Climate activist Greta Thunberg has been charged with a public order offense after being arrested at a demonstration against an oil industry conference in London.
I like Greta as much as the next liberal, but ngl, this just isn’t news. Reporting Greta getting arrested is like reporting a pizzeria making another pepperoni pizza.
It’s perhaps the first time she’s actually been charged, and one of the first times using the UK’s new anti-protesting laws and certainly a high profile example. So yes, it is news.
Detained =/= charged. You can be arrested and let go without any charge. Your link doesn’t mention any other charges, just that she was detained 3 times.
I don’t agree with you getting downvoted though, you’ve raised valid questions.
It was a joke in bad taste, I’ll take the downvotes, it’s fine. And I was objectively wrong anyway.
She was charged both times though. The first was in Sweden, where she was given a modest fine. You can’t exactly be levied a fine in court without a charge that you did something wrong first, so it’s implied.
Apparently the charge was related to blocking access to the hotel, which, climate issues aside, I don’t think I can say is entirely unreasonable.
Should a mob of neo-Nazis have the right to block entrance to a synagogue? Probably not, and you cannot add “unless it’s for a good cause” qualifiers to laws like these. I imagine she’ll pay a fine and that’ll be that.
yes, preferably in a fenced in space, 4-5 blocks away from the people that get their wittle feewings hurt because someone is upset that they are burning down the world for fucking money.
My point was that I don’t think it’s absurd for it to not be legal to completely block access to a facility, and that if it were established to be completely legal, malicious groups could cause quite a lot of harm. The law cannot be selectively applied to causes deemed noble, and you probably don’t want the government having the power to decide which those are.
There’s a difference between inconveniencing someone and making it impossible for them to operate and conduct legal affairs. Again, if some group of people were pissed off at you for whatever reason, should it be legal for them to block you from entering your home?
Even in strikes, picket lines don’t make it physically impossible to enter a workplace; they only make in significantly more unpleasant. To flip this, would you defend the right of oil workers to physically prevent Greta from leaving her hotel? Because the law cannot distinguish between these situations. Either this is a legal protest tactic, by any and all parties, or it isn’t.
Thunberg was among dozens of protesters who chanted “oily money out” and sought to block access to the hotel on Tuesday.
I should be clear, I’m basing this off of this line in the article; if they were just standing outside and chanting and access wasn’t prevented, I’d wholeheartedly agree that this would be a gross violation of free speech.
Ultimately, this is philosophical difference in how much we value rule of law and individual rights and how willing we are to sacrifice them for causes we deem as more important. Everyone has their own line there, so I won’t fault you for having a different one than me.
Personally, I’m not convinced that protests of this nature really accomplish anything of consequence, but I may be something of a cynic. I’d much rather see pressure aimed at politicians who can actually enact changes over simply annoying some oil executives that will only ever pursue profit as much as legally allowed.
Apparently the charge was related to blocking access to the hotel, which, climate issues aside, I don’t think I can say is entirely unreasonable.
It’s reasonable to arrest someone blocking access to a hotel. OK. But you didn’t mean “it’s reasonable to arrest someone inconveniencing anyone”. I think you need to explain the functional difference in the specific vs vague interpretation.
It’s the difference between me standing outside your house screaming at you and me physically blocking your door. The first is an inconvenience, the second takes away your ability to use your own property at all. I think there’s a pretty clear functional difference.
The oil people have the legal right to hold a conference. Protesters have the right to stand outside in public land, make their message heard, and generally create an unpleasant environment. They do not have the right to directly stop the conference, and the oil people do not have the right to remove the protesters.
Ok, sure. You are on the side of law and order. But if protests can only exist when they don’t impede the work of those they are protesting, protests will be ignored.
Unfortunately, it’s just more complicated than that. You have to tie your own hands with checks and balances, you can’t give yourself too much power, even if that power could be used for good.
As an example, if we had a Kal El of Krypton in real life, he probably wouldn’t stay Superman forever, he’d eventually be something more like Injustice Superman. This is one of the lessons of history, with men like Marx and Lenin having their work corrupted by others that used the tools they assembled for much uglier purposes.
If there was a way to ensure power couldn’t corrupt, then I’d be fine with surrendering some freedom for security. But there’s actually worse things than death, it’s just not the worst we can do. And climate change won’t kill the planet or anything, it’ll just be another geological extinction event, no different from the dinosaur extinction.
It’s just complicated, and while saving the world is the most important thing in front of us, it needs to be done with our modern, weakened political tools. That requires that we acknowledge other people’s rights to disagree with us, no matter how much it hurts.
I was under the impression she gets arrested very regularly, as that’s very common with non-violent activism, to the point of being planned for. She apparently hasn’t, though, thus this attempt at humor didn’t really land well.
I imagine she’s probably ramping up her protest activities recently.
You’re welcome to stay ignorant without encouraging others to do so. This is a mainstream activist that a lot of people want to hear about and follow. So yeah its gonna get reported on.
A major aspect of non-violent activism is disruption, which frequently comes with arrest. Greta is far from the first environmental activist to be arrested, she won’t be the last.
Ghandi pioneered this. He was arrested too. MLK Jr was actually arrested 29 times in his life. It just means you’re doing a good job of challenging the system, it’s not really out of the ordinary.
I like Greta as much as the next liberal, but ngl, this just isn’t news. Reporting Greta getting arrested is like reporting a pizzeria making another pepperoni pizza.
It’s perhaps the first time she’s actually been charged, and one of the first times using the UK’s new anti-protesting laws and certainly a high profile example. So yes, it is news.
