LONDON (Reuters) -Environmental activists accused of criminal damage cannot rely on their political or philosophical beliefs as a defence, London's Court of Appeal ruled on Monday, raising the prospect of more protesters being convicted for direct action. Various groups have targeted companies and political parties in Britain, causing damage to property in order to raise awareness of climate-change issues. Monday's ruling effectively prevents environmental protesters from relying on their beliefs about the dangers of climate change as a defence to criminal damage.

LONDON (Reuters) - Environmental activists accused of criminal damage cannot rely on their political or philosophical beliefs as a defence, London’s Court of Appeal ruled on Monday, raising the prospect of more protesters being convicted for direct action.

Various groups have targeted companies and political parties in Britain, causing damage to property in order to raise awareness of climate-change issues.

The rise in the use of direct action has prompted a wider crackdown on protest movements in Britain and across Europe, particularly in relation to environmental groups.

Monday’s ruling effectively prevents environmental protesters from relying on their beliefs about the dangers of climate change as a defence to criminal damage.

  • Dkarma@lemmy.worldEnglish
    232·
    8 months ago

    There’s tons of evidence of fossil fuels causing climate change.

    • xmunk@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      43·
      8 months ago

      Definitely, but where is the evidence that excuses otherwise illegal acts done to protest this wrong?

      This ruling is correct, though those activists should probably be pardoned or charges against them dropped. Protesting effectively often violates some statutes, this is why civil rights leaders were constantly in and out of jail - they didn’t commit murders, but they definitely violated restrictions on loitering and other minor offenses… and we celebrate them for having the courage to do so. Rosa Parks’ most famous moment was just flat out refusing to obey an unjust law.

      These individuals will pay a price in the short term… but they’re right. They’re on the right side of history.

      • mindlesscrollyparrot@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
        7·
        8 months ago

        The news story is precisely that the judge has decided that it doesn’t matter why the protesters are doing what they are doing - whether they have evidence or not. His wording was something like “that may or may not be occurring”.

        According to the judge, only the fact that they damaged property is relevant. That they did it to demand action against a significant threat to humanity, is not.

      • echo64@lemmy.worldEnglish
        63·
        8 months ago

        I don’t think you understand the case. I think you’re just saying things out of complete ignorance. Which is fine it’s just a comment thread on a tiny website, but at some point, you should just go read up on the actual situation rather than continue to make statements out of ignorance, that doesn’t contribute to the conversation or benefit anyone.