[anjan_c2007]

Now six Green, climate activists owing allegiance to "Last Generation", a green outfit, adjudging airplanes as the worst polluters, reached the Munich Airport (Bavaria State, Germany) runway protesting against use of airplanes. The airport schedules were badly affected during this very busy tourist season. They broke through the security cordon and glued themselves to the tarmac, leading to cancellation of 60 flights. Fourteen flights into Munich were forced to divert to other nearby airports to avoid the disruption.The protest, which took place at the start of the Whitsun holiday, a peak travel period in Germany, affected the airport, which was expected to handle at least 350,000 passengers over the weekend, was fully closed for nearly two hours.

Their ire was directed on the government for subsidising the airline industry despite airplanes being the worst polluters.

All six protesters were arrested and charged by the concerned law enforcement authorities who averred:-

"Trespassing in the aviation security area is no trivial offense. Over hundreds of thousands of passengers were prevented from a relaxed and punctual start to their Pentecost holiday," German Airports Association General Manager Ralph Beisel told dpa.

The link:-

https://www.foxnews.com/world/climat...ausing-traffic

Such forms of unprovoked protests lead to public ire and usually goes against the image of the green activists.

True, climate change is the real devil knocking on our doors. This devil has got entry into many of our abodes affecting our well being. And most governments are snoring and playing political games. Other than a few governments, especially in the Scandinavian countries, no one else seems to be taking the issue seriously.

The activists need to act pragmatically and not act with invasive methodologies, so as to perturb the schedules and well being of the general public. The last time they were in the news was when months back, they smeared black paint on brand new supercars in Europe.

Activists need to act with care to motivate and carry the saner parts of the population with them. Only with logical steps, their activism could get public sympathy and support thereby getting noticed and taken cognisance of, in the corridors of power. They will only fail by resorting to such hooliganism wasting their own time, energy and maybe, resources!

[Jeroen]

In most western countries the right to protest is guaranteed by law. And most jurisprudence will also show that society needs to accept a fair degree of inconvenience.

It is only totalitarian societies where they do away with the right to protest and disrupt.

Without disruption the impact of just any protest is very small. Think about the big protests in the world. Vietnam protests, East Germany wall, women equality etc etc. All of them had a very large part of disruption and inconvenience to the general public.

The problem is when we are inconvenienced we hate the protesters with a vengeance. But when we happen to agree with a protest we cheer them on.

Good effective protesting requires a lot of different elements. Check your history books, protest that have been disruptive and inconvenience the general public are nothing new. Has been going on for centuries. And most of us are benefiting from it one way or the other.

If you believe in democracy I believe you should also believe in protesting. It might not be your cause they are protesting about. But next time it might.

Personally, I think we should organise a sit in across every airport in the world and glue ourselves to the runway. Overnight the effect of less air traffic becomes measurable.

I am too old and I have been beaten up by cops on my protesting days too often. So I will leave it to the younger generation. I will happily cheer them on!

Good to have ideals and be prepared to do something!

Let’s face it; the only purpose old people like me have is to cheer on the younger generation. All my experience is completely and totally outdated!

In addition and I have mentioned this countless times. The notion that the world is going through this energy transition without having a major impact on our daily lives is just ridiculous. It is going to cost everybody a lot of money and there will be lots of inconvenience.

You ain’t seen nothing yet!

Jeroen

[PearlJam]

Obviously, there's a balance that's needed.

Climate change is definitely snapping at our heels. But such protests, that could potentially endanger the safety of passengers (did anyone check the credentials of the protesters? Did they check for dangerous items being smuggled in? Were they frisked before protesting?). Not just for this protest, for any protest. Right to safety of all, both protesters and non-protesters, comes first and foremost.

Also, what about the genuine cases like children visiting their ailing parents? Or passengers with critical medical emergencies? What about people missing their booked vacations or connecting flights, losing out on significant money and making a dent in their assets, for no fault of theirs? What about CEOs visiting projects that create employment? Will they be ever reimbursed either in cash or kind? These are just a very few examples.

Rich countries built their infrastructure long ago, and provided well for their people long before pollution norms came into being. Which is a great thing. Now if poorer countries are doing the same, they probably need to be compensated/subsidized, in the interest of fairness and in the interest of not being hypocritical. But that's another topic.

It's a difficult choice, I agree. As usual, the best solution is somewhere in the middle. Governments should give massive tax breaks for environment friendly inventions/moves, and conversely, heavily tax pollution offenders. This will encourage moves to cleaner practices in a more efficient way. The protesters should probably protest against the government to pressurize them to impose such policies. Protesting against airlines and airports will achieve nothing, other than revulsion towards the protesters, in my opinion.