Source? The article does not say any of that.
edit: After not getting an answer for awhile, I looked it up. Greta has been arrested twice now, and detained three times.
https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/why-greta-thunberg-arrested-climate-115413261.html
And charged how many times?
Twice.
Detained =/= charged. You can be arrested and let go without any charge. Your link doesn’t mention any other charges, just that she was detained 3 times.
I don’t agree with you getting downvoted though, you’ve raised valid questions.
It was a joke in bad taste, I’ll take the downvotes, it’s fine. And I was objectively wrong anyway.
She was charged both times though. The first was in Sweden, where she was given a modest fine. You can’t exactly be levied a fine in court without a charge that you did something wrong first, so it’s implied.
Apparently the charge was related to blocking access to the hotel, which, climate issues aside, I don’t think I can say is entirely unreasonable.
Should a mob of neo-Nazis have the right to block entrance to a synagogue? Probably not, and you cannot add “unless it’s for a good cause” qualifiers to laws like these. I imagine she’ll pay a fine and that’ll be that.
Removed by mod
Protesters should be put in a cage out of the way so no one will ever be inconvienced or seen by them.
https://youtu.be/Gje3HiouzvQ
Removed by mod
@Puzzle_Sluts_4Ever @BraveSirZaphod
yes, preferably in a fenced in space, 4-5 blocks away from the people that get their wittle feewings hurt because someone is upset that they are burning down the world for fucking money.
/s (in case anyone doesn’t figure it out)
Yep, that’s definitely what I said.
If you’re going to just attack the things you want me to have said, we can save our time.
Removed by mod
My point was that I don’t think it’s absurd for it to not be legal to completely block access to a facility, and that if it were established to be completely legal, malicious groups could cause quite a lot of harm. The law cannot be selectively applied to causes deemed noble, and you probably don’t want the government having the power to decide which those are.
There’s a difference between inconveniencing someone and making it impossible for them to operate and conduct legal affairs. Again, if some group of people were pissed off at you for whatever reason, should it be legal for them to block you from entering your home?
Even in strikes, picket lines don’t make it physically impossible to enter a workplace; they only make in significantly more unpleasant. To flip this, would you defend the right of oil workers to physically prevent Greta from leaving her hotel? Because the law cannot distinguish between these situations. Either this is a legal protest tactic, by any and all parties, or it isn’t.
I should be clear, I’m basing this off of this line in the article; if they were just standing outside and chanting and access wasn’t prevented, I’d wholeheartedly agree that this would be a gross violation of free speech.
Removed by mod
Ultimately, this is philosophical difference in how much we value rule of law and individual rights and how willing we are to sacrifice them for causes we deem as more important. Everyone has their own line there, so I won’t fault you for having a different one than me.
Personally, I’m not convinced that protests of this nature really accomplish anything of consequence, but I may be something of a cynic. I’d much rather see pressure aimed at politicians who can actually enact changes over simply annoying some oil executives that will only ever pursue profit as much as legally allowed.
It’s reasonable to arrest someone blocking access to a hotel. OK. But you didn’t mean “it’s reasonable to arrest someone inconveniencing anyone”. I think you need to explain the functional difference in the specific vs vague interpretation.
It’s the difference between me standing outside your house screaming at you and me physically blocking your door. The first is an inconvenience, the second takes away your ability to use your own property at all. I think there’s a pretty clear functional difference.
The oil people have the legal right to hold a conference. Protesters have the right to stand outside in public land, make their message heard, and generally create an unpleasant environment. They do not have the right to directly stop the conference, and the oil people do not have the right to remove the protesters.
Ok, sure. You are on the side of law and order. But if protests can only exist when they don’t impede the work of those they are protesting, protests will be ignored.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Every person is free to define the story of their own life, not bow to a requirement to share your values.
Climate change may be our greatest challenge, but no challenge, even extinction, is worth needing to all share the same story.
Your take is why liberal policies still dominate the world. Because freedom does matter very greatly.
Removed by mod
That’s gonna be a block for me dawg.
Try to be civil.
Unfortunately, it’s just more complicated than that. You have to tie your own hands with checks and balances, you can’t give yourself too much power, even if that power could be used for good.
As an example, if we had a Kal El of Krypton in real life, he probably wouldn’t stay Superman forever, he’d eventually be something more like Injustice Superman. This is one of the lessons of history, with men like Marx and Lenin having their work corrupted by others that used the tools they assembled for much uglier purposes.
If there was a way to ensure power couldn’t corrupt, then I’d be fine with surrendering some freedom for security. But there’s actually worse things than death, it’s just not the worst we can do. And climate change won’t kill the planet or anything, it’ll just be another geological extinction event, no different from the dinosaur extinction.
It’s just complicated, and while saving the world is the most important thing in front of us, it needs to be done with our modern, weakened political tools. That requires that we acknowledge other people’s rights to disagree with us, no matter how much it hurts.
What exactly are you trying to say? Why do you think this isn’t news?
I was under the impression she gets arrested very regularly, as that’s very common with non-violent activism, to the point of being planned for. She apparently hasn’t, though, thus this attempt at humor didn’t really land well.
I imagine she’s probably ramping up her protest activities recently.
You’re welcome to stay ignorant without encouraging others to do so. This is a mainstream activist that a lot of people want to hear about and follow. So yeah its gonna get reported on.
A major aspect of non-violent activism is disruption, which frequently comes with arrest. Greta is far from the first environmental activist to be arrested, she won’t be the last.
Ghandi pioneered this. He was arrested too. MLK Jr was actually arrested 29 times in his life. It just means you’re doing a good job of challenging the system, it’s not really out of the ordinary.
edit to clarify