Russia v Greenpeace

[rynnor]

I think it'd would be a combination of it being marginally profitable, home issues for petrobras and staunch opposition (including at the UN).

If there's money to be made staunch opposition isn't worth a damn - you only have to look at the world to see this. A million people marched against the Iraq war - what exactly did that achieve?

 

[rynnor]

ever more damaging oil exploration.

More damaging than running out of oil? I think not - the harsh reality is that we are yet to discover as useful a fuel - our whole civilisation is based on the energy surplus that oil has afforded us - only science can possibly fix that.

 

[Scouse]

If there's money to be made staunch opposition isn't worth a damn

Disagree. All the environmental laws we have are down to public pressure on governments to regulate. That public awareness is down to organisations like greenpeace.

Without Greenpeace and their ilk we'd be harking back to the 1970's, where massive oil spills, metal contamination, unsafe dangerous waste disposal etc., were the norm, rather than the exception.


They won't stop massive profit happening. But, amongst other things, they do force legislation to be enacted that makes corporations clean up their act. Without this they'd be going on polluting at a mahoosive rate - because it's cheaper for them to do so.

My point about "massive" profit was also pertinent. Because of it's now more expensive to perform some actions safely and cleanly the marginal projects have fallen by the wayside. I.E. They won't get off the ground. Perhaps like that petrobras one you quoted, eh?

 

[old.Tohtori]

In certain circumstances, yes. I do. As do the courts.

Breaking the law is an absolutely essential part of healthy democracy. History, and regular acquittal of activists who've broken the law by the courts attest to that.

Edit: And that doesn't simply include trespass, or occupation of an area or building, but also to criminal damage. Breaking the law is the normal process by which the public push back against government - and in many cases the law is changed because of this.

Fair enough, though where do you draw the line and who has the say on where that line is? Some may say it's ok to invade government buildings, others might say it's ok to bomb airplanes that are empty.

 

[Scouse]

Fair enough, though where do you draw the line and who has the say on where that line is? Some may say it's ok to invade government buildings, others might say it's ok to bomb airplanes that are empty.

Answer is implicit in my last answer. There's no discussion here, Toht. Other than you repeating yourself.

 

[DaGaffer]

More damaging than running out of oil? I think not - the harsh reality is that we are yet to discover as useful a fuel - our whole civilisation is based on the energy surplus that oil has afforded us - only science can possibly fix that.

No, science can't fix it on its own, you need economics and politics to lend a hand as well, and the "moving off oil" economic argument is constantly being rigged. It should also be pointed out that in this particular case, this isn't about Russia extracting oil now, this is a claim-staking exercise to block off everyone else further down the line; like that stunt where they planted a flag on the ocean floor under the North Pole a couple of years back. There are plenty of more easily extract-able fields to be exploited before we have to dig up the Arctic.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Answer is implicit in my last answer. There's no discussion here, Toht. Other than you repeating yourself.

You state that criminal activity is ok when necessary, but you don't state how far that criminal activity can go and by what standards the level of ok is measured.

 

[Scouse]

You state that criminal activity is ok when necessary, but you don't state how far that criminal activity can go and by what standards the level of ok is measured.

Answer is implicit in my first answer.

Edit: And don't bother asking the question a third time when the answer is smashing you in the face.

 

[Tom]

If there's money to be made staunch opposition isn't worth a damn - you only have to look at the world to see this. A million people marched against the Iraq war - what exactly did that achieve?

MPs voting not to attack Syria, for one.

 

[rynnor]

MPs voting not to attack Syria, for one.

Lol - please demonstrate causal link. I think the reality was that with MOD cuts we probably couldn't have got involved.

 

[Poag]

Answer is implicit in my first answer.

Edit: And don't bother asking the question a third time when the answer is smashing you in the face.

Its not tho. You state

In certain circumstances, yes. I do. As do the courts.

Breaking the law is an absolutely essential part of healthy democracy. History, and regular acquittal of activists who've broken the law by the courts attest to that.

Edit: And that doesn't simply include trespass, or occupation of an area or building, but also to criminal damage. Breaking the law is the normal process by which the public push back against government - and in many cases the law is changed because of this.

You've said you think people should break the law to enact change. However you fail to limit how far it can go. You've passed the buck for 'how far it can go' up to "the courts" which is a fairly generic cop-out, which courts....does it come under human rights to protest...or criminal courts for trespass and damage?

Saying a crime is ok if its for protest is a slippery slope of how far it goes. I would go into some example here, maybe about the 2011 riots...maybe about women showing flesh and getting stoned...but this would detract from the discussion as it would boil down to two examples.

