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.
It’s perhaps the first time she’s actually been charged, and one of the first times using the UK’s new anti-protesting laws and certainly a high profile example. So yes, it is news.
Detained =/= charged. You can be arrested and let go without any charge. Your link doesn’t mention any other charges, just that she was detained 3 times.
I don’t agree with you getting downvoted though, you’ve raised valid questions.
It was a joke in bad taste, I’ll take the downvotes, it’s fine. And I was objectively wrong anyway.
She was charged both times though. The first was in Sweden, where she was given a modest fine. You can’t exactly be levied a fine in court without a charge that you did something wrong first, so it’s implied.
Apparently the charge was related to blocking access to the hotel, which, climate issues aside, I don’t think I can say is entirely unreasonable.
Should a mob of neo-Nazis have the right to block entrance to a synagogue? Probably not, and you cannot add “unless it’s for a good cause” qualifiers to laws like these. I imagine she’ll pay a fine and that’ll be that.
yes, preferably in a fenced in space, 4-5 blocks away from the people that get their wittle feewings hurt because someone is upset that they are burning down the world for fucking money.
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.
Apparently the charge was related to blocking access to the hotel, which, climate issues aside, I don’t think I can say is entirely unreasonable.
It’s reasonable to arrest someone blocking access to a hotel. OK. But you didn’t mean “it’s reasonable to arrest someone inconveniencing anyone”. I think you need to explain the functional difference in the specific vs vague interpretation.
It’s the difference between me standing outside your house screaming at you and me physically blocking your door. The first is an inconvenience, the second takes away your ability to use your own property at all. I think there’s a pretty clear functional difference.
The oil people have the legal right to hold a conference. Protesters have the right to stand outside in public land, make their message heard, and generally create an unpleasant environment. They do not have the right to directly stop the conference, and the oil people do not have the right to remove the protesters.
Ok, sure. You are on the side of law and order. But if protests can only exist when they don’t impede the work of those they are protesting, protests will be ignored.
It’s perhaps the first time she’s actually been charged, and one of the first times using the UK’s new anti-protesting laws and certainly a high profile example. So yes, it is news.
Source? The article does not say any of that.
edit: After not getting an answer for awhile, I looked it up. Greta has been arrested twice now, and detained three times.
https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/why-greta-thunberg-arrested-climate-115413261.html
And charged how many times?
Twice.
Detained =/= charged. You can be arrested and let go without any charge. Your link doesn’t mention any other charges, just that she was detained 3 times.
I don’t agree with you getting downvoted though, you’ve raised valid questions.
It was a joke in bad taste, I’ll take the downvotes, it’s fine. And I was objectively wrong anyway.
She was charged both times though. The first was in Sweden, where she was given a modest fine. You can’t exactly be levied a fine in court without a charge that you did something wrong first, so it’s implied.
Apparently the charge was related to blocking access to the hotel, which, climate issues aside, I don’t think I can say is entirely unreasonable.
Should a mob of neo-Nazis have the right to block entrance to a synagogue? Probably not, and you cannot add “unless it’s for a good cause” qualifiers to laws like these. I imagine she’ll pay a fine and that’ll be that.
So protests should only be allowed if they don’t inconvenience anyone?
Protesters should be put in a cage out of the way so no one will ever be inconvienced or seen by them.
https://youtu.be/Gje3HiouzvQ
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/Gje3HiouzvQ
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Thanks, good stuff.
@Puzzle_Sluts_4Ever @BraveSirZaphod
yes, preferably in a fenced in space, 4-5 blocks away from the people that get their wittle feewings hurt because someone is upset that they are burning down the world for fucking money.
/s (in case anyone doesn’t figure it out)
Yep, that’s definitely what I said.
If you’re going to just attack the things you want me to have said, we can save our time.
Then what did you mean to say? Because you apparently think it is “reasonable” to arrest protesters if they get in someone’s way.
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.
It’s reasonable to arrest someone blocking access to a hotel. OK. But you didn’t mean “it’s reasonable to arrest someone inconveniencing anyone”. I think you need to explain the functional difference in the specific vs vague interpretation.
It’s the difference between me standing outside your house screaming at you and me physically blocking your door. The first is an inconvenience, the second takes away your ability to use your own property at all. I think there’s a pretty clear functional difference.
The oil people have the legal right to hold a conference. Protesters have the right to stand outside in public land, make their message heard, and generally create an unpleasant environment. They do not have the right to directly stop the conference, and the oil people do not have the right to remove the protesters.
Ok, sure. You are on the side of law and order. But if protests can only exist when they don’t impede the work of those they are protesting, protests will be ignored.
Furthermore, categorically and historically, have been.