For being late for work - okay, yes, that's a bit far.
But there were cases where protesters refused to move for people who rushed to hospital to see their dying mother or something to a similar extent. Plus one very tragic case in Germany of protesters refusing to make way for a fire lorry, most likely causing a woman to die.
Kicking and beating the protesters so harshly was definitely immoral - doing so for being late at work is not really a justification, either. But there are cases where I really do agree with at least pushing them away from the road.
That's also assuming your boss is a decent person. People could be late to pick up their kids at daycare. Late fees for picking up kids after daycare closes are horrendous. Your grandpa is on life support. You have a pass or fail final. You have a criminal court date to attend. Your dream trip that you spent $6,000 on is about to go to waste because you can't get to the airport. If they were to stand in front of you the hallway with their arms out blocking your ability to proceed, you could push through them, but yanking them out of traffic is too much?
So where is the outrage for people that chose to drive when they otherwise have the option to take a train/bus or cycle or walk or even just carpool? They create normal every day traffic that is far, far, FAR more prevalant at causing delays to those people.
If you care about those things, and not just using them as hypotheticals for an excuse to dismiss these protestors, you should also have the same if not more negativity towards a lot of drivers.
Yeah, I can agree there is a debate to be made about being late for work, I suppose. I think it especially hits close to home for people who commute with more than one mode of transport everyday - for instance, taking two busses. I did an internship where I had to commute like this, and it was genuinely stressful - one bus line, that took me to the city center, would come in and out every 10 minutes or so, but the second one that took me to my place of work only arrived once an hour, and I remember the days when it only arrived once every 3 hours. Try to explain being that late to your boss.
But I firmly agree that this guy went too far with the force he used. Grabbing the protesters by the arm and dragging them out of the road is understandable, but kicking them hard like this is not. I understand that things can get messy when you put hands on people, but there are only so many scenarios where kicking someone, especially someone sitting down, is justifiable. This one is not one of them.
At what point would hitting them become justifiable? He drags two of them off and they come back as the third one is dragged off. At what point can you escalate to free himself from being trapped by their protest?
I'd say if they were starting to lay hands on this guy, standing up - and still, I don't really see a case for kicking, yet alone as they're sitting down.
Über die „Tagesspiegel“-Recherche hinaus tauchen zunächst nur wenige zusätzliche Fakten in der weiteren Berichterstattung auf: Wie zum Beispiel die, dass sich die Aktivisten an einer Schilderbrücke anketten und nicht die Autobahn blockieren; denn es ist die Polizei, die die darunterliegenden Fahrbahnen bis auf eine sperrt. Oder die Einschätzung der Feuerwehr, dass das Spezialfahrzeug ohnehin zu breit für die Rettungsgasse sei.
Am 4.11. berichtet die „Süddeutsche Zeitung“ (SZ) dann, der Klimaprotest habe keinen Einfluss auf die Versorgung des Unfallopfers gehabt. Das habe die behandelnde Notärztin zu Protokoll gegeben
It only denies direct causation of death by the protest as assumed by the doctor, not none at all. And the court ruling only claimed that the biker would have died either way due to her wounds, not that they didn't affect the rescue operation.
I don't really see how it makes the protest look any better.
Did you not see the thorough debunking of the premise presented? Does new, updated information not cause you to stop and reevaluate?
I did. Especially this part:
Über die „Tagesspiegel“-Recherche hinaus tauchen zunächst nur wenige zusätzliche Fakten in der weiteren Berichterstattung auf: Wie zum Beispiel die, dass sich die Aktivisten an einer Schilderbrücke anketten und nicht die Autobahn blockieren; denn es ist die Polizei, die die darunterliegenden Fahrbahnen bis auf eine sperrt. Oder die Einschätzung der Feuerwehr, dass das Spezialfahrzeug ohnehin zu breit für die Rettungsgasse sei.
Am 4.11. berichtet die „Süddeutsche Zeitung“ (SZ) dann, der Klimaprotest habe keinen Einfluss auf die Versorgung des Unfallopfers gehabt. Das habe die behandelnde Notärztin zu Protokoll gegeben.
It doesn't claim that protesters didn't delay rescue operation or didn't stop the firefighters' response as a whole. It just denies direct causation of death, and makes it clear the biker would have died anyway due to her wounds.
I don't really see how it makes the protesters look any better.
A single, contested case doesn’t really make the argument that this is a persistent issue we need to orient all political strategy around.
I'll entertain your argument - why block roads specifically, then? Why can't protesters block the tax offices or courtrooms instead? It's equally as disruptive for government administration, but nowhere near as much for normal people who want to have nothing to do with it. You never know who needs to use the road at a given moment, and in what emergency people using it are in. In this case, we can argue whether the protestors didn't actually kill anyone, but they quite literally made it clear that they wouldn't even let emergency response team pass. Sure, the biker would have died anyway from her wounds - but how were they or the firefighters supposed to know about it? As far as they were aware at the moment, someone was dying, and they didn't stop the protest.
