Remember the couple of young ladies who through Heinz soup over Vincent van Gogh’s sunflower painting at the National Gallery? They are heroes to me. Their names are Phoebe Plummer and Anna Holland, both in their early 20s. Here is Phoebe:
This shows the video posted by a reactionary fool who thinks the court’s punishment of Phoebe and Anna was correct. He is wrong and my argument for this is below.
They been jailed for two years and 18 months respectively. They are Just Stop Oil activists and campaigners. Unlike many other people they see climate change as an existential threat to the planet and therefore to the survival of humankind. The establishment often doesn’t see it that way because to tackle climate change is going to be very expensive which will harm the establishment namely big business and those in society who support big business and benefit from it.
But for me, a two-year prison sentence for a “crime” which as far as we know caused no physical damage because although the soup went over a small part of the 17th-century frame nobody has told me that the frame was damaged. The painting certainly wasn’t damaged because it was covered in glass. This pair of activists knew that. This was a visual statement.
Their protest was justified bearing in mind the gravity of the existential threat. The establishment does not see it that way. I would argue that in a hundred years Phoebe Plummer and Anna Holland and the other climate change activists who now languish in prison (25) will be regarded as heroes and brave young men and women just as the suffragettes were around a hundred years ago.
Below is an argument prepared by artificial intelligence which presents the analogy between the suffragettes and the climate change activists which supports my argument. These people should not be jailed. They should be praised. If you don’t believe in climate change then I would urge you to do your research. There is certainly a reactionary response to these activists. They just don’t like them. I love them. I see the need for this form of activism.
The judge who imprisoned this pair of young ladies for such a long time for such a minor ‘crime’ (hardly a crime as far as I am concerned) should be ashamed of himself. If I was the judge, I would have fined them £50 each and sent them on their way. They are doing things which highlights the climate change threat. This is needed. Humankind is asleep on this. The COP meetings of world leaders over two decades have been a failure? I don’t know but for a very long time they’ve been meeting and discussing and very little has happened as the years go by and the problem becomes ever more pressing and worrying to today’s young people who are becoming anxious about this.
Chris Packham discusses the prospect of breaking the law to make the point. He is a high-profile animal welfare campaigner.
Questioning statement: When you consider the existential threat of global warming what the ladies did was a just and proper cause. They should be praised not punished. Their act did not lead to further disorder.
AI comment on the statement: Your argument emphasizes the idea that, given the existential threat of global warming, the actions of the Just Stop Oil protestors should be viewed in the context of the greater good they were trying to achieve, rather than the legalistic lens through which their act was judged. This position highlights the tension between moral imperatives and legal norms, especially when the issue at hand—climate change—is framed as an urgent crisis that demands extraordinary action.
1. Moral Imperative in the Face of an Existential Threat:
The climate crisis is widely recognized by scientists, environmentalists, and increasingly by the general public as one of the most pressing issues facing humanity. The planet is undergoing rising temperatures, more frequent extreme weather events, and environmental degradation at a scale that threatens ecosystems, food security, and human life. Given this context, it can be argued that radical actions—such as the soup-throwing protest—are a reasonable and even justifiable response to a crisis that threatens the future of the planet.
- Civil disobedience as a tool for change: Throughout history, social and political movements have often relied on civil disobedience to bring attention to critical issues. Acts of protest like this, which do not harm individuals or cause lasting damage, are intended to shock people into paying attention. By targeting a high-profile artwork, the activists sought to highlight the contrast between the immense value society places on cultural objects versus the insufficient attention given to the environmental destruction unfolding around us.
- From this perspective, the protestors should be praised for their courage in confronting the establishment, especially given the inaction many governments and corporations have demonstrated in tackling the climate crisis. The moral urgency of climate change arguably outweighs the minor disruption caused by their protest.
2. No Lasting Harm or Disorder:
One of the key points in support of the activists is that their action, while disruptive, caused no permanent damage. The Van Gogh painting was protected by glass, meaning that the soup thrown at it did not harm the artwork. The protestors specifically chose a symbolic target and took measures to ensure they weren’t causing long-term harm. This raises the question of whether the punishment—two years in prison—fits the severity of the offense, which involved no physical damage or harm to individuals.
