This is a balanced and judicious review of the case and I agree with its conclusion. The statement that the world will fall apart “whether they believe it or not” distills the arrogant and authoritarian mindset of the protestors. Everybody else is just ignorant and must be educated. Sounds familiar?
Protest as ye will. But do not stop a parent from picking up her child on time, an ambulance from getting to the ER, a man trying to pick up his love on a date. What is doubly idiotic is that these fools damage their own causes, as anyone who time is wasted will tell you.
We very much have this narrative in the u.s. that protest 'are suppose to make you uncomfortable ' Burning businesses, assaulting people , and destroying livelihoods is justified because of your grievances.
The author makes a fantastic argument against a position nobody is actually taking. These rioters and their supporters don't believe for one minute the things they're actually saying. They know that what they are doing is illiberal, undemocratic, counter-productive to their stated goals, and profoundly harmful to innocent people. That's precisely why they're doing it.
The cruelty is the point. They don't want to actually do anything about climate change, they don't actually care about democracy, they just want to force people to agree with their lies in order to humiliate and demoralize them. It isn't enough to just hurt innocent people, they want their victims to be grateful for the experience and reinforce the fake narrative that the harm was righteous and necessary.
The reason is simple: Those who can make you believe absurdities will make you commit atrocities.
* the impact that JSO 5 had apparently intended to cause, i.e. gridlock on the M25, encircling London, which would have been a much more serious impact than was actually achieved
* the fact that each of the campaigners concerned had previous convictions and they had all violated bail conditions imposed on them during other legal proceedings
JSO crossed the line from protesting about climate change to deliberately causing widespread disruption of the transport system circling London in the name of that cause, in an attempt to cause gridlock that would encircle the capital. The JSO 5 were key players in organising and preparing for these actions, were repeat offenders for carrying out such actions and had an attitude towards law breaking and disruption that suggests they were likely to engage in further such actions in future.
I don't think either the actual or intended impact of such actions should be ignored or left unpunished as it would encourage others to cause chaos in the name of both attempting to mitigate man-made climate change and for any other cause people convince themselves is of utmost importance. We're then left deciding what the correct sentence is for this crime. It's not clear to me that the Judge got that wrong.
The whole thing strikes me as a failure of policing. When these fanatics first started illegally blocking roads, the police should have got out their truncheons and restored order. There wouldn't be any need to arrest anyone or take them to court.
Unfortunately, the police are so keen to be on the side of 'human rights' that they allow this nonsense to escalate.
"Judge Hehir had ruled that the jury was not to consider evidence of climate change in their deliberations of whether the group had behaved unlawfully."
As it should. Free speech is about ideas, being able to freely express any idea in the marketplace of ideas. It is not about the means by which such ideas are spread. It's perfectly fine to ban some messaging that is harmful, as long as that ban have nothing to do with the content, and only the means, provided that there are good reasons to ban the means. So had the judge considered the ideas being addressed, that would have been a violation of free speech.
Agree. It's not 'free speech' to stop a lorry delivering food to a hospital. Or stop someone going to a funeral etc etc etc
This is a balanced and judicious review of the case and I agree with its conclusion. The statement that the world will fall apart “whether they believe it or not” distills the arrogant and authoritarian mindset of the protestors. Everybody else is just ignorant and must be educated. Sounds familiar?
Protest as ye will. But do not stop a parent from picking up her child on time, an ambulance from getting to the ER, a man trying to pick up his love on a date. What is doubly idiotic is that these fools damage their own causes, as anyone who time is wasted will tell you.
We very much have this narrative in the u.s. that protest 'are suppose to make you uncomfortable ' Burning businesses, assaulting people , and destroying livelihoods is justified because of your grievances.
The author makes a fantastic argument against a position nobody is actually taking. These rioters and their supporters don't believe for one minute the things they're actually saying. They know that what they are doing is illiberal, undemocratic, counter-productive to their stated goals, and profoundly harmful to innocent people. That's precisely why they're doing it.
The cruelty is the point. They don't want to actually do anything about climate change, they don't actually care about democracy, they just want to force people to agree with their lies in order to humiliate and demoralize them. It isn't enough to just hurt innocent people, they want their victims to be grateful for the experience and reinforce the fake narrative that the harm was righteous and necessary.
The reason is simple: Those who can make you believe absurdities will make you commit atrocities.
My summary of the reasons why Judge Hehir imposed the long sentences (https://jameshammerton.substack.com/p/why-the-jso-protestors-got-harsh?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2), highlights that the sentences were not just handed down for the impact the disruption actually had or the attitude the JSO 5 took took to breaking the law, they were also handed down due to:
* the impact that JSO 5 had apparently intended to cause, i.e. gridlock on the M25, encircling London, which would have been a much more serious impact than was actually achieved
* the fact that each of the campaigners concerned had previous convictions and they had all violated bail conditions imposed on them during other legal proceedings
JSO crossed the line from protesting about climate change to deliberately causing widespread disruption of the transport system circling London in the name of that cause, in an attempt to cause gridlock that would encircle the capital. The JSO 5 were key players in organising and preparing for these actions, were repeat offenders for carrying out such actions and had an attitude towards law breaking and disruption that suggests they were likely to engage in further such actions in future.
I don't think either the actual or intended impact of such actions should be ignored or left unpunished as it would encourage others to cause chaos in the name of both attempting to mitigate man-made climate change and for any other cause people convince themselves is of utmost importance. We're then left deciding what the correct sentence is for this crime. It's not clear to me that the Judge got that wrong.
The whole thing strikes me as a failure of policing. When these fanatics first started illegally blocking roads, the police should have got out their truncheons and restored order. There wouldn't be any need to arrest anyone or take them to court.
Unfortunately, the police are so keen to be on the side of 'human rights' that they allow this nonsense to escalate.
"Judge Hehir had ruled that the jury was not to consider evidence of climate change in their deliberations of whether the group had behaved unlawfully."
As it should. Free speech is about ideas, being able to freely express any idea in the marketplace of ideas. It is not about the means by which such ideas are spread. It's perfectly fine to ban some messaging that is harmful, as long as that ban have nothing to do with the content, and only the means, provided that there are good reasons to ban the means. So had the judge considered the ideas being addressed, that would have been a violation of free speech.
So true. Climate change is just a term for weak-minded people to feel intelligent and bulldoze opposition.