Sky News reporting Greenpeace have breached Heathrow

[flyboy777]

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/...306790,00.html

& climbed onboard a British Airways A320 from Manchester...

Look what they have to say for themselves...

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/cl...light-20080225

[N_Architect]

Enough with Greenpeace

"Greenpeace protesters arrested over major Heathrow security breach"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3430484.ece

"In what they said was a protest at a third runway to be planned for Heathrow, the demonstrators unfurled a huge banner on the aircraft tail, saying: "Climate Emergency - No Third Runway."

I really do not think that these people have any right to come and tell us every now and then or to dictate whether a runway should or not be built at a large airport, or how and why we should travel by plane, or how fast and why we should drive our cars.

It is true, the environment we live in has suffered for years, and humankind is responsible for this, but if more people really need to fly, then a new runway will have to be made.

I personally think we don't really need any 'environment-caring' individuals dictating us how fast we should drive our cars in the autobahns or how often we should fly for leisure or business. We already have enough restrictions (from revenue-generating speed cameras when we drive to removal of lotions, liquids and pocket multi-tools which we usually by omission attempt to carry on board) in our daily lives and don't need any more.

What do YOU think?

[SQflyergirl]

Merged these two threads.

[flo]

This is just insane.

I completely agree with environmentalists that there is the utter need for action concerning Co2 emissions. It is important that we preserve our environment for the sake of us getting older and our offspring; it's reckless to leave a mess behind you.

But then again: is it really necessary with all the media attention the whole environmental Co2 debate had the last few months to violently (!) breach into an airport and spread their messages?

I totally hate to make these connections but aren't left-wing environmentalists supposed to not behave like they were right-wing activists? They should know better that this is not the way to gain sympathy among people.

Personally, I feel totally estranged by this behavior. It's not that I don't want to be told what to do - there are certainly people out there who never heard of the Co2 thingie - it's simply the fact that the activists accessed restricted areas to spread their message; as a normal person you cannot just walk up to an aircraft, climb it and put a banner on it. That's like me breaking into an airport and putting chewing gum on the belly of a plane.

About the runways: I think it is necessary to build it though it might displease many London residents. More flight traffic means more noise and I wouldn't want that.

[flyboy777]

Such actions should be treated similarly to terrorist attacks. Security breach. Unfortunatly, all 4 members have already been arrested but suggestions from other forums include;

Firearms - shooting them down & persuading them down
De-icing truck - spray boiling glycol on them
Fuel truck - Cover with fuel & ignite
Taxi & Take off - see how long the protestors last battling the elements (my personal favourite)

Such idiocy will only harden views against Greenpeace. Sure, being green is a good thing but pulling stunts like this is distruptive, expensive & a waste of time. Speaking of which, how about they get a job & stop living off taxpayers money!!

[MAN Flyer]

In the current high security alert climate, they would have had nobody else to blame if they had been shot. D*ckheads.

[up and away]

Completely undemocratic. Did I borrow a bulldozer and destroy the Greenpeace center eather when they won in court with their plan to shut Berlin Tegel down

It's democracy, deal with it!

[KeithMEL]

The real debate here is whether direct action, or in this case violent direct action is a legitimate political tactic. Whilst years of debate with all sides of politics have enabled me to see all dimensions of the issue - my experiences in political activism have suggested that such tactics (usually involving trespass, destruction of property and screaming at inanimate objects or buildings for hours) have not worked and will never work. They only serve to alienate the public from your cause. It is unfortunate that major political movements, be they pro-peace, environmental, queer rights, feminism, student unions etc have been hijacked by extremists with questionable agendas.

[impresta]

I couldn't agree more with KeithMEL! cheers buddy!

I was recently caught up in a Green Peace riot type protest. The guy hit me and spilled my OJ and not even a sorry and even yelled at me.

[jjpb3]

It is unfortunate that major political movements, be they pro-peace, environmental, queer rights, feminism, student unions etc have been hijacked by extremists with questionable agendas.

That's a bit strong as a statement, IMHO. The more extreme elements will always try to shape the direction of a movement, but really, that's a natural dynamic in any political movement. As a process, the attempt to "hijack" (that's a loaded term in itself, as attempting to co-opt is, in my view, a natural political motivation) is just part of the process.