The point is, a law is a law. These people know full well they are doing something they shouldn't be, they go in eyes open that they are, by law, doing wrong. So long as they are fairly tried under the legal system of the country they perform said action in, with international/human rights/whatever oversight....they should be punished in accordance of the crime committed. However they go in and start saying things like "We were forced into action by those we are actioning against" This is like a hostage taker saying "You are forcing me to kill a hostage...the blood is on your hands!!!!" Its basic self delusion.

Your actions are your own...noone else's.
-----
That said, i'm personally of the opinion that direct action is a fruitless pursuit. Change should be born out of intelligent discourse, consensus and then driven along by the people by popular/community change.

 

[Raven]

MPs voting not to attack Syria, for one.

Er no. The clusterfuck that was, and still is Iraq (and the expense) was what stopped MPs voting against invading Syria

 

[Scouse]

So long as they are fairly tried under the legal system of the country they perform said action in, with international/human rights/whatever oversight....they should be punished in accordance of the crime committed.

Well done Poag. You've just given the answer that I've given.

It's not a cop-out. It's what happens. The courts, with due oversight and application of the rules, decide what is right.

Sometimes they decide that criminal damage is proportionate. The perpetrators of criminal damage, even though they broke the law, are often acquitted. That can happen because the justice system in this country is structured the way it is by people who know that statements like this:

a law is a law

are the long-discredited arguments of simpletons.

I hope you're not too offended by that, but I can't help it if you are. It's the truth.

i'm personally of the opinion that direct action is a fruitless pursuit.

Then you're demonstrably wrong in your opinion. Nelson Mandela, law breaking child-murdering terrorist, would disagree with you.

Direct action is one of the most effective tools at our disposal.

Change should be born out of intelligent discourse, consensus and then driven along by the people by popular/community change.

And sometimes it is. But when the system fails, direct action is a proven corrective method.

 

[Scouse]

MPs voting not to attack Syria, for one.

There are, of course, other connected reasons. But Tom is definitely right.

Do people honestly think that the MP's, post Iraq, completely disregarded voter opinion on this?

Why the fuck do you think there was a concerted media pressure to gather public opinion? Media pressure that failed.

 

[Poag]

are the long-discredited arguments of simpletons.

I hope you're not too offended by that, but I can't help it if you are. It's the truth.

Christ your a rude bastard at times, trying to fancy it up doesn't make you any less rude, just makes you feel a little smug with yourself. Of course now you'll come back with some other thinly veiled put down about simpletons and being offended or something....

Its odd really, alot of people you have arguments turn out to be simpletons, or people off 'less intelligence' than yourself....strange that...

And sometimes it is. But when the system fails, direct action is a proven corrective method.

I would put some quotes in here about Ghandi and non-violent protest, maybe a couple of bits about how well direct actions has worked for fathers groups in the UK. It puts them in the headlines for a bit..but then it fades away.

Yep its sensational, and headline grabbing...but thats it...once the sensation is over....its gone. In the mordern day, with how the terrible media works. Only bottom up change will occur with mass popular support....rather than headlines.......


..I actually wrote the first bit of the post last, i would continue the discussion further...but with the comment i think I'll leave this one to the "wise" ones....

 

[rynnor]

There are, of course, other connected reasons. But Tom is definitely right.

Do people honestly think that the MP's, post Iraq, completely disregarded voter opinion on this?

Why the fuck do you think there was a concerted media pressure to gather public opinion? Media pressure that failed.

But that has nothing to do with a million people marching to prevent the Iraq war - its all about what happened in Iraq. If it had turned out differently and Iraq was now a happy democracy then they probably would have intervened in Syria.

 

[Scouse]

Christ your a rude bastard at times

Predictably you're offended. Sorry.

It's not about being rude. It's about me pointing out that you lack a basic grasp of why "it's TEH LAW" has long been a discredited argument - and that that reality is reflected in our courts.

Breaking the law is a natural part of lawmaking. If laws are regularly broken then that's a good sign that perhaps there's something wrong with them. Like being gay. Not that long ago it was against the law. Or marrying a black person. Or saying "fuck Jesus".

If people don't understand the basics, what are you supposed to say? A forum is a place for argument - and if someone says something clearly stupid I'm going to say "that's stupid".

At least I put the caveat in that I hope you wouldn't be too offended - because I predicted you would be but couldn't avoid it. But I genuinely hoped you wouldn't be.

So, time for some more:

I would put some quotes in here about Ghandi and non-violent protest

You mean non-violent direct action that Ghandi took, right?

Like the environmental movement's direct take on Ghandi's direct action lessons - when people like Caroline Lucas and her greenie mates get arrested for blockading potential fracking sites - in a non-violent Ghandi-like direct action which highlights a problem - which is what direct action is for?

