As by their reasoning we are apparently approaching a climate catastrophe one would have thought a more significant action would have been deemed appropriate. It all seems terribly tame.
As by their reasoning we are apparently approaching a climate catastrophe one would have thought a more significant action would have been deemed appropriate. It all seems terribly tame.
I agree, we've done the soup on a painting now, it becomes reiterative and dull. Pulling down statues seems to work better. Blocking motorways, I don't even know how to measure success except in headlines?
What do you think would be a more significant action? (bearing in mind thought-crime, incitement to violence, conspiracy to terrorise, all those laws apply in this place just as any other! But in THEORY what would a potential significant action actually do?)
If telling th jury that their conscience led them to commit the action stops them being convicted, the state then bans them from using their conscience as a defence to ensure they are convicted, that makes them what?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.