What are peoples opinions on environmentalists (or any other group) using violence to convey their aims? Do you support using violent acts (where private property, and potentially life, are damaged) to get a message across? For example, do you think it is right for environmentalist vessels to ram themselves into Japanese whaling boats, in order to convey their message that whaling is wrong?
I think that using violence is quite necessary, especially considering the fact that nobody really cares about peaceful environmentalist action. To quote John F. Kennedy, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." But is violence the only method to convey the environmentalist views? "It doesn't take much to see that the problems of three little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world." - Rick
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Re:Violent Environmentalism
Date: 2008/04/22 00:31
By: Kanae
Status:
I think that peaceful protests are the best form of protests: when you begin to damage people and property, you loose credibility.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Re:Violent Environmentalism
Date: 2008/04/22 02:26
By: Sxcriley
Status:
What about situations where, if nothing is done, lives will *eventually* be lost. Do you still think its not worth using violence, considering no one pays any attention to peaceful protest? "It doesn't take much to see that the problems of three little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world." - Rick
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Re:Violent Environmentalism
Date: 2008/04/22 03:26
By: Kanae
Status:
If you're interested in preventing loss of life, then a war situation is the only situation in which that sort of action becomes permissable,
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Re:Violent Environmentalism
Date: 2008/04/23 01:50
By: Sxcriley
Status:
I don't think the use of violence should be restricted to when the 'authority' decides it's time to go to war. I highly doubt any official war will be waged between industrialists and environmentalists. Unless the 'authority' decides to intervene, which doesn't look likely. And if they do intervene, no violence will be required. 'Authority' is law. What they say will go. Unfortunately our planets futures isn't half as important as congestion problems. So in this situation I believe violence is completely permissible, without the label of "war" attached to it. "It doesn't take much to see that the problems of three little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world." - Rick
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Re:Violent Environmentalism
Date: 2008/04/23 08:17
By: Kanae
Status:
I'm all for saving the planet, but I'd rather do it through conventional, governmental methods. If they create enviromentally friendly policies, that's a godo thing. I'm not usre where you are, but here in the UK and Europe our governments are rather good about the enviroment, although the Green Party in Italy did an awful lot of damage when they blocked an incinerator: the city it was gonig to be built in became a complete tip due to its inability to deal with the waste. But if you look at the levels of recyling in places like Germany, Denmark and the Neatherlands, it's really quite impressive. No: I think violence will polarise people against you and you'll loose credibility for it. There are ways to get things done.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Re:Violent Environmentalism
Date: 2008/04/25 02:18
By: BravoLima
Status:
People listen to violence, almost nothing is done without it. Even Ghandi was successful, but not for being non-violent, in itself. There's nothing heroic or memorable or inspiring about some people getting together and sitting down; it was the fact that sat there and were bashed, and yet they remained peaceful. The violence was what brought the attention.
It's no mystery why even these days there are violent seperatists, revolutionists, unionists, protestors. It's the best way to get attention.
I don't think it's going to actually get the job finished, but I think in most cases it is the best catalyst.
In terms of your Japanese whaling example, I think that legally, Greenpeace was way out of line to perform piracy and board illegally onto that Japanese ship. And whilst it wasn't violence, it was pretty damn confrontational, and certainly bent enough rules, however. I don't think that got the job done, but whilst the lay person typically ignored the situation and went on with their everyday lives (you can't worry about everything in the world, your head will explode), these events brought the issue to the frontlines of discussion again, and did provoke a rather embarassed looking Australian government to work towards a solution, whereas they could afford to sit on their hands on the issue because there was previously no major controversy about the subject.
Even in strong democracies, violent protests are still necessary sometimes, to create ruckus, to create noise. Most governments are good enough to clamp down on anything too dangerous. You should always respect one's religious beliefs, however imaginary friends, delusional behaviour, a belief in a two thousand year old folk-lore should be treated by a professional.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