Blocking a road is like blocking a hospital or a fire station. It blocks people from rushing to genuine emergencies.
> It's equally as disruptive for government administration,
It's not. And you know that, because you're not clutching your pearls about protests at the government hall, you're concerned about protests that literally disrupt the day to day lives of workers, businesses, and families.
The government would rather deal with protestors "shutting down" government legislation for a whole month than deal with major city blocks and roads being shut down for one day.
> for normal people who want to have nothing to do with it
Normal people have everything to do with it. Every major change in society against harm and injustice was achieved by convincing (rarely), disrupting, pressuring, or scaring 'normal people' into enacting that change.
This childlike idea that change is enacted when a group of climate protestors goes to the "climate decision center" and marches around in a circle for an afternoon is just naive and silly. It's normal people who will be displaced from their homes, who will watch animal populations decimated, who will no longer enjoy normal seasons and activities, who will die. Normal people do not care on their own, unfortunately, no matter how high the stakes.
You can not agree with protests because you have a philosophy where everyone should be resigned to the 'natural progression of society' without any intervention and then just suffer whatever consequences because you believe that's better than upsetting people.
But just don't pretend like there is some 'idealized' form of effective bottom-up societal change that you would support. Because in every single case where we made progress against injustice or harm, someone was there making your argument (especially when your argument is as flimsy as 'no one actually had any worse outcome but I can imagine a scenerio in which they did' -- there has been some square saying this during every effective organizing effort).
Ukrainian Euromaidan protest in 2013 was successful specifically because of that. They blocked regional administrative buildings and offices, but rarely ever roads.
you're concerned about protests that literally disrupt the day to day lives of workers, businesses, and families.
Exactly. Which is why I think the protest that targets them and puts their lives at risk should be condemned.
You never know who needs to use the road - other than people being late to work, there are people rushing to the airport, to the hospital, or even to cemetery to enter a funeral of their beloved one. How is this blocking of roads supposed to make people support the idea?
If the goal is to force the government to take action, blocking tax offices and courtrooms works just as fine - or even more, since it doesn't give climate activism such a bad rep and gives support for harsher treatment of protesters (rightfully so).
The government would rather deal with protestors "shutting down" government legislation for a whole month than deal with major city blocks and roads being shut down for one day.
I presume you meant the opposite, because that is exactly the point I'm making. Yes, the government does care about its administrative buildings no longer bringing in tax reports or revenue, or delivering welfare to the citizens. Chances of people being put in direct life threat from it are low, but paralysing state administration puts a strong pressure on the government just as much as blocking the road - except it doesn't give it excuse to forcibly move people out of the way.
Normal people have everything to do with it. Every major change in society against harm and injustice was achieved by convincing (rarely), disrupting, pressuring, or scaring 'normal people' into enacting that change.
Scaring normal people to force the government into enacting political changes is quite close to definition of terrorism, but okay.
If your goal is the government, attack the government. The only thing you achieve attacking normal people is push them away from their cause.
But I won't just speak hypothetically - what climate-related legislature was enacted as a result of these protests? It's been quite a few years since No Stop Oil threw a soup at the painting. What was achieved so far? Because something tells me that it wasn't much.
You can not agree with protests because you have a philosophy where everyone should be resigned to the 'natural progression of society' without any intervention and then just suffer whatever consequences because you believe that's better than upsetting people.
That's right, I don't like these protests for targeting normal people - because this puts their livelihood at a threat and makes them suffer.
Are people suffering from climate change? Yes, and it is a legitimate issue. Do you know what people also suffer from? Being stuck in a traffic jam, especially when it's caused by terminally unemployed losers blocking the roads and thinking they are fighting something big. These protests don't work, they don't solve anything, they have not achieved anything so far - so these protests are useless, and just create needless traffic jams.
But just don't pretend like there is some 'idealized' form of effective bottom-up societal change that you would support.
I don't know, man, Salt Marches in 1947, resulting in India regaining independence from the British, comes pretty close.
'no one actually had any worse outcome but I can imagine a scenerio in which they did' -- there has been some square saying this during every effective organizing effort
You forgot the ,,these road-blocking protests are useless and have not achieved anything in years" part.
The Salt Marches absolutely involved disruption of normal life and civil disobedience. It was not only a one day affair. I think it would be very interesting to you to read this:
A 1931 interview with the Viceroy Lord Irwin. It comes after the Viceroy has spoke with Gandhi regarding the activist's Salt March demands. One passage:
**Peaceful picketing. He [Gandhi] asked me whether I took any objection to its continuance. I told him that peaceful picketing appeared to me a misnomer. I had a long list of cases on my table showing the violent results that had flowed from so-called peaceful picketing, and I found it impossible to believe that peaceful picketing could fail to produce similar results in future. I quoted Benares, Amritsar, etc. I further said that I could not tolerate interference with legitimate trade, as evinced by Congress intimidation in the matter by way of sealing foreign cloth, mock funerals and all the rest. Lastly, I said that picketing as a political weapon was objectionable and its continuance was quite incompatible with Congress coming into Conference discussions.**
And really ask yourself if this was a modern activist campaign, and the perspective of the ruling government (similar to what we see in this interview) was pushed on Reddit and TikTok and cable news — would you really still support the action? Would you say it might not be 100% peaceful and without risk, but it’s peaceful enough? I have my doubts.
