Greenpeace stunts

Remove all ads!

Some Greenpeace protestors climbed onto Parliament Hill buildings in Canada's capital and made a big fuss. It looks like they did it in Rome as well.

I admire their devotion. But that devotion does not give them the right to break laws, risking not only their own lives but also the lives of those who are tasked with bringing their sanctimonious butts down.

For those of you who love the Green agenda, let me as you this: If a group of devoted Christians did something like this, illegally entering an area, and started waving around John 3:16 signs, would you still have no problem with it? I highly doubt it.

They have the legal right to protest --legally, I reiterate -- to their heart's content. But as soon as they start breaking laws with their protests, I think that we should start pegging them off the roofs with rifles*. I don't care who they are or how passionate they are about their cause, that doesn't give them the right to just ignore laws. What utter arrogance. What sanctimonious BS. What a disgrace that we let these sorts of idiots do this. You know that as soon as one of them is hurt, they will sue the owner of the location for not taking sufficient steps to keep them safe.

*or at least sending them to jail for a good, long sentence.

Spoilered here is a letter to the editor by an old schoolmate of mine -- his opinion on the matter dovetails nicely with mine.

Spoiler

I would like to thank the protesters in Ottawa for their support of the oil industry. They wore plastic helmets and synthetic clothes, travelled to Ottawa on a plane or in a car, used paved roads and took the time to convince all those police and fire personnel to travel down to Parliament Hill and run their gas-guzzling, eight-cyclinder vehicles for hours, while they carefully removed the protesters from the Parliament buildings. Even their "End the Tar Sands" banners were made from byproducts of oil. Wow, they sure showed us! I agree pollution is not good, but think about it: what would we do without oil? Maybe I should come to Ottawa and protest against people who are ignorant as to how the world works, or people who have these hopes and dreams of a world without oil, like we had hundreds of years ago. When I see a protester wearing leaves ride a horse to Parliament, climb up ropes made of hemp and send a message on a piece of paper scratched out with coal, maybe I'll listen.

Ryan Wallace

 

My question is if you would have created this thread if it had been a bunch of Christians doing what you described?

 

I dont understand what they think they will accomplish with these actions, they cant change anything, the worlds governments have all acknowledged climate change and are taking action - these things dont just happen overnight, so, what is the point?
as the writer of the spoiler quite rightly points out, they probably caused more damage to the climate by forcing the used of heavy equipment to get them down.

 

Joacqin, yes I would have, because they would be a disgrace to my faith. I abhor lawbreakers whatever their stripe. For example, while I oppose abortion, I also advocate the death penalty for anyone who shoots an abortion doctor, regardless of their devotion to their beliefs. I've made that clear before.

I'm sure that other Christians have violated the law in their protests and demonstrations. I'm sure that there are people here who can find examples. If I see such a case of such behaviour, I'll gladly start a thread on it.

 

No real problem with it - no matter who does it, whether it be religious nutters or these greenpeace chaps. Sure, lock them in a cell over night, slap them with twenty hours of community service. But really, who are they harming here? At most they're inconveniencing the security guards/police who have to get them down.

You know the amusing thing about this stunt? It clearly worked. Despite your complaining, you took notice, LKD. The media certainly took notice as well. Would anyone have if they had just marched through the streets waving their flags? "Any publicity is good publicity".

 

It's the sense of entitlement that gets to me. The idea that because you feel very strongly about something it gives you the right to flout laws.

I feel very strongly about my religion, but that does not give me the right to break laws in the dissemination of it. Or kill innocent people in its name.

As I said before, these stunts waste taxpayer money and risk lives. The perps should have the book thrown at them by the courts.

 

The only real problem I have with it is that I don't think it's a very interesting or effective tactic.

Naturally, they should face whatever penalty the law has for this sort of thing, and the risk is entirely on their shoulders. They pretty much agree to that by wilfully breaking the law so, y'know, no problem. I'm in general all for breaking the law to further whatever cause you have so long as it's still within the bounds of general morality. I get the feeling you've put the law up on a pedestal and make it more important than it really is.

In fact, I don't even think you need a cause for this sort of thing. That spiderman guy who travels around the world climbing buildings just does it for the lulz, and I'm completely fine with that. Adds a bit of spice to the world - and if he falls off and breaks his neck or ends up in jail, well, that's a risk he took upon himself. Big deal.

 

That's exactly it. They know and accepted the risks and I'm sure they knew what punishments they were likely to get. I don't see how anyone other than those involved could have been harmed. Even your whole wasting tax-payers money thing, LDK - surely the courts can fine these people the costs?

In the end of the day, if you're willing to take the punishment, there's nothing wrong with doing things like this (so long as it's not negatively effecting anyone else). Shooting an abortion doctor is a different matter, as someone is harmed (not to mention the whole hypocrisy of the action).

 

Rotku, I'm afraid I can't help but disagree with your position. Yes, there is something wrong with it. That's why it's being punished. It puts lives at risk (both their own and the responders), wastes finite resources, and takes people off the street who could be doing real good instead of responding to a bunch of idiots who think they're above the law. I say throw the book at them, and hard! And yes, I'd say the same about Christians doing this.