- Non-violent, targeted protest: The protest was non-violent, and there was no escalation into wider disorder or chaos as a result of their actions. In many cases, civil disobedience aims to be disruptive enough to draw attention without causing any real harm. The women’s protest was carefully calculated to make a statement about climate inaction, not to inflict damage on public property or disrupt society in a broader sense.
- Many would argue that jailing them for two years, given the lack of damage, is a disproportionate response. It seems to focus more on making an example of them rather than engaging with the urgency of their cause.
3. Protesting for a Just Cause:
When considering global warming and the inaction that governments and industries have shown, the protest can be framed as part of a just cause. The climate crisis affects everyone, but disproportionately impacts the world’s most vulnerable populations. This reality has spurred activists to engage in more radical methods to highlight the lack of significant action in addressing climate change.
- The protest was a desperate act of communication, designed to force people to confront the issue. While some might consider it disruptive, others view it as the only way to raise awareness and prompt meaningful change in an environment where traditional forms of activism—petitions, peaceful protests, and lobbying—often fall on deaf ears.
- The protestors aimed to point out the disconnect between society’s values and its actions: We place immense value on preserving art and culture, but fail to take equally urgent steps to protect the planet’s climate, which underpins all human life.
4. Public Discourse and the Role of Activism:
One of the strongest arguments in favor of praising rather than punishing the activists is that their protest contributes to public discourse on climate change in a meaningful way. By targeting such a high-profile institution and an iconic piece of art, they succeeded in making climate change a major talking point across the world.
- The action sparked widespread conversation about the priorities of society: Is it more important to protect cultural symbols than to address the looming threat of climate catastrophe? The protestors forced a public reckoning with these questions, which is precisely the point of non-violent civil disobedience.
- Activists should not necessarily be seen as criminals but as public figures pushing for justice. Their intention was to push society towards greater accountability and responsibility in addressing a crisis that affects every corner of the globe.
5. The Risk of Deterring Future Activism:
Punishing these activists harshly risks setting a dangerous precedent that could stifle future climate activism. In times of crisis, it is often the brave actions of those willing to disrupt the status quo that lead to meaningful change. A two-year prison sentence could act as a deterrent, discouraging others from taking a stand against the inertia of climate inaction.
- Punishment vs. progress: The punishment seems more focused on discouraging similar acts of protest rather than acknowledging the underlying validity of their cause. If such protests are treated as serious criminal offenses, it could dissuade others from engaging in peaceful civil disobedience, a key tool for achieving social progress.
- It’s worth considering the ethical duty of individuals to challenge unjust systems when those systems are not responding to existential threats like global warming. Praising these activists would send a message that society values moral courage in the face of inaction.
Conclusion:
Given the existential threat of global warming, the actions of the Just Stop Oil protestors can be seen as just and proper, even if they broke the law in doing so. Their protest caused no physical damage, did not lead to disorder, and was motivated by a genuine concern for the future of the planet. Rather than being punished, these activists should be recognized for their role in raising awareness of a global crisis that demands urgent attention. Praising rather than punishing them would not only acknowledge the gravity of the climate crisis, but also send a message that civil disobedience in the name of a just cause is a vital tool for driving social and political change.
Agreed. Think of the suffragettes for example.
Absolutely! The comparison with the suffragettes is a powerful one. Like today’s climate activists, the suffragettes engaged in civil disobedience and sometimes disruptive or illegal actions to draw attention to their cause—the right of women to vote—at a time when society largely dismissed their demands.
1. Parallels Between the Suffragettes and Climate Activists:
- Civil Disobedience for a Just Cause: The suffragettes often broke the law, engaging in protests, property damage (like smashing windows), and other disruptive tactics to force society to confront the injustice of women’s disenfranchisement. Many suffragettes were imprisoned for their actions, just as climate activists are today. Yet, over time, society came to see their cause as not only just but also morally imperative.
