News and information from Europe πͺπΊ
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
(This list may get expanded when necessary.)
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the mods: @[email protected], @[email protected], or @[email protected].
I mean yeah, if protesting peacefully is also gonna be illegal, you might aswell get some real work done.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.
If the police is though on peaceful protestors they'll turn into violent protestors.
it's funny because last month I've read Malm's how to blow up a pipeline a book where, considering that peaceful actions doesn't work he calls for violent protest regarding climate.
I think that's the spirit of the text, but he's very careful not to actually call for violent protest. Instead, he repeatedly just says that it should be considered for obvious reasons. The text has a "won't someone rid me of this meddlesome priest" effect. Regardless, he makes a compelling argument and the violence he considers is purely against property and not people so, unless you're a property fetishist, the degree of violence being considered is nothing compared to the violence of climate change.
Indeed, this is an important point, when talking about violence, he talks mostly about attacking equipement owned by fossilf-fuel companies so mostly victimless violence not about performing a Luigi Mangione
I'm all for better climate policy, but "because peaceful protest doesn't work" is a pretty bad justification. My peaceful protest to mandate wearing a colander in public won't work, but that doesn't mean that violent protest is justified.
Granted, I haven't read the book, so it might make a more nuanced argument.
A stronger argument is that you need to have a free and democratic opportunity to provide input. This is an easy case to make e.g. for slaves, or people under an apartheid regime. It might be possible to make the argument when it comes to e.g. multi-national companies having outsized influence on legislation, or other countries in which you can't vote instating policies that affect you.
I'm all for better climate policy, but "because peaceful protest doesn't work" is a pretty bad justification. My peaceful protest to mandate wearing a colander in public won't work, but that doesn't mean that violent protest is justified.
Equating the climate crisis to forcing people to wear a colander is beyond braindead.
When you criminalise protesting only criminals will protest.
I was pleasantly suprised it wasn't the EU, rather UK. I mean sucks for the UK protesters but still glad it aint us.
I'm afraid this is not only for the UK
In Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, the Netherlands and the UK, authorities have responded to climate protests with mass arrests, the passing of draconian new laws, the imposing of severe sentences for non-violent protests and the labelling of activists as hooligans, saboteurs or eco-terrorists. the Guardian, Oct 2023
You might want to check out this report from Climate Rights International, Sep 2024. This one is not only talking about europe.
"Democratic" is a relative term.
Of course. In this case, it refers to representative democracies and it is totally debatable how democratic they are.
Direct democracy on the other hand, is democratic. There is no question about that, no matter if one likes it or not.