[Raghu M]

Someone should just enquire how these protesters reached the Munich airport. Most of them might have flown in. Such an irony. While climate change is evident, these kind of protests to ground airplanes makes no sense. Next, they should try stopping huge vessels in the sea.

[Noctis]

Originally Posted by PearlJam

Governments should give massive tax breaks for environment friendly inventions/moves, and conversely, heavily tax pollution offenders.

This is basically what a carbon tax/credit system does. But the current cost of living crisis in the west has taken away appetite for anything that further adds to it.

[ValarMorghulis]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

In most western countries the right to protest is guaranteed by law. And most jurisprudence will also show that society needs to accept a fair degree of inconvenience.
...
Without disruption the impact of just any protest is very small. Think about the big protests in the world. Vietnam protests, East Germany wall, women equality etc etc. All of them had a very large part of disruption and inconvenience to the general public.
...

This is a genuine query. I agree with few points, but I am also struggling with few others. Would love to hear your thoughts and others'.

You mentioned that right to protest is guaranteed by law. 100% agreed. As it should be. Everybody should be allowed to protest for whatever cause they wish for.

I am conflicted with the second part of the statement. "...society needs to accept a fair degree of inconvenience. Without disruption the impact of just any protest is very small".
-Why? Why should others be inconvenienced for what is clearly a "cause for a few" or even when isn't a cause for few?
-And what is the degree of inconvenience one should tolerate?
-And what are the causes that justify such inconveniences?

-Is the inconvenience only acceptable to the affluent? (Caking the Monda Lisa. The poor don't go to the Louvre. Global Warming is much bigger cause).
-Or blocking access to a hospital is OK as well? Say, only for a noble cause like "food for the poor" or is it OK even for "demanding the rich don't use their private jets"?

-Is a cause by a town that demands better roads OK for them disrupting schools?

I mean what is the "cause nobility" versus "disruption scale" that is acceptable?

Obviously if 200 people demand free PS5s and block roads, they'd be sent to jail. But what is 100 people demand cleaner air and stop a train line?

Why is the convenience of an innocent person on the road, who by the way has nothing to do or is a part of this protest, an acceptable sacrifice?

This is really a genuine query. It might have come across as snide few lines, but I am genuinely curious.

[DigitalOne]

I would suggest these protestors to undergo some 'minor inconvenience' and glue themselves onto the runway Riyadh International Airport, Saudi Arabia, the biggest producer of fossil fuels. That will show how much committed they are to the climate cause.

[am1m]

Originally Posted by ValarMorghulis

-And what is the degree of inconvenience one should tolerate?
-And what are the causes that justify such inconveniences?

From a purely practical aspect, neither of these matter.

A successful protest is one that forces the government to either make or repeal the policies that are the cause of the protest. So a successful protest needs to generate enough support and disrupt the normal workings of society/the government enough to bring that about.

Think of 2 protests- the Protests against the 3 farm acts in 2021, and the protests after the tragic brutal death of the woman in Delhi in 2012. The 3 farm acts were repealed. But while there were certainly some changes made to improve women's safety, by and large the more widespread and more popular cause that affected more of the population and certainly had much, much more support, was not the success it should have been.

Perhaps because a protest that has a specific target and a specific end goal has a better chance of succeeding?

Repeal 3 proposed amendments to laws, a certain policy decision, specific targets. Even the goal of ending a war or securing a country's independence, while that movement can go on for years, has a specific aim in mind, and affects people directly and immediately, visibly. While something, while no less vital, but more general, non-specific, like women's safety or climate change may not.

[ValarMorghulis]

Originally Posted by am1m

From a purely practical aspect, neither of these matter.
...
Repeal 3 proposed amendments to laws, a certain policy decision, specific targets. Even the goal of ending a war or securing a country's independence, while that movement can go on for years, has a specific aim in mind, and affects people directly and immediately, visibly. While something, while no less vital, but more general, non-specific, like women's safety or climate change may not.

So, it is all about the ask?
Forget the three farm laws (that their reversal was a travesty for farmers, is not a topic fit for this forum), my next question would then be:

Does that mean if I can gather enough people, muster enough disruptions, cause enough inconvenience, any tangible ask is valid? Say, reservation for a complete village of 15,000 (if they disrupt enough roads, rails, hospitals, schools, etc.), implementation of a specific law for people of a specific community/ religion?

Because following this logic, the minimum requirement is:
1. Enough followers
2. Specific ask
3. Maximum disruptions

So, tomorrow, if one is able to 1. gather enough crowd, 2. disrupt enough public, 3. cause enough monetary loss to the public exchequer, any tangible ask is OK?
Boggles my mind.

And any climate disruption is then irrelevant because there aren't any tangible asks?

[am1m]

Originally Posted by ValarMorghulis

...cause enough monetary loss to the public exchequer, any tangible ask is OK? Boggles my mind.