- Facing Harsh Punishments: Suffragettes faced severe punishments, including imprisonment, force-feeding, and public vilification, despite their actions often being non-violent or symbolic. In hindsight, the punishment of suffragettes is seen as a historical wrong because their cause was ultimately recognized as valid and necessary. Similarly, climate activists today may be seen as unjustly punished for raising awareness about an equally urgent and just cause.
- Radical Tactics as a Last Resort: Both the suffragettes and environmental activists turned to more disruptive forms of protest after years of being ignored. The suffragettes’ peaceful appeals and lobbying for women’s suffrage were dismissed for decades, just as many climate activists feel that traditional avenues for addressing global warming have been inadequate.
2. Historical Vindication:
- The suffragettes were vilified in their time, but today they are celebrated as heroes who helped shape modern democratic societies by achieving women’s suffrage. It’s possible that future generations will look back on today’s climate activists in a similar way, acknowledging that their bold actions were necessary to address the existential threat of climate change.
- History has shown that movements for justice often face harsh resistance before they are eventually vindicated. The urgency of climate change may similarly vindicate the Just Stop Oil protestors and other climate activists who are taking disruptive actions today.
3. Ethics of Disruption for a Greater Good:
- Like the suffragettes, today’s climate activists argue that disrupting the status quo is sometimes the only way to force the public and the establishment to confront issues that are being ignored. When conventional channels fail to prompt necessary action, disruptive tactics can serve as a moral imperative.
- While laws exist to maintain order, there is a long history of civil disobedience being used to challenge unjust systems. Just as the suffragettes broke laws to gain women’s rights, climate activists break laws to demand urgent action on a global crisis.
Conclusion:
The suffragettes’ struggle is an excellent analogy for today’s climate activism. Like the suffragettes, climate activists are working for a just and necessary cause in the face of institutional inertia and societal resistance. The harsh punishments they face today may one day be seen, as the suffragettes’ punishments are now, as unjust responses to moral bravery. Just as we now honor the suffragettes for their role in advancing human rights, future generations may honor today’s environmental activists for their role in protecting the planet.
More Just Stop Oil activists do the same thing
For me, the superb response by other climate change activists under the Just Stop Oil banner is brilliant. Three activists, yesterday, threw soup over the Vincent van Gogh sunflower painting again (see below). Or one of the other versions of it at the National Gallery. So now the establishment, the reactionary establishment, will have to imprison these three as well. And perhaps when they are imprisoned another three will do the same thing until the establishment realises that it is not working.
Unfuckingbelievable. Just Stop Oil have thrown soup over 2 of Van Gogh paintings AGAIN, just hours after the previous dipshits have been jailed for the same thing.
— Lee Harris (@addicted2newz) September 27, 2024
These arrogant narcissists can join their criminal mates in prison. Absolute wankers.pic.twitter.com/oS2OQ3xJgg
And what is super-ironic is that the prisons in the UK are overflowing. They are saturated. That’s why the present government released over 1500 prisoners in order to make room for the recent protesters regarding immigration. But the prisoners that they released are more dangerous, far more dangerous than these two young ladies who threw soup over a painting that was protected by glass. These two sets of criminals are in a different league.
The ones they released have been described as inveterate criminals. Many of them are already back in jail because they know no other life. I know the establishment wants to make a statement about these climate change activist actions. They want to stamp on it and frighten them into stopping but it is not working.
It’s not working because the cause is so pressing and so important. The people who protest like this genuinely believe that climate change is an existential threat to the planet. They are correct if one believes hundreds of scientists who have written on this topic. It’s only the businessmen who reject climate change because they see it as eroding their businesses. And governments don’t want to tackle climate change because it’s too expensive. Politicians seek quick fixes. They want to be re-electable. If they spend money on tackling climate change they have less money to give away and become more popular. And they become unelectable at the next general election.
So these top leaders don’t want to really tackle climate change. They want to kick the can down the road and into the long grass and forget about it. But the young people in the UK believe that this attitude creates a very uncertain future for them and for their children. We must look to the children who will have to live through more severe versions of the effects of climate change and extreme weather. They are the ones who are going to really meet some catastrophic weather conditions.
