• TWeaK@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    76
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

          • TWeaK@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • Candelestine@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

    • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      33
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

        • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          19
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

            • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              13
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

                • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  9
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

          • Neato@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • Neato@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.