See, I'm deliberately not getting into what is ok, what is not. (Just for the record, on this particular thread, I support the climate change protesters' cause, not their tactics outlined in this specific thread.) I'm saying the cause does not matter to what makes a successful protest. Whether a cause is worth being successful or not is something that will always have 2 opinions/sides/camps. One man's freedom fighter is another man's revolutionary/terrorist.

Originally Posted by ValarMorghulis

Say, reservation for a complete village of 15,000 (if they disrupt enough roads, rails, hospitals, schools, etc.), implementation of a specific law for people of a specific community/ religion?

And isn't that how things actually work on the ground, in our and most countries?

Again, I'm not saying that is ok. Disruption is not ideal or efficient. Ideally, these should translate into election issues and be determined through voting. But that is what differentiates a successful protest from one that just fizzled out. And that is the only observation I'm expanding/commenting on.

[PearlJam]

Originally Posted by ValarMorghulis

Does that mean if I can gather enough people, muster enough disruptions, cause enough inconvenience, any tangible ask is valid?

Not always. Just because you gather enough people - it doesn't mean those people are your vote bank. The government always takes a call on whether the protest can balloon into something big, that affects their votebank/support. Actually, that's all there is, and nothing else, according to me. Governments which have their ears to the ground can judge whether it makes sense to entertain the protesters or not. Ofcourse, once in a way, they do see the larger picture.

In the airport protest case, I think the government (if it was India) will simply not care. They might even go a step further and forcibly evict those people. Because, the voting population (mostly from outside cities) will not care about this non-issue (for them) anyway, and the city folks who take flights, will not support any disruption to their plans. That leaves a small set of green activists, who may/maynot be even voting.

Unfortunately (or fortunately, in some cases) this is how it works - whether in governments, or housing societies.

[ValarMorghulis]

Originally Posted by am1m

See, I'm deliberately not getting into what is ok, what is not.

And isn't that how things actually work on the ground, in our and most countries?

First of all, am1m, thanks for taking time to respond. I'm not trying to put you in a spot or a gotcha moment. I'm just trying to take in different viewpoints and improve my understanding.

I disagree with how change should be effected. In case of farm laws, the changes brought by anarchy will be more harmful in the long term. Pandering to a particular society, because muscle power, clout etc. which will only bring more financial ruin (which is actually happening).

In case of Delhi protests, the govt. was changed (which I think is the right way to bring about change). You go an vote in a democratic society and country. Bring change and accountability through your vote. Bring in people who care for your causes. Is it slow? Heck yes. But, IMHO, that's the proper way to bring about change.
In case of farm laws, all the farm leaders forfeited their deposits. That pretty much sums up the common support.

My only problem with such disruptions (esp. to the public) is that they bring a mentality of mob justice to the society.

When it comes to climate activists or even PETA followers, I wonder why they are tolerated with kid gloves by the European govts or the US.
Are their intentions noble, yes. But the actions bely any logic.

Originally Posted by PearlJam

...affects their votebank/support. ...

Really interesting viewpoint, and I think I agree to this. The farm laws repeal was a lot related to this.

But India aside, what about European countries or US?
I mean climate activists disrupted thousands of passengers and that is OK.
What if there was a hacker group that disrupted say, 10 flights. Do you think the repercussions would be the same? What if the caught hackers then say that they did it for global warming?

[am1m]

Originally Posted by ValarMorghulis

Pandering to a particular society, because muscle power, clout etc. which will only bring more financial ruin (which is actually happening).
...

You go an vote in a democratic society and country. Bring change and accountability through your vote. Bring in people who care for your causes. Is it slow? Heck yes. But, IMHO, that's the proper way to bring about change.

I agree 100% I'm just saying that is not how things happen, unfortunately, most of the time.

A small, organized, well-funded/vocally well-supported group will always get their way over a larger, unorganized point of view that may be on the 'morally correct' side of things. Gun laws in the US is the best example of this. Any communal riot where the perpetrators go unpunished, even win elections is another recurring example. What is a riot anyway? Another form of protest against the way things are?

Originally Posted by ValarMorghulis

In case of Delhi protests, the govt. was changed (which I think is the right way to bring about change).

I don't think the government fell because of the protests related to women's safety. (And IMHO, women's safety is still in bad shape in the capital and other places.)

[AMG Power]

None of the activists would need to use flights for business or leisure.

Would have made sense if even one of them were a frequent flyer and the person clarified what they would do in the absence of aircrafts.

Akin to the moral police whose motto is “I don’t get it so neither should you” and has nothing to do with upholding morals.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Is it OK to shut down whole main routes for a marathon? Or other sporting/etc event?

Going back to my London days, I would rather have been inconvenienced by a protest.

Just my point of view, and it won't be welcome to many. But it throws another colour into the topic.