Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Greenpeace Gets Stuffed

It seems some Greenpeace protestors thought it would be fun to storm the international petroleum exchange in London yesterday, but the oil traders were not amused and beat the crap out of them, sending two to the hospital. Would this have happened 20 years ago?

Reminds me of the moment in 1970 when a bunch of long-haired construction workers opened up a can of whup-ass on some anti-war protestors who burned the flag in New York city. The point to be grasped then was that while the Vietnam War was unpopular, the anti-war movement was even more unpopular. Today, while most people are "pro-environment" in the ordinary sense, much of the environmental movement has lost its moral authority and is no longer popular. I’m sure most readers in London are saying today, "Those silly blokes got what they deserved."

Discussions - 17 Comments

The Greenpunk site claims they were successful in halting trading, and segues over getting their asses kicked.


The times, they are a-changin’. Good news.

Not if it’s changing in a way that we encourage violence to meet protests . . . come on . . . burning the flag deserves a beating? Give me a break.

Don’t forget, Matt, here at NLT, we’re in the land of Might Makes Right.

Protest by holding up signs and saying a repititous, typically meaningless, drivelish slogan or two. Interupting business and burning flags is offensive to me, and apparently others. So chant away...but be careful what you do.

Steve actually I believe that most readers in London are saying "Sod off Swampy." With a knowing smile on their face.


Most of the hard left believes it has the right to say and do anything, at any place, to anyone, at any time. They do not. If you don’t understand this, you don’t understand the nature of society or the nature of the hard left.

These geeks weren’t punished for what they said, but for how, when, and where they said it, and for extremely disruptive behavior. They initiated the violence, and sensible people responded -- and ended it.


Oops ... speaking to Mr. Mingus there.
I assume most other readers already understand my point.

Mr. Frisk,



I understand what you mean.



StS,



Well, they’re getting your attention (which is what they want to do). Since when did being offense constitute a beating?

Come on Matt, they weren’t being passive. They tried to storm into the building and distrupt business. The article states that:


They made their way to the trading floor, blowing whistles and sounding fog horns, encountering little resistance from security guards. Rape alarms were tied to helium balloons to float to the ceiling and create noise out of reach. The IPE conducts “open outcry” trading where deals are shouted across the pit. By making so much noise, the protesters hoped to paralyse trading.

If you break into private property and try to interupt lawful activity, be prepared for the worst.

They should have called in Gen. Mattis to have some of his "fun", then the tree-hugging scum would’ve gone to the morgue, not the hospital!!!! Hahahahaha!!!!

pchuck,



Sorry, I thought they were in America, where the worst would be jail-time, not a good flogging.



Mr. Sandpaper,



Yeah, killing people is really, really funny. Especially when it’s killing American’s who disagree with you . . . right?

Matt,

Which event are you talking about? The Greenpeace protesters were in London. If you’re talking about the OTHER event, which Hayward apparently found so amusing, when construction workers "opened up a can of whup-ass" on some protesters who had threatened them by burning a symbolic cloth, do you think they really deserved jail for that??

To me, the most distressing aspect of Hayward’s take is that it cheers on a "violence is the answer" remedy in situations where simply arresting people for trespassing (Greenpeace incident) or separating two groups w/ conflicting views (hardhats vs. war protesters) who are both entitled to their opnion. Interestingly, Hayward applauds scenes where restraint and law & order break down and are replaced with entirely avoidable brawls. In these cases he approves of the loutish, thuggish behavior since it was his opponents who were beaten up.

M.E.S,



You’re right. I don’t think people who burn the American flag deserve jail-time (or a flogging for that matter). I meant protesters threatening other people should be arrested and moved. I don’t know why I was addressing "pchuck". Heh. Sorry ’bout that. I was talking broadly, not just about the one incident.

Yeah, those zany protesters really had it coming. Why in the world should anyone fret about something as silly as global warming, anyway??

My fear amid all this arguing is that some have lost sight of the true issue: Protesters went about it all wrong. In an age where leftist protest is equated to a gnat at your picnic, the last thing the environment needs is a bunch of bum-rushing noise makers. I think we can all agree that the new political climate creates a better market for CONVERSATON between opposing views, not all-out idiotic protest. What Greenpeace does is their business, but I can’t say as a trained Environmentalist that their plan will do anything more than create more opposition. Angry activists are now in a post-911 world, where dissention can be often seen as terrorism, or at minimum anti-Americanism. Why would one think that destruction or such civil disobedience would be productive?

And you think Greenpeace has it all wrong, go to TexUSA.com to see what kind of messed up people can be anti-everything, including the environment!

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/5967