Extinction Rebellion Protests

[Maximus]

I was just curious why you were using "we" for the UK. I have no fucking clue where you live these days.

Most of the discussion in this thread has not been country-specific.

I haven't moved in more than a decade, despite my best efforts.

[crazy canuck]

And as we get closer to the point of warming more than 1.5 without government action I suspect the protests to become more intense.  This isn't a debate about policy alternatives reasonable people can disagree about.  The planet is warming because of our emissions. Governments do need to take quick and significant action.  What would you suggest to bring that about the short time we have left?

[Tamas]

And as we get closer to the point of warming more than 1.5 without government action I suspect the protests to become more intense.  This isn't a debate about policy alternatives reasonable people can disagree about.  The planet is warming because of our emissions. Governments do need to take quick and significant action.  What would you suggest to bring that about the short time we have left?

One of my big problems is that IDK about America but in England obsession/concern with climate change is at near-religious levels already. This is the silliest place to start becoming obstructious/violent over climate change.

The US, China, India, I'd assume Russia, are much more obvious places to do this but of course there would be a rather more serious pushback.

[crazy canuck]

I didn't realize the level of commitment was so high there.  But I think that provides a good explanation for why the protest is necessary.  If the population supports taking action but government still does nothing then protest involving civil disobedience seems a rational response.

[garbon]

Unless one is hoping the Conservatives will leap on climate change as a distraction from Brexit, I don't see how one could expect this illegal protesting to spur the government to anything other than a crackdown.

[Tamas]

Especially since a crackdown would be a far better distraction than some boring announcement of new policies.

Not to mention that the last thing the British economy needs is becoming more heavily regulated right now

[Richard Hakluyt]

I didn't realize the level of commitment was so high there.  But I think that provides a good explanation for why the protest is necessary.  If the population supports taking action but government still does nothing then protest involving civil disobedience seems a rational response.

The government is acting though, take a look at these figures (from the World Bank) :

https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=en_atm_co2e_pc&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=en_atm_co2e_pc&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:CAN:GBR&ifdim=country&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

We want more of the same, a sustainable acceleration of decarbonisation is also feasible; pushing the country's economy off the rails so that we end up with gilet-jaunes demanding lower diesel taxes is the last thing we want.

[garbon]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/21/extinction-rebellion-london-protesters-offer-pause-climate-action

Extinction Rebellion: police to forcibly clear protesters from London sites

Police are planning to forcibly clear Extinction Rebellion protesters from Waterloo Bridge and Parliament Square as the group debates whether to continue its campaign of mass civil disobedience into next week.

The London mayor, Sadiq Khan, said the disruption was "counter-productive" to the cause of climate change and was stretching resources so much it could damage police's ability to fight violent crime.

Extinction Rebellion said it expected its supporters would be cleared out of two sites occupied without permission as police prepared to evict them if they declined to leave voluntarily.

Last week, the group gained global coverage for the disruption its tactics of civil disobedience caused in central London. On Sunday, the organisers said they intended to change tack and would offer to vacate some sites in exchange for the mayor acting on some of their demands.

The Metropolitan police said they had made 831 arrests and charged 42 people. The force's leader, Cressida Dick, said the group's tactics, centred on peaceful direct action, had caused too much disruption.

On Saturday, Oxford Circus and Piccadilly Circus were returned to normal use, after complaints from businesses about the blocking of some of the capital's key arteries.

On Sunday, activists rushed to Parliament Square, when police turned up in force to try to clear five roadblocks. Activists were using lock-on devices to hold the space, as well as gluing themselves to the ground and each other in order to slow down the police.

Activists said there were three people locked on trees in the square with more ready to go up. They promised attempts to evict them would be "spectacular" and could take police all night.

The stage-truck on Waterloo Bridge was finally removed by 5am on Sunday after police spent most of Saturday and well into the night removing protesters glued and locked on to it. Police spent hours using angle grinders to cut free the two protesters who had locked themselves down on the top of truck, before winching them down and carrying them into the back of waiting police vans.

...

Ronan McNern, a spokesperson for Extinction Rebellion, said: "We think they want everything cleared by the end of the week. People are willing to be arrested. There is a deep sense we do not want to be attached to any single site. What this disruption is doing, we are the news now. It is making people talk in pubs and buses about Extinction Rebellion. It makes them think about their existence which is under threat."

