[flagged]
If the teamsters strike hospitals miss drug shipments and people die. Farming protests can lead to food supply chain disruptions. Transport strikes cause economic disruption which could theoretically lead to deaths.
That’s not what terrorism is.
Terrorism requires terrorising people through violence and intimidation. Not standing on a highway.
Terrorism is a broad term but it is rarely used for its lower end as its also a term used as a tool to scare people. The idea that it mandates violence is outdated. Violence was the means to terrorize but it no longer is.
This terrorises people. It causes mass fear and panic, and will cause pretty immediate loss of life. All people have good reason fear for the safety of them and their loved ones in the case of a catastrophic grid failure.
This is not true of blocking a highway. It’s an economic disruption. The response of those opposed to the action is one of anger and frustration. Society at large does not fear for their safety because people are occasionally blocking highways, unlike in a mass terrorist campaign.
Cyberterrorism as a term is applied too liberally, a direct result of governments wanting to expand their powers under the guise of combating terrorism. Software attacks that immediately threaten life and limb (eg attacks on health systems, major damage to critical infrastructure) can be argued to be cyberterrorism. Not every software attack is of that magnitude.
I think it's totally legitimate to argue over how effective an action like this is for the cause - but this is a quite reasonable form of protest.
Blocking a highway is a form of terrorism. If people blocked a highway with violent means would you consider that a protest too?
You are taking a double standard. They're all terrorism.
Another scenario you could come up with is a future climate catastrophe, where millions die and/or are displaced because of this global boiling era. Incidentally, which is the protest thought crime that is being prosecuted.
[1] Legally there's a world of difference between proximal causes and proximate causes. (Neighborhood vs causally related.)
If protests actually cause deaths, we can always prosecute the people causing said death as manslaughter or negligent homicide. Until then it’s just a protest, guaranteed in many countries as a civil right.
> cars
Maybe they should've take the subway then? Because "Klimakleber" usually only operate in the city
Resorting to kinetic means throws all of that out the window.
You want to make a point, and be heard? Stop committing crimes and taking other people's rights away.
You're entitled to be upset when someone blocks your car. But framing it as a civil rights issue rather than a practical one (and calling someone blocking your car "kinetic") makes you come across as un-serious.
If the government were to install roadblocks and check your identity card before letting you leave your town, that would violate your freedom of movement. If a local private militia did the same thing, it would be as well. But being slightly delayed by a bunch of environmentalists blocking a specific form of transit doesn't meaningfully violate anything.
The counterstatement here would be "the state has the right to forcefully remove anybody who slightly inconveniences me"; it should be obvious why this would be a gross violation of civil liberties.
The counterstatement here would be "the state has the right to forcefully remove anybody who slightly inconveniences me"; it should be obvious why this would be a gross violation of civil liberties.
There is a whole slew of laws and regulations dealing with people who inconvenience others on purpose.
Freedom of movement specifically exists for when "your lives depend on it" - it is a vital right to preserve and the freedom to make that 40 km walk has saved countless lives over the centuries.
The point of protesting in a manner that is truly disruptive is to force the problem to be dealt with. This concept seems to allude many, to them the only acceptable form of protest is one that is entirely ignorable. I’m not sure we would have many of the important freedoms we have today without people choosing to be disruptive in this manner you find unacceptable.
I get what you're saying but you're very narrowly trying to define right of movement to make your argument and without your narrow definition it falls apart.
Kinetic means things being in motion. Throwing rocks is kinetic, taking up space or forming a barricade is not.
Well, if you define "civil society" to mean "society where everyone is subject to absolute milquetoast civility at all times", then sure.