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.
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.
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.
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.
Then what did you mean to say? Because you apparently think it is “reasonable” to arrest protesters if they get in someone’s way.
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.
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