Just like that, right?

maybe a couple of bits about how well direct actions has worked for fathers groups in the UK

It's worked well. There's a garnering of popular support for father's rights for the first time ever. The headline grabbing action is working and there's a chance it will be legislated upon. Even Tim Lovejoy has gotten in on the act

I have a lot of sympathy with men who join groups like Fathers 4 Justice

...and if minor celebs are getting in on the act, eh?

It puts them in the headlines for a bit..but then it fades away

It fades away from you. Because it's not important to you personally. But it raises the overall level of consciousness and brings about real change.

Only bottom up change will occur with mass popular support...

And mass popular support starts with groups like Greenpeace and other direct-action groups bringing things to national and international attention.

They break the law. Yes. And rightly so.

 

[Tom]

Lol - please demonstrate causal link. I think the reality was that with MOD cuts we probably couldn't have got involved.

No, MPs were clearly concerned that the general public didn't want anything further to do with the Middle East, after the debacle that is Iraq. The original protest march is clearly a part of that public mood.

 

[Tom]

Er no. The clusterfuck that was, and still is Iraq (and the expense) was what stopped MPs voting against invading Syria

And the march against that attack is part of the result. You can't just cherrypick whatever factor you like and ignore everything else.

 

[Scouse]

If [random magical but untrue reality was real] AND Iraq was now a happy democracy THEN [the public might have felt differently] and they might have intervened in Syria.

Fixed

The public weren't behind attacking Syria. The MP's remembered the fallout and loss of trust when they ignored public opinion on Iraq and know that the public's opinion has been vindicated.

This informed and influenced their position on Syria.

 

[Poag]

Predictably you're offended. Sorry.

It's not about being rude. It's about me pointing out that you lack a basic grasp of why "it's TEH LAW" has long been a discredited argument - and that that reality is reflected in our courts.

Breaking the law is a natural part of lawmaking. If laws are regularly broken then that's a good sign that perhaps there's something wrong with them. Like being gay. Not that long ago it was against the law. Or marrying a black person. Or saying "fuck Jesus".

If people don't understand the basics, what are you supposed to say? A forum is a place for argument - and if someone says something clearly stupid I'm going to say "that's stupid".

At least I put the caveat in that I hope you wouldn't be too offended - because I predicted you would be but couldn't avoid it. But I genuinely hoped you wouldn't be.

OK i may have boiled it down to much to a "law is a law" fair enough. I also agree that laws to get changed if they are found to be unjust, against the public good etc...i even stated as much above so at least give me some credit

What irked me was your comment..and then the thin attempt to cover said comment. If you had just left it as "are the long-discredited arguments of simpletons" i would have thought "Fine thats what scouse thinks" and moved on...its the thin 'cover', for lack of a better word, that is annoying, it turns it from a general statement into a personal statement, I'm also fairly sure you are smart enough to know this....so it can only be taken as personal knowing that.


-----------------------------------------------------------------

So, time for some more:

You mean non-violent direct action that Ghandi took, right?

Like the environmental movement's direct take on Ghandi's direct action lessons - when people like Caroline Lucas and her greenie mates get arrested for blockading potential fracking sites - in a non-violent Ghandi-like direct action which highlights a problem - which is what direct action is for?

Just like that, right?

You are quite correct he did take direct action, he also started off in a violent movement and left it. His direct action raised it to the public mind. I am not disagreeing with you. What I do find...questionable? I guess is that in the modern day...as you pin on me for some reason...once something drops out of the public headline catching line....its visibility to the great masses is diminished.

As you've said below, re F4J, gathering a big speaker on the subject heightens its importance in peoples minds. Maybe a headline stunt gets it a day in the news, but bigger widespread support gets it where its going in the long run, keeps it in the news and people minds.

Maybe direct action gets something going down that line. But in the longer run its the wider, popular support you mention that gets it done.

It's worked well. There's a garnering of popular support for father's rights for the first time ever. The headline grabbing action is working and there's a chance it will be legislated upon. Even Tim Lovejoy has gotten in on the act...and if minor celebs are getting in on the act, eh?

It fades away from you. Because it's not important to you personally. But it raises the overall level of consciousness and brings about real change.

However....I do agree that subjects fall away from people very rapidly in the modern day. 24 hours news isn't as good for us as it seems, the next big scandal comes along and wipes out previous attachment to a story.

Lets take Syria. The Great Masses listened to the nightly news updates about how many more had died in Syria, for what.. a year? It took some artificial line in the sand, chemical weapons, to generate a large sense of outrage amongst the people, and that line in the sand wasn't theres..it was the governments. I'm not saying that every single person was apathetic about the situation until that exact moment, but for the majority it then became 'a thing'.

