Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Extinction Rebellion

I have my doubts that they influence public behaviour. The few people who are making big changes would have done it without XR. And maybe the rest say to themselves "I can leave it to XR and the govt to sort out policy. In the meantime I'll have a Range Rover Sport. If it was harmful it would have been banned by now. They're allowed to advertise it on the telly, so it must be OK." I reckon the only thing which has changed people's habits is ULEZ.
 
This isn't news surely? It's been standard for decades. You could be as brilliant at not using plastics or avoiding palm oil or never using the dishwasher as you like, but it means nothing in the context of an entire society where nobody has a choice but to use a system that is intrinsically climate destructive. Suggestions otherwise that it's basically the individual's fault are funded by multinational enemies. Why do you think XR (and everyone else) campaigns about systemic issues all the time?
 
Because individuals don't take responsibility. But they could, and they should. It's not hard to halve your carbon footprint. But hardly anyone will do it without being forced by nanny state. Most people are useless fuckers.
 
This isn't news surely? It's been standard for decades. You could be as brilliant at not using plastics or avoiding palm oil or never using the dishwasher as you like, but it means nothing in the context of an entire society where nobody has a choice but to use a system that is intrinsically climate destructive. Suggestions otherwise that it's basically the individual's fault are funded by multinational enemies. Why do you think XR (and everyone else) campaigns about systemic issues all the time?
"...never using the dishwasher..."

Actually, using a dishwasher is greener than hand washing.

 
"...never using the dishwasher..."

Actually, using a dishwasher is greener than hand washing.

That article is a really good example of what I'm talking about. Trying to persuade people that it's down to their individual choices and it's their fault if the planet dies.
 
If I was really cynical, I would suspect Extinction Rebellion of being an operation by the fossil-fueled establishment, to derail climate activism by presenting it as a binary between XR’s radical ideas, and doing nothing, and at some point decrying their predictions as overly alarmist, their demands as impossible, and presenting refocusing on adaptation as the lesser evil.
If you were really cynical and had spent the afternoon huffing paint stripper.
 
...though elequent explanations justifying breaking the law for the greater good have seen lots of people get off, particularly in front of juries.
 
Yes, all good
Still cynical here
fair enough!
this from the bbc:
"[judge] said that prosecutors seemed to be arguing that a protester could not lawfully lie down in the road in any circumstances - and they had not "grasped" the importance of a recent Supreme Court ruling.
In that judgement, the UK's highest court ruled that demonstrators who had blocked a road at a military arms show should not have been convicted of obstruction because their right to temporarily and peacefully protest should have been taken into account.
Judge Dennis said that given the importance of that ruling, prosecutors needed to clarify where they stood on the eight cases still to be heard this week and next."
 
good to hear but doubt it will convince those sections of the populations who may have reservations about deliberately getting themselves arrested to change their minds about getting involved in XR actions (of which, lately, there are none to speak of anyway)
 
There are more actions coming soon. This is good news, not just for XR but for everyone who needs to challenge the neo-fascists. The ones with the majority and the lead in the polls and the feeble opposition.
 
...though elequent explanations justifying breaking the law for the greater good have seen lots of people get off, particularly in front of juries.
By "lots", how many do you mean?

Also, are you differentiating between a judge agreeing that prevention of a greater crime was a legal defence, vs asking the jury to ignore the judge's ruling?
 
By "lots", how many do you mean?

Also, are you differentiating between a judge agreeing that prevention of a greater crime was a legal defence, vs asking the jury to ignore the judge's ruling?
I'm thinking of NVDA acts of conscience which end up in front of a jury... I'm always surprised how often juries acquit.
Hard to quantify how often this happens... Peace News is a good source of reporting of such cases. I'm on my phone so can't post lots of links but here are search results for the word Jury - scrolling through the link summaries it's clear at a glance there are lots of acquittals

Search | Peace News

This is a different category to cases deemed as rioting or clashes with police.
 
I'm thinking of NVDA acts of conscience which end up in front of a jury... I'm always surprised how often juries acquit.
Hard to quantify how often this happens... Peace News is a good source of reporting of such cases. I'm on my phone so can't post lots of links but here are search results for the word Jury - scrolling through the link summaries it's clear at a glance there are lots of acquittals

Search | Peace News

This is a different category to cases deemed as rioting or clashes with police.
Some of those cases are collected here:

Important disclaimer: this post does not constitute legal advice, please consult with a qualified solicitor before blowing up the governor of Idaho, setting fire to the Spanish consulate, shooting a Ukrainian pogromist or stabbing any Met officers.
 

"The pundits of the various leftist movements have spent thousands of words telling us how much better their red climate movement would have been (more working class!, more intersectional!, more militant!) than XR if only they’d got round to doing it."

:D :thumbs:
 

A writer for Freedom with a sense of humour?! Now that's ground breaking. :thumbs:
 
Back
Top Bottom