I'm not sure that hijacking has been a long-term consequence for all the movements you listed. "Hijacking" for me means the movement became the most extreme version. At least for gay rights and feminism, I disagree that they have. In addition, how would you define the point at which the political agenda became "extremist" / radical? I doubt the drag queens at Stonewall envisioned adoption rights for gay couples as a political objective. Does that mean you consider the gay rights movement as having become more extreme?

But back to the topic of this trespass: like the other posters, I disagree with the protesters.

[KeithMEL]

I'm not sure that hijacking has been a long-term consequence for all the movements you listed. "Hijacking" for me means the movement became the most extreme version.

"Hijacking" for me means the movement has been influenced by political elements with other agendas, to the point where committed activists and supporters of that particular movement start being silenced and alienated as a result. In Australia at least (and the UK by most accounts), there's always been a Marxist or anarchist fringe element in most major political movements which seemingly have little or nothing to do with the actual movement itself. (For instance what started as a peaceful rally at a recent G20 meeting in Melbourne descended into absolute chaos as self-styled anarchists chose to employ similarly disgraceful tactics as the subject of this thread). Some more successfully resisted than others.

OT(ish)...

[jjpb3]

"Hijacking" for me means the movement has been influenced by political elements with other agendas, to the point where committed activists and supporters of that particular movement start being silenced and alienated as a result.

I may just have gotten confused then, but to clarify, which specific (silenced and alienated) segments of the gay and feminist movements were you referring to in your earlier post?

[KeithMEL]

I may just have gotten confused then, but to clarify, which specific (silenced and alienated) segments of the gay and feminist movements were you referring to in your earlier post?

[massively OT]Whilst such movements have won significant reforms throughout the decades, I can't help but notice several distractions in recent times that sections of these movements seem keen to entertain.

Queer-identifying individuals (which encompasses more than just gay/lesbian; what others would term 'LGBTI') do not want to be told that their rights are inherently linked to the formation of a socialist state. On this pretext, the movement has been hijacked by non-queer identifying folks with their own agendas - completely ignoring the necessity of autonomous organising as the key to overcome oppression. The existence of this Marxist element, which has its own agendas at the core of its participation, has proved to be most divisive. At best they've been successfully resisted, at worst they've led to the alienation of moderate activists who are keen to fight for the most basic freedoms for queer-identifying individuals

Another example and this comes from within the queer rights movement - those campaigning for the rights of transgendered/intersexed persons are now having to deal with new forms of distractions and if I could be hyperbolic - oppression which very disappointingly comes from within the movement itself:
- Those arguing for a rejection of the gender binary, or the so-called 'pan-gendered' movement. They push for the concept that there is really no gender and that it's impossible to identify with a gender. This has manifested into campaigns for non-gendered toilets (as distinct from unisex toilets), non-gendered furniture (huh?) etc. An interesting idea, but nonetheless completely disregards the fact that there are still more basic freedoms to be won for transgendered/intersexed persons.

- Other parts of the queer rights movement which sees transgenderism as a product of society's conditioning and ideas about proper behaviours for each gender - oh but there's a solution: Marxism!

As to feminism, having had no first hand experience with the feminist movement I'd just have to defer to the wise words of Christina Sommers who described the difference between 'equity feminism', ie a movement that aims for full civil and legal equality, and 'gender feminism', which is solely focussed on the abolition of gender roles and the hatred of men. The latter of course is unfortunately the version that pop culture likes to play up to and which sticks in people's heads whenever they think about feminism, and many a female friend of mine shun the very idea that they could be involved in the feminist movement as they associate the entire movement with the latter kind of feminism. We have a gender studies lecturer at Melbourne Uni who used to ban men from her lectures and swear at anyone she deems isn't an angry men-hating lesbian - until the university tapped her on the wrist. Woe betide if you're any of the above and taking her subject though.

I'd write more but we're getting way OT and I am running out of internet time...[/massively OT]

[jjpb3]

As I suspected, your definition of hijacking is very different from mine. All I see in your examples are attempts to push a specific agenda under the umbrella label afforded by mainstream society; the alienation of the moderate activists hasn't been massive enough to constitute "hijacking" for me. (I also see your dislike of Marxist activists, whatever other joint agenda they might have. ) My observations, though, are confined to the queer (though I'm most familiar with the gay component) rights and feminist movements.

My apologies, flyboy777, for my contributions to the dilution of your original thread. I'll stop now.

[KeithMEL]

As I suspected, your definition of hijacking is very different from mine.

I think the OT-ness wouldn't have occurred had I used the word 'infiltrated' rather than 'hijacked.' So massive apologies to the OP from me.