The law is frequently an ass, and the courts, likewise. But in some places, like the United Kingdom, the courts are in, as my British friend might say, "a bit of a flap." The reason? People are blocking roads and committing vandalism, who have been arrested multiple times and who are undeterred; on their release, the busybodies return forthwith to their "peaceful protests."
It seems some courts in the United Kingdom have had enough of this nonsense. Things are getting out of hand, and in reply, some courts are starting to hit the nitwits with some serious consequences. That's as it should be; and, predictably, some are whining about the sentences, and even more predictably, they are getting the whole thing badly wrong.
Case in point. Jack Marley, Environment + Energy Editor for the UK edition of The Conversation, swings and misses.
First, let's just cast our optics over that headline, shall we?
Why courts favour cars, not the climate
Courts should, and in this case are, not favoring anything but the law. They are punishing people who break the law, and claiming to be doing a good deed in the name of "climate change" doesn't negate the illegal act.
These courts don't favor cars over climate. That's pure horse squeeze. What's more, it's hyper-emotional pandering. These courts are favoring the rights of individual commuters over useless idiots who are the foot soldiers of the climate change brigades. These people block roads and, in so doing, block everyday people's access to their jobs, to their stores, to whatever business they have to carry out in the course of the day - and, possibly, even to required medical treatment. These are not "peaceful" protests. These are not people standing on a street corner waving signs. These are not people who are writing letters to the editor. They are blocking roads, they are committing acts of vandalism, sometimes aimed at priceless works of art.
It's only a matter of time before one of these "peaceful protests" claims a life or serious complication by blocking someone's access to emergency medical services.
See Related: John Fetterman 2.0 Is All of Us in Describing Pro-Hamas Bridge, Road Blockers
And here's where Mr. Marley gets things so badly wrong, as The Conversation piece (linked above) noted:
Just Stop Oil’s methods, which include stopping traffic by sitting on roads, are also peaceful. So why are its members facing a long stretch behind bars?
Such a severe sentence for non-violent protest has “no equivalent in modern times” according to Graeme Hayes and Steven Cammiss. Hayes is a reader in political sociology at Aston University while Cammiss teaches law at the University of Birmingham. Both have sat in on several high-profile climate protest cases.
Because these methods are not peaceful. The law is concerned (or, at least, should be concerned) with only two things: Protecting the liberty and property of the citizens. These "peaceful protestors" are interfering with the citizenry's rights, namely their right to move about unfettered by lawbreakers, their right to engage in lawful commerce, and their right to utilize the roadways that their tax dollars pay for. Predictably, the people have had enough, and are starting to take matters into their own hands.
The sentences are getting harsher because the useful idiots keep returning to the same well.
Marley's story continues:
Public consent for the UK’s crackdown on peaceful protest cannot be taken for granted. Even so, Oscar Berglund, a researcher in political economy at the University of Bristol, expects more and longer prison sentences for protesters.
“These are political sentences and climate activists [have] become political prisoners,” he wrote via email.
Again, as my British friend would say, "What a load of bollocks." These people are not political prisoners. These are not political sentences. These people are lawbreakers; they are interfering with their fellow citizens' rights, and they are illegally occupying public spaces - the roadways. As the above video shows very plainly, people are getting sick of it, and if the courts don't act, the people increasingly will. In this matter, the people are not consenting to these nitwits, and they will not consent.
The real head-scratcher in all this is the notion that these acts will sway anyone to their cause. An act, like blocking a road or vandalizing a work of art, will enrage people, not persuade them. No one who, when faced with a mile-long backup due to empty-headed "peaceful protestors," is going to reflect and say, "Gosh, if they feel that strongly about it, there must be something to this whole fossil-fuel argument."
This has nothing to do with climate change. It has nothing to do with peaceful protests. This has to do with idiots preventing people from going about their lawful business. This has to do with idiots splashing paint on works of art. One way or another, it has to stop. The courts are the appropriate place for this to happen and, fortunately, they appear to be doing so.
