement succeeded because of public outcry to the biased enforcement... and martyrdom.
Right now climate activism lacks martyrs.
Vermaxx t1_jdn0qhj wrote
Hahahahaha you found a way to ignore inconvenient statistics. You win. I support the elimination of ghg in Britain.
birnabear t1_jdlbg2f wrote
And per capita?
Vermaxx t1_jdlhni9 wrote
Why the fuck would per capita matter? They're MASSIVELY HIGHER THAN ALL OF THE DEVELOPED WORLD.
If you think Britain owes some kind of equity debt for carbon, fine. The British empire can fade into obscurity.
birnabear t1_jdlnohq wrote
Because its the only way to compare two nations of vastly differing populations.
Otherwise the world as a whole has 100% ghg. Without breaking down to per capita its a useless comparison
Vermaxx t1_jdlp6wq wrote
But sure let's say I did this math right. China has a quotient of 0.01917 per pop, the entire rest of my example is 0.01051 per pop. And that's everyone together, not singling out Britain.
Correct. Every single person in China doubles the average of everyone in USA, EU and India. This isn't actually realistic though because massive portions of China's population are still backwater rural people. It means China's megacities are the most carbon polluting sources on earth.
I still don't see how protestors in Britain take themselves seriously. Even in the US it's laughable.
[deleted] t1_jdlo4iv wrote
[removed]
pawnman99 t1_jdlw6jk wrote
Do you think the atmosphere cares where the CO2 is coming from?
birnabear t1_jdlysyp wrote
Nope, which is precisely why when looking at relative success or failure to minimise CO2 output, per capita is a better comparison. We are one planet, so arbitrary national boarders are less important than getting the global output down. It's via per capita you see where the best gains can come from.
pawnman99 t1_jdm1c91 wrote
Yeah... not from any of the countries with protests.
birnabear t1_jdnlpis wrote
Not true at all
pawnman99 t1_jdnurpb wrote
True. Protesters in Germany managed to get nuclear plants shut down in exchange for coal fired plants.
WellGroomedPrimate t1_jdlk5dd wrote
And yet they'd have no qualms with defending a child rapist. UK barristers are not meant to pick and choose what cases they represent. Whilst it is commendable they have taken a moral stand the fact they choose this over far more heinous crimes is insulting and shows how privileged and out of touch they are.
downonthesecond t1_jdjigcw wrote
Awesome, only the public will be inconvenienced.
gooferpubs t1_jdlbiqr wrote
And the emergency setvices.
Everyone, basically.
Perhaps counter-protesters could pre-emptively inconvenience these people by locking them in their houses when they plan to go and ‘protest’.
sal696969 t1_jdlf7du wrote
Lawyer do not prosecute...
CyberSkepticalFruit t1_jdlkbkk wrote
In the UK the Crown prosecutes and uses barristers to do it. Barristers are a type of lawyer in the UK.
Newish_Username t1_jdjw4ig wrote
Lawful and peaceful protestors should never be prosecuted. Just be peaceful, don't hurt people, and for the love of everything holy, don't fucking block traffic. I have zero sympathy that end up like an Armadillo crossing a highway in Texas.
Uondene t1_jdk0ysy wrote
Very dangerous picking one crime from another .What about Tv license?What about not wearing seat belts?
IambicPentakill t1_jdkawkl wrote
Are there people protesting those? It sounds like you are making a straw man argument.
CyberSkepticalFruit t1_jdlk6pd wrote
They haven't actually read the article and are just going off the title
Itsumishi t1_jdkcin3 wrote
Which one of those issues pose an existential threat to humankind?
RanCestor t1_jdjjyd5 wrote
Peaceful protest is a bit of an oxymoron I think but a lawyer can always argue those people aren't actually doing anything also.
Constant-Parsley3609 t1_jdhjmep wrote
What does peaceful protest even mean at this point? Destroying historic monuments? Blocking ambulances? Defacing unrelated paintings? Looting stores?
Using an important issue as an excuse to disrobe yourself of any and all social and cultural limitations just seems so dishonest.
> I'm raising awareness of climate change!
Who's awareness are you raising. Climate change hasn't been a controversial issue for the general public in this country for at least a decade, if not longer.
> I'm sticking it to the government/police/bankers!
By invading art museums and blocking commuters? If you want to send a message to those in power, then go to the places that those people reside. Don't lash out at people that are completely unrelated to your frustration.
The merit and value of peaceful protest is being eroded by these pseudo-protests. What happened to boycotts and hunger strikes and chanting outside of parliament? How did we get this point where peaceful protesting is just code for "try to get arrested while holding a banner".
Suitable-Jackfruit16 t1_jdibzx0 wrote
Oh no. We have citizens in a democratic nation exercising their right to peacefully protest and express themselves. Quick! Someone call the army on these goddamned red commies!