Extinction Rebellion

[Brian Peacock]

Violent extremists hell-bend on destroying our way of life, in Brisbane...

[JimC]

The tactic of deliberately shutting down city traffic to produce maximum irritation for commuters may not be pragmatically effective, IMO. It has the potential to create a lot of hostility towards the environmental movement; many people without strong views on the matter may now dismiss anything coming from those annoying, feral hippies...

Which is not to say that widespread protests on the issue are wrong, just that these particular tactics may backfire...

[Brian Peacock]

Letters to newspapers and elected representatives get ignored; planned weekend marches don't get the same level of news coverage. We're at the same stage the women's suffrage movement were at before they started chaining themselves to government building and knocking policemen's hats off.

[JimC]

I still stand by my point that targeting ordinary commuters (on public transport as well) could well be counter-productive, in terms of mobilising mass opinion. Politicians and captains of industry will either ignore it, or add to media spin as to how disruptive it is...

[Brian Peacock]

Hmm. 'Targeting ordinary commuters' seems a bit over-dramatic to me. Who's telling you that commuters are the focus of the protests I wonder? Sure, the distruptive protests are inconvenient, but after the London protest in April for example environmental concerns became the third most important national voting issue after jobs and health with 70%+ of people agreeing that the government should be doing more or much more to deal with the climate crisis. In this regard the disruption and civil disobedience is a pretty successful awareness-raising tactic - which is exactly the point, because protests and protesters aren't going to change the system that has led to global warming: only governments acting together can address that. While I accept that not everybody agrees with their tactics the #OUTRAGE about the inconvenience of XR's demonstrations is mostly coming from predictably right-leaning quarters of the media - that section of the media which has traditionally represented the interests of those stoically unmoved about their polluting of the environment.

[Brian Peacock]

Any thoughts on what might be more effective Jim?

[Brian Peacock]

[laklak]

Has Lak seen the picture?

I know Lak...

Nowt wrong with an experienced woman.

[JimC]

Brian Peacock wrote:
Who's telling you that commuters are the focus of the protests I wonder?

It's their deliberate choice of strategy, blocking streets in Brisbane to all traffic, including public transport. I know sections of the right-wing media will jump on that with gusto, but they've been given that clear opportunity - they may exaggerate the impact, but they don't have to lie...

Any thoughts on what might be more effective Jim?

Picketing buildings and offices of the coal industry, for example, and/or politicians whose policies are against necessary change. I don't mean to dissuade people from robust protest, and would agree that we need to move with more urgency, but in reality it is a political problem. If there is an overwhelming movement of public support for a harder push to renewables, then politicians will react, and/or elections will force change. I strongly doubt that deliberately annoying ordinary citizens will achieve that end...

[Animavore]

I still stand by my point that targeting ordinary commuters (on public transport as well) could well be counter-productive, in terms of mobilising mass opinion. Politicians and captains of industry will either ignore it, or add to media spin as to how disruptive it is...

Public disobedience and disruption is the point. No one gets anywhere by protesting politely out of the way.

Picketing buildings and offices of the coal industry, for example, and/or politicians whose policies are against necessary change.

People have asked, "Why can't they just protest in some out of the way place?" since at least the civil rights marches under MLK. Probably before that.

Disrupting traffic and whole cities is far more effective, as we saw in Ireland when they tried to privatise water. If they had've protested out of the way who would notice them? How would they build momentum?

[JimC]

People can indeed protest in central, public spaces, where there will inevitably be some public disruption. Fair enough. But in the Brisbane example (and others overseas), protestors have made it clear that their intention is to deliberately disrupt the lives of everyday people, for as long as possible. To them, the ends justify the means, always a handy stance for a one track fanatic. I am of the opinion that building a mass movement of people who want action on climate change is best served by less deliberate antagonism towards the public, and more focused attention to the actual issues...

[Animavore]

I think you're missing the point of civil disobedience. Shutting down cities costs them money. Probably millions every time. Forcing them to do something.

The people complaining should be joining them anyway. It's their and their kids future too.

[JimC]

And you are missing the point about persuading people, instead of alienating them...

[pErvinalia]

Gentle persuasion doesn't seem to be working.

[Animavore]

There will always be alienated people in any movement. Like the racists who wonder why those uppity Black Lives Matter people don't stand out in a field somewhere. Or the sexist misogynists who wish women would stay in their place.

I've no sympathy for deniers and people who wish to deliberately exasperate the problem and anyone else with their head in the sand complaining about a bit of inconvenience. It's either minor inconvenience now or major disruption (Marshall law, civil war, mass immigration) later.

Choose.