And mass popular support starts with groups like Greenpeace and other direct-action groups bringing things to national and international attention.

They break the law. Yes. And rightly so.

Break the laws they can and may, by all means. They do however have to answer to them. Then the laws can be looked at, investigated and if necessary...changed. But they still have to answer to them first, thats what I've been trying to say....



This boils down to the following.....I do not disagree that previously direct action has worked in the desired form, towards the desired goals. What I disagree on, or maybe question rather than disagree is a more apt description, is its place in the 24 hour news world.
Where a big story comes along, then is immediately replaced by some vapid story, maybe it'll get a 15 minute piece about it in depth, maybe a follow up article a short while after. But it'll be immediately followed up by something that's not really important, some celebrity does something mildly interesting. People lose the attachment to whats going on...

An issue either has to stay in the news constantly....or generate enough mindspace that people talk to each other about it, keeping it alive and creating a movement.


Its already a wall of text so i'll keep this last bit short. I do not disagree that the issues they are campaigning are the ones that should be campaigned, they should. I just dont know how effective Direct Action is anymore, for the above reasons....

 

[Poag]

jesus christ thats flipping long....didn't realise i was rambling so much

 

[Scouse]

only be taken as personal knowing

Fair enough

...[lots of stuff I sorta agree with]...I just dont know how effective Direct Action is anymore, for the above reasons....

I think that direct action is pretty much the prime vehicle for bringing about change.

Reasoned argument is generally ignored. People think what they think. It's why governments change things on a generational timescale.

 

[rynnor]

I think that direct action is pretty much the prime vehicle for bringing about change.

Jesus - you know that bit where you said someone says something so obviously wrong that its just stupid - I would like to submit your line above under that category

I mean really?

 

[Scouse]

I mean really?

• How do workers get better conditions?
• Why do governments make new environmental legislation?
• Why did black people get equal rights in America?
• Why did women get the vote?
• Why did Apartheid end?

I mean change. Not evolution of policy. I mean radical change.

You don't get it by voting.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Interesting, Scouse you seem to think that breaking the law(to some mystery degree) for a cause is fine, yet say that it's up to the courts to decide if it's ok. Courts don't find breaking the law fine, even if they aquit/pardon people when there's other circumstances.

I wasn't asking what IS happening, i asked directly what you think is fine. Not the courts, not how it goes down, not examples of past, just a simple answer like;

"I think that breaking government equipment like public transport is too far", or "I think bombing sh*t is fine when it fits the cause".

Or, perhaps, are you the sort of person who says "depends on the outcome". It's not a hard question to answer;

I personally think that breaking the law isn't fine, unless there is absolutely no other option and then the courts take that into consideration.

See?

 

[Zenith]

My only thought while reading this thread is this: greenpeace doesnt really operate to produce legislation. They have taken a different route, the publicity angle. To say they havent succeeded is just flat out wrong. look at their bloody exposure! who dont know who they are? They are bloody brilliant at what they do.

What you personally think of them, of their motives or their morality, is one thing. But they do have the press. And dont be naive and underestimate the press and publicity.

 

[Zenith]

However, to return at the actual event that happened. Anyone have a link that describe what the activists in question did up in Russia?

 

[Scouse]

I wasn't asking what IS happening, i asked directly what you think is fine.

You're obviously not happy with my clear and obvious answer (that it's a question for the courts, and they do a good job of it, and that it's completely situation-based and I agree with that system).

To what end does it matter what I, personally, think - and, more importantly, about what?

You've asked a retardedly unanswerable open-ended question in an effort to pin me down to some idiotic statement like "I think it's OK to blow up oil platforms". Why? So you can fill some childish need of yours to go "mwaaah, scouse is teh stupdiz0r!!11!1!"??

Each case merits its own detailed analysis, with due expert knowledge of the law, both spirit and letter, and full knowledge of circumstance. That's my opinion. It's clear. It also happens to be fully in line with actual reality.


Stop trying to manufacture a pointless fight. Especially when my opinions are so clear.

 

[Scouse]

However, to return at the actual event that happened. Anyone have a link that describe what the activists in question did up in Russia?

Here ya go

Two activists tried to climb the side of the Prirazlomnaya platform – Russia’s first offshore oil rig in the Arctic that is owned by state-controlled energy giant Gazprom - and hang a banner on it.

For this they get charged with piracy - a flagrant abuse of the legal system to deter protest.

Even Vladimir Putin's said they're not pirates. But Russia's still looking like a cunt IMO. It's a fucking joke.





Edit: And facepalm me all you like old.Tohtori. But what exactly do you want me to say?