I respect their right to protest, but in my opinion attacking a private business when they want the government to do something crosses the line. Well, vandalism in general crosses the line.
Now the government can't implement the stated goals or the next group protesting will try something even worse.
Check out this book if you want to understand the rationale here: https://www.versobooks.com/en-gb/products/2649-how-to-blow-up-a-pipeline
Now the government can't implement the stated goals or the next group protesting will try something even worse. >
I mean, they'll say that yes. But for a terrible example think back to the parliament occupation and how the realm of acceptable discourse shifted, despite how it ended and despite how a huge majority of the country hated them. Doing anything to mitigate against covid is a political third rail now.
Also on Gazeley, they were one of the car dealerships on Cambridge tce that mounted legal action against a cycleway through there. This 'just directly go to the government' thing just isn't how society works and isn't where all the power lies.
Thanks for the book recommendation.
I think ultimately, it's about my values. The government isn't listening, things are probably going to get worse after the election, and we are all probably screwed. But at my core, I can't support attacking people, and certainly not attacking people who can't influence the change that is requested (these protesters are specifically calling for national passenger rail, and free public transport).
Maybe this is the only effective way. But it's a conflict of my values.
Also on Gazeley, they were one of the car dealerships on Cambridge tce that mounted legal action against a cycleway through there. This ‘just directly go to the government’ thing just isn’t how society works and isn’t where all the power lies.
Were they targetting for that reason, or is that a coincidence?
That specific reason? I don't know, the article didn't say but their quote from them alluded to it.
The book does go into that feeling that it seems wrong on a values basis for most people, how the prevailing view in protest movements over the past 40 years or so has been that absolute non-violent protest (specifically that which extends to include inanimate objects, i.e. property, it doesn't advocate violence against people) is the only acceptable way to bring about change.
It then makes a case for targeted, direct action against property that is locking us into the climate crisis, given the urgency, lack of action from governments, and effort by industry to block and delay any action. Its pretty much the 'target the people who have the power to change things' that gets brought up in opposition to this kind of action.
So I dunno, you find me out there doing any of this stuff, but it was an interesting read and makes you think about how the calls to completely passive protest as the only acceptable type is pushed by the status quo because it doesn't work
That specific reason? I don't know, the article didn't say but their quote from them alluded to it.
You're acting awfully smug in your other comment for someone who can't say for sure they even knew about the court case.
I'm acting awfully tired of you all over every thread just raging out with act party talking points. I have much more time for people who hold different views but are receptive to an actual discussion
Does someone holding a different viewpoint make you angry?
Oh, we're trolling now are we
Some people you can't help but wind up.
If you read their idiotic manifesto, or even the name of the organisation, you'd know these people are all about intercity rail services, not cycleways. I doubt they even know about the court case. They just really like trains.
Besides, damaging private property because someone disagreed with you isn't really how things are supposed to work.
Did you even read the article you posted, or just the bits where the guy was all
Restore Passenger Rail spokesperson James Cockle said they targeted the car dealer because the car industry was "against sustainable transportation".
"Your luxuries are killing us. The people selling these $200,000 utes and SUVs don't care about our future.
"The obscenely rich are lobbying against us having sustainable transport systems and are turbo-charging the climate crisis with more motorways and more luxury emissions."
Did they mention the actual court case though, or just generally complaining about "lobbying"?
I'll support vandalism if they spray paint Parliament and glue their hands to the doors at Parliament, so that MPs can't get to work. Until that happens I won't take this group seriously.
You know Dave, I've just been emailing Christchurch councillors and I've had a few responses. I'm pretty good at getting information and finding out where to get press reports and stuff like that, but I struggle to understand the council. I don't know how I can oppose these residents' associations and I'm just learning that stuff now. We need a group that will make democracy accessible for someone who works 6 days a week, who can't attend most meetings.
These ultra-leftwing groups are just fecking dumb. I'm in favour of having apartments and cycleways and proper public transport, but I'd never agree to help the kind of activities which Restore Passenger Rail is engaged in. There are meetings at the local council that I could be protesting but I usually find out at the last minute, or after it's too late. Meanwhile, a death cult is attacking a business over an alarmist prophecy.
They could be helping me do something useful, like pry boomers away and stop them from corrupting the council.
There's groups like Renters United and Generation Zero that advocate for those things, including submitting to councils and so on.
Sure, but Renters United isn't active in Christchurch. I'm not aware of any local events they're promoting. As far as I'm aware, nobody is even attending council meetings or community discussions that are often held at churches.
I had a quick look through their website, they want to implement rent control as a way of controlling the housing crisis.
Because the best way to increase the supply of something is to limit the price of it.
They focus on renters rights but I wish they'd do more about having a proper housing market. You know, complete with competition and stuff like that.
They never do this to the actual decision makers, do they? It's always people just trying to go about their lives that cop it.
Kia ora and welcome to !newzealand, a place to share and discuss anything about Aotearoa in general
Rules:
FAQ ~ NZ Community List ~ Join Matrix chatroom
Banner image by Bernard Spragg
Got an idea for next month's banner?