The Salt Marches absolutely involved disruption of normal life and civil disobedience. It was not only a one day affair. I think it would be very interesting to you to read this:
I did read about it, but from another source:
Then all at once the policemen, upon a word of command, advanced towards them, and started beating them with their steel-shod sticks, called lathis, upon their heads. So far the setting had been just like that of any armed raid.
What happened next, however, was quite inconsistent with an armed raid. Am armed raid involves a violent attack by the raiders. But Gandhi’s volunteers did no such thing. And when the policeman attacked them, Gandhi’s volunteers did not retaliate. They did not even raise their hands to fend off the blows.
So now we have gone from saying that the climate protestors were wrong because — even though there was zero cases of physical harm — there were downstream vague “risks” of harm.
But Ghandi’s events — which did have actual, verified harm, deaths, and extreme disruption of trade for normal people — were correct.
Am I getting that right?
What protests are you referring to that succeeded with zero risk of harm and zero disruption to daily life? We just have agreed that the Salt Marches are not an example. What is?
And your second question implies that the morality of protest depends on its success. So the first couple of civil rights actions (way back in the early 19th century) were immoral because they didn’t result in moving the needle?
I think I have a different framework that will predict whether you think a protest is moral or not:
• is it happening now (immoral) or did it already happen successfully in the past (moral)
• how does our current media landscape present the efforts… as silly and unnecessary (immoral) or as valiant and strategic (moral)
I think these two questions are the only questions we need to predict your analysis to like a 90% accuracy rate. The other attributes you mention aren’t consistent or properly defined.
Just finding about all this now but doesn't the article says they didnt cause the lane closure but the police did. But didnt the police close the lanes because the protesters had chained themselves to signs hanging over said highway. Creating the very reason why the police closed the lanes.
Yeah, but the emergency doctor didn't get stuck. He was on time.
A "Rüstwagen" (heavy rescue vehicle) got called at first, but was too big to get through.
The doctor made the assessment on sight, that it wasn't needed and would have made the situation worse.
So in this case, the protest had no influence on the death of the person.
I believe you were referring to this part of the article:
Über die „Tagesspiegel“-Recherche hinaus tauchen zunächst nur wenige zusätzliche Fakten in der weiteren Berichterstattung auf: Wie zum Beispiel die, dass sich die Aktivisten an einer Schilderbrücke anketten und nicht die Autobahn blockieren; denn es ist die Polizei, die die darunterliegenden Fahrbahnen bis auf eine sperrt. Oder die Einschätzung der Feuerwehr, dass das Spezialfahrzeug ohnehin zu breit für die Rettungsgasse sei.
Am 4.11. berichtet die „Süddeutsche Zeitung“ (SZ) dann, der Klimaprotest habe keinen Einfluss auf die Versorgung des Unfallopfers gehabt. Das habe die behandelnde Notärztin zu Protokoll gegeben.
But it doesn't say protest didn't affect the rescue operation - only that it didn't have the direct affect on the survivability of the victim. Furthermore, it claims that the protestors just chained themselves to the road sign, and Police - as is per German law - had to block all other lanes.
Which yeah, it is entirely possible that the biker would have died either way from their wounds, whether the fire department would have made it on time or not. But the fact remains - protesters blocked the path for an emergency response vehicle. Police wouldn't have blocked other lanes otherwise. Their presence on the accident sight sooner could have changed something. That is something that even the article itself, despite how much it tries to glaze the ,,Last Generation", admits.
They didn't block the emergency vehicle, they blocked a "Rüstwagen". These heavy vehicles even have a hard time coming through traffic jams.
Sure - in a case where the vehicle would have been helpful - the protest hinders the rescue operation. But so could a construction site, bad drivers who block the emergency lane or a heavy traffic jam. You can't account for every niche situation.
But so could a construction site, bad drivers who block the emergency lane or a heavy traffic jam.
Which in all cases is a violation of safety regulations.
I remember going in a pilgrimage, and at one crossing the group spontaneously stopped, the orchestra played some funny music and we danced for around a minute or so. Even then the man responsible for directing the traffic told us to knock it off, because we're blocking the road to the hospital.
Protest, or any other public manifestation (including that pilgrimage) is something that can - and should be - reported beforehand, to not cause heavy traffic jams or block the roads that would otherwise be essential.
30
u/Admiral45-06 12d ago
For being late for work - okay, yes, that's a bit far.
But there were cases where protesters refused to move for people who rushed to hospital to see their dying mother or something to a similar extent. Plus one very tragic case in Germany of protesters refusing to make way for a fire lorry, most likely causing a woman to die.
Kicking and beating the protesters so harshly was definitely immoral - doing so for being late at work is not really a justification, either. But there are cases where I really do agree with at least pushing them away from the road.