Protesting - and sentencing

[Dave2002]

The recent announcement of quite long jail sentences for those participating in the Just Stop Oil protests is a matter of concern - and indeed it was raised this morning on the Today programme.
I don't know the details - maybe the protesters were given adequate opportunities to disperse, or maybe there was violence, but nevertheless this is something which does present significant worries.

Sometimes protests have caused useful and important change in society - often for the better, so clamping down hard on protests isn't always the best thing to do.

Lord Faulkner raised this issue here

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002142l

2 hours 52 minutes in.

[LHC]

There was no protest. They were jailed for conspiracy for planning a protest that was intended to interfere with traffic on the M25 over four days in November 2022, but were arrested before the protest could happen. They were recorded on a a Zoom call trying to recruit volunteers for the protest, which would have involved activists climbing gantries at various points on the M25. On the call, the leader of Extinction Rebellion said they intended to cause “the biggest disruption in British modern history”.

Although the sentences are clearly completely disproportionate and hopefully will be reduced on appeal, what they were planning could have been extremely dangerous, not just to them, but to the public.

They probably didn't help their case by trying to turn their trial into a further form of protest either.

The trial and the very long sentences are a direct result of the previous Government's draconian attempts to silence any dissenting voices. I would hope that the current Government will repeal these laws sooner rather than later and restore the right to peaceful protest.

[smittims]

I realise that, along with other matters where some feel that they have a moral right or duty to break the law (for instance the Bristol statue incident) this is a matter that will divide people and produce strongly-held views. I canot agree that it is ever 'right' to break the law, if one believes in justice at all. One cannot say 'I choose not to let this law apply to me, but if anyone commits a cirme against me then of course I'll want the justice system to support me.' I think that's hypocrisy.

In the case of public disruptions , my sympathies are with those who need urgently to get to a hospital, a vital job interview, or some other essential apppointment . I think it callous for protesters to disregard the suffering they cause in expressing their political views.

That said, I am unhappy with a lot of sentences I hear about which seem inappropriate for the offence committed. It;s often been said that offence against property are more punished than offences against the person, but I should like to see a whole-scale review of how the length of sentences is assessed and judged adequate. In other words, to ask 'why are we punishing this person? What specifically is it about their offence that we need to punish?'

[Forget It (U2079353)]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/19/protest-democracy-labour-tories-laws

The right to protest is the wellspring of democracy...

[Dave2002]

In the case of public disruptions , my sympathies are with those who need urgently to get to a hospital, a vital job interview, or some other essential apppointment . I think it callous for protesters to disregard the suffering they cause in expressing their political views.

Maybe - but what proportion of human activity falls into those categories? I suspect less than 2%.

If indeed - and I really don't know - there wasn't actually a protest - then the outcomes do seem very disproportionate, though maybe plotting counts for more.

Some protests relating to the Stop Oil issue did take place, and were disruptive, over the last few years.

Not a protest as such, but I remember a cycle race a some years ago in which an ambulance was prevented for some while from crossing the cycle route to reach someone with severe medical problems - though fortunately eventually sense prevailed and it was let through.

[LMcD]

[QUOTE=smittims;n1312671]
In the case of public disruptions , my sympathies are with those who need urgently to get to a hospital, a vital job interview, or some other essential apppointment . I think it callous for protesters to disregard the suffering they cause in expressing their political views. [QUOTE]
Such regrettable consequences might callously be classified as 'collateral damage'.

[Serial_Apologist]

[QUOTE=LMcD;n1312680][QUOTE=smittims;n1312671]
In the case of public disruptions , my sympathies are with those who need urgently to get to a hospital, a vital job interview, or some other essential appointment . I think it callous for protesters to disregard the suffering they cause in expressing their political views.

Such regrettable consequences might callously be classified as 'collateral damage'.

There always will be - just think of strikes, then put these up against bad government policy, along with planning decisions about which nothing can be done between elections other than by protesting.

[Serial_Apologist]

I cannot agree that it is ever 'right' to break the law, if one believes in justice at all. One cannot say 'I choose not to let this law apply to me, but if anyone commits a crime against me then of course I'll want the justice system to support me.' I think that's hypocrisy.

Is that a general principle for you? If not, how in say 1910 would you have renounced police protection for yourself in support of the Suffragettes?

[eighthobstruction]

....Companies would be fracking (I think all has stopped)still but for the few who often ignore their own safety [sic].....and not in public sight, but on windy moors and such, up remote roads....Attention is drawn to issues through breaking the law...

We have executives of Water Companies conspiring to dump waste - why are they not brought before the law.....they have obviously broken it.....fat chance....they hide behind the corporate ethos...
.

[Serial_Apologist]

....Companies would be fracking (I think all has stopped)still but for the few who often ignore their own safety [sic].....and not in public sight, but on windy moors and such, up remote roads....Attention is drawn to issues through breaking the law...
.

In general I am opposed to law-breaking today to whatever ends - what is sauce for the goose etc. Parliaments and courts have been accepted by most people apart from radical fringes both ends of the political spectrum as the legitimate locus for changes in laws, ever since the other half of the population achieved the vote. I think Trotsky was right about an offensive for progressive change being perceived as more legitimate when made under the guise of defending gains already achieved.

[eighthobstruction]

In general I am opposed to law-breaking today to whatever ends - what is sauce for the goose etc. Parliaments and courts have been accepted by most people apart from radical fringes both ends of the political spectrum as the legitimate locus for changes in laws, ever since the other half of the population achieved the vote.

....Really??.............Not I....

[Serial_Apologist]

....Really??.............Not I....

What I'm saying is most people - and it is most people that one wants to get on-side to avoid being isolated in any progressive campaign.

[eighthobstruction]

.....someone has to be isolated (to use your word to be brief)....I have broken the law many times....those most people need to hurried up, most people need to be reminded, most people need to be aware of information and 'stuff' needs to be in the media I(I have no faith in the most people concept).... come on you must be able to think of 1001 occasions that has been the case...

[Serial_Apologist]

.....someone has to be isolated (to use your word to be brief)....I have broken the law many times....those most people need to hurried up, most people need to be reminded, most people need to be aware of information and 'stuff' needs to be in the media I(I have no faith in the most people concept).... come on you must be able to think of 1001 occasions that has been the case...

There are solid reasons why the Right - from racist politicians to blood sportspeople (if you will) - manage to get away with law-breaking, whereas the Left (in the broadest sense) has to tread skillfully to win its case; but explaining this would involve a full class analysis of why it is one law for the rich, another for the poor, and then an equally thorough post-consumer boom analysis of how the Establishment managed to groom most people into acquiescing in their divine right to rule.

[eighthobstruction]

....I'd have thought that was a good reason to break the law....