Extinction Rebellion is discussing withdrawing from some sites in return for being allowed to remain in others and having its demands met.

One manifesto from Farhana Yamin, a lawyer, advocated a "pause" in disruption next week to better project their demands and press for negotiations with government.

She wrote: "Today marks a transition from week one, which focused on actions that were vision-holding but also caused mass 'disruption' across many dimensions (economic, cultural, emotional, social). Week two marks a new phase of rebellion focused on 'negotiations' where the focus will shift to our actual political demands."

She continued: "We want to show that XR is a cohesive long-term, global force, not some flash in the pan."

Others in the group's leadership were planning further disruption and a meeting this week will attempt to decide on the group's strategy.

On Sunday at the Marble Arch site where protesters are allowed to gather, Extinction Rebellion is planning a concert which will be introduced by the environmental activist Greta Thunberg.

[crazy canuck]

I didn't realize the level of commitment was so high there.  But I think that provides a good explanation for why the protest is necessary.  If the population supports taking action but government still does nothing then protest involving civil disobedience seems a rational response.

The government is acting though, take a look at these figures (from the World Bank) :

https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=en_atm_co2e_pc&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=en_atm_co2e_pc&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:CAN:GBR&ifdim=country&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

We want more of the same, a sustainable acceleration of decarbonisation is also feasible; pushing the country's economy off the rails so that we end up with gilet-jaunes demanding lower diesel taxes is the last thing we want.

That doesn't tell me what the government is doing just that the UK is doing better than Canada.  And since we have the oil sands, that is a pretty low bar.

[mongers]

However, another Extinction Rebellion organiser Larch Maxey told the BBC there "certainly won't be a pause in our activities".

He said: "On Tuesday we've got a series of strategic points around the city which we will be targeting to cause maximum economic disruption while simultaneously focusing on Parliament and inviting MPs to pause."

Asked if MPs would be able to get into Parliament, he added: "Not if we are successful, we're going to prevent them getting in so they have time to separate themselves from the politicking and concentrate on what's at stake here."

That's the language of the hard left.

item here:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-48003955

[crazy canuck]

That is the language of civil disobedience. 

[Valmy]

That is the language of civil disobedience. 

That sounds like an application of force rather than disobedience to it. Causing as much destruction and harm as possible may be justified under certain circumstances but that is not civil disobedience.

[Razgovory]

It's odd that so many people who live in a country that glorified violent acts of destructive protest are so contemptuous of any sort of protest.

Luckily for at least one of those people, he managed to qualify his statement to functioning democracies, and is thus able to evade the hammer blow of your otherwise scathing indictment.

That person qualified their statement with something rather difficult to define.

[crazy canuck]

That is the language of civil disobedience. 

That sounds like an application of force rather than disobedience to it. Causing as much destruction and harm as possible may be justified under certain circumstances but that is not civil disobedience.

What part of that statement suggests "application of force" or "causing as much destruction and harm as possible"?

To me it sounds like people using the usual tactics of civil disobedience and getting in the way of the normal operation of the thing they are attempting to disrupt.

[Barrister]

That is the language of civil disobedience. 

That sounds like an application of force rather than disobedience to it. Causing as much destruction and harm as possible may be justified under certain circumstances but that is not civil disobedience.

What part of that statement suggests "application of force" or "causing as much destruction and harm as possible"?

To me it sounds like people using the usual tactics of civil disobedience and getting in the way of the normal operation of the thing they are attempting to disrupt.

"Civil disobedience" is a much argued term, so yes, by some definitions any kind of "ends justify the means" actions can be called civil disobedience.

But by many definitions your actions have to be tied specifically to the cause you're trying to call attention to.  You chain yourselves to the trees you say shouldn't be logged, or you block the road to a nuclear weapons plant, or whatever.

And by a even more narrow definition (which was what MLK used) is ""Any man who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail in order to arouse the conscience of the community on the injustice of the law is at that moment expressing the very highest respect for law."  So civil disobedience is openly violating a law that you feel is unjust, in order to call attention to that law e.g. for Rosa Parks not to move to the back of the bus.

Just blocking traffic and making everyday life for Londoners less pleasant doesn't count as civil disobedience in my book.