 

I think at times it's more or less necessary to break the laws in order to make a point, it's called dissent. Do you think that the iron curtain would have ever fallen if the way people protested against it would have been well within the national laws? I don't think so. I don't agree with most things Greenpeace does and I think this display was yet another tedious publicity stunt they should be punished according to laws, but sending them to prison for a long time is way too harsh and I would consider such measures unacceptable for a open and democratic society.

 

It seems like you (and NOG suggested similarly) feel that these people should receive a heavier punishment than that which is standard for the crimes they have committed. If you truly believe we live in a nation of laws, how do you justify "thowing the book at them" if the standard punishment for this kind of thing is relatively minor?

 

Yes, it seems to remind me of some thieves who broke into a college server to steal personal emails....

There are a lot of Christians who don't like to live in all the industrial dirt and filth dumped on us either. They believe that we should be good, clean stewards of "God's planet."

 

Umm... I meant it literally! Really, I did! I say we beat them with verbose literature!


Seriously though, Aldeth, the term "throw the book at them" typically means "punish to the fullest extent of the law", i.e. "show no mercy within the system". I don't imagine they'd get much for this anyway, since it seems to me to be nothing more than tresspassing, but the shear distain for law probably won't garner them any leniency points with the judge.

As to the idea that illegal protests can sometimes be good, I do agree that it is possible, but I find it much rarer than what most claim. I also believe it is only legitimate when the vast majority of the people recognize the problem, but the State uses it's power to over-rule and silence them. The Berlin Wall was a good example of this. Vietnam probably was as well (though I don't know how widespread actual opposition to the war was). This does not seem to be. In fact, it seems almost the reverse. Among the populace in general, the issue is still in hot debate, but the government is taking action one global warming (limited and slow as it may be) before that debate (the public opinion one) is resolved.

Yes, actually, it's very reminiscent. I hope they get the book thrown at them, too. Of course, they have to find them first, which may not be easy.

 

I'll weigh in on that too, Chandos, as you have a very good point -- the hackers, if they violated any law in their crusade to get those private e-mails (and it seems likely they did) should also be punished -- severely.

Aldeth, my thought is this -- let's say that the law books say the penalty for trespassing is a range between 6 -- 36 months. Mitigating factors such as "I saw my little brother climbing a cell tower and so broke in to rescue him" can be factored in, with the sentence being minimal, suspended, or the case itself not prosecuted. On the flipside, exacerbating factors can make the sentence much stiffer, heading toward the 36 month end of the scale. Judges often have some discretion, but lawmakers can often set guidelines that ensure the judges aren't too lenient on particular crimes.

My feeling is that if the perpetrators are arrogant activists, be they overly zealous Christians, sanctimonious Greenpeace tree huggers, global warming denier hackers, or what have you, their complete lack of respect for the law and sense of entitlement should be considered an exacerbating factor, and the law on the book that says a sentence can be up to 36 months for this particular crime should actually be shown to have some teeth. 6 -- 36 should mean that occasionally, a sentence of 36 months is handed out when the circumstances warrant it. My humble opinion is that these stunts warrant such activities.

As for the Iron Curtain comment, we are not living in a totalitarian state. These people have lots and lots of venues to express their ideas. You can dissent from the status quo here in many legal ways. There is no need for lawbreaking here. The comparison is not valid.

Back to Chandos, I myself hold Christian views about stewardship similar to what you enunciated -- am in fact a believer that we should take well-thought out steps to deal with pollution. I just believe that the steps being advocated by the nutbar Greenpeace crowd are too extreme, too rooted in theory and not the real world, and too invasive. I'd like to see a clean planet as much as the next guy, but I'm not willing to throw my fellow man into the poorhouse to do it.

 

NOG and LKD,

Ahh... I see. However, while leniency is granted if mitigating factors are present, the most common cause for receiving a lenient sentence is whether or not you have a prior criminal record. In the US, if you don't have a prior record, non-violent crimes tend to give you probation or a suspended sentence. Would you still advocate that the sentence be stiff if these people have no prior convictions? The reason I'm asking is if they have no priors, they are likely going to be given a very light sentence (if any at all).

I have no idea what level of Greenpeace people we're dealing with here. I don't know if we're talking about some college-aged hippie wanna-bes, or if we're talking the level of Greenpeace that tries to stop whaling vessels.

 

All I know is that if you give these idiots a light sentence, they will most likely wear it as a badge of accomplishment rather than an opportunity to learn that what they did was wrong. They will very likely commit such a crime again if that is the case. By punishing them appropriately, they will learn that there are other ways to get their message out that don't involve acting like criminal douchebags.

Not that I'm judgemental.

 

Try it. Really, I'm not being sarcastic. You will never get around the politics.

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/1...-improving-schools-drinking-water-g-3464.html

Then there is this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/us/13water.html

 

My point is that without a prior conviction, most courts would consider a light sentence appropriate as this is a non-violent crime.

 

Ah yes, it is such a fine line between "criminal" and "whistle blower". The difference lies on which side of the aisle you are standing on

 

Hey, if there's laws already on the books for dealing with pollution, and they're not being enforced, then the answer is not more laws -- it's enforcement of the ones we've got. I'm all for that - -I've come to realize in the past several days that I am a lot more lawful than I would have thought, though I believe that laws must be enacted in keeping with the public good.

I'm a little confused about your "try it" comment -- are you saying the situation is hopeless because of the politics? Or that Christians are incapable of overcoming the politics? I is confused!