Piracy, terrorism or activism?

I think it's clear that the label that gets applied to acts like this depends on how a person feels about this sort of thing.

As a member of the Guardian Angels, I am considered an activist. Since we intentionally demoralize gang members, we could be validly be called terrorists by violent criminals. While not exactly pirates, we are not above taking crack, weapons, syringes, etc. away from people in public WITHOUT THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

Most of the public loves us, especially in our patrol areas. Most habitual criminals HATE us. The city governments usually don't like us. The mayor of Houston in 1981 called us "hemorrhoids in berets". The next mayor was a big fan of us. The Houston Police Department, happily or grudgingly, accepts us. They have recruited 4 of our members, so far. It is routine for us to back them up, or visa versa.

Boarding an oil rig without permission is a criminal act. Its purpose was obviously to make the news. Apply your labels.

 

I did NOT do my research, so I hope my memory is correct. It seems to me that no one was interested in the plight of the whales until GreenPeace brought it to the attention of the media. Call them what you will, I am sure the whales appreciate GreenPeace.

I imagine it's faulty reasoning, but if the Japanese can get away with their 'scientific research' whaling, then maybe GreenPeace needs to get even more active, at least where the whales are concerned.

 

Since the majority of the posters here seem to feel the punishment fits the crime here is an update on one of the Pussy Riot members.

Sentenced for 2 years for hooliganism (which is probably what the GP members will be convicted of.) she went on two hunger strikes over the conditions in the forced labour camp she was in.
As a punishment for this she has been sent to a camp in Siberia.
Unfortunatly that was 19 days ago and she hasn't arrived at the prison yet, her family
are understandably concerned.

So I guess she got what she deserved for singing a naughty song in church.

 

I still find it hard to respect anything done for the purpose of promoting a reality show.

Their reality show is called Whale Wars, come on, could they have hyped the name any more than that.

Click on the yellow text to go to the site.

 

The sentence it's absurd, of course.
It's more comparable to a teenager's naughty joke, rather than hooliganism.

My point was that they had the choice to do something else instead of being offensive with someone else's beliefs.
Whales don't have those rights -or the choice- apparently.

In any case, seems like they're applying Justice by Law, rather than using Law to make justice.
It's not the same.

:bored:

yes, GP is doing it all (from what... 20 years now?) for a reality show. *sigh*

 

Of course I don't think they've been doing their thing all this time for a higher viewer rating, it's just the latest actions that lead me to believe the motivation has changed.

 

Whale Wars is about the actions of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) which is not part of GreenPeace, although the leader of the SSCS was an early GreenPeace member and perhaps one of it's founders (apparently just who GreenPeace founders are is debatable).

I watched a few episodes of Whale Wars and I don't see anything wrong with the SSCS being in an Animal Planet reality show. The times have changed. Media has become more and more influential in everything today.

I have always respected those who live their lives according to their values and beliefs, especially when those values/beliefs are imo of a higher level than those common to most of us. I have never been able to do that. I eat meat, even though I know how the animals are raised and slaughtered, I wear clothing cheaply made even though I am aware of the conditions of the workers who make them, I wear make up knowing what some cosmetic firms do to test them.

If we did away with everyone who tries to change things that are obviously wrong, where would we be?

 

In regards to Pussy Riot, I believe part of their message was that they were protesting the collusion between Vladimir Putin and the Russian Orthdox Church (and there definitely is some of that going on). Given the nature of the message, the setting makes sense. And while they might have offended some people inside the building, I'm not sure that's a jail-worthy offense (at least it is not in America). When I was a kid, I do remember several instances of people getting kicked out of church for causing a scene (a drunk man once decided that he could do the service better than the priest, and started shouting over him). As far as I recall, there was no prison sentence involved. The church certainly has the right to eject people who are being disruptive. If they really want to pursue it, they could probably go for a charge of trespassing or drunk and disorderly or disturbing the peace or something. But blasphemy? Two years in prison?

As for Whale Wars, I'm rather torn on that one. I've seen the show a few times. While I despise what the Japanese are doing in the name of 'scientific research', I hate the crew of the Sea Shepherd about as much. It really should never have come to this. It should be handled between governments, but I suppose the whales do not constitute a very significant voting bloc.

 

No offence meant, just pondering: what is the difference between vigilance and activism?

I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that the city officials curse your name, after all you are doing the work that the tax payers funded police should be doing. And as the public loves you so must the politicians do, or risk alienating the voting public (and no parliamentary leach would do so). No matter, keep up the good work!

Amen.

Which labour camp, and where? Details please, not propaganda.

Buahahaaa! Siperia opettaa = Siberia teaches one… Have you even gazed upon the map of mother Russia? There are no roads or airfields in Siberia, there is only one railway track that leads there, of course transporting a bunch of convicted criminals will take time, weeks, more likely months. It is Russia, not islands size of a postal stamp.

 

Here is a starter pack.
This is from the BBC which I'm sure our Finnish comrade will no doubt think of as a tool of the imperialist English.
But who I think are fairly unbiased as news agencies go.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24938951

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24848893


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24895199

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21496070

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23343788


So there you go I suggest you check out other news agencies like al Jazera as well.

 

Vigilantism can easily be activism.

But, we are not vigilantes. We are not legally able to do more than arrest for a crime that we are witnesses to. The police and the justice system take over from there.

Sort of. The funding of the police department goes up and down at the whim of local politicians. If there is no money for the police to be at a certain place at a certain time, there will be no police there. And where there is a shortage of police for any length of time, crime and violence begins to grow. We operate in those sorts of areas, but we do little more than save a few people during a few hours during a weekly patrol. The one time we have accurate statistics for an area, we reduced violent crime 30%. The few police in those areas love us, or at least make use of us. A properly organized police presence is far more effective.

 

Thank you, that was most enlightening:
The first article you posted makes a big deal about the fact that after 26 days of confusion Tolokonnikova’s whereabouts have been confirmed, she is in some medical facility. What comes to the argument about the “labor camp” the direct quote dictates as much as: “including working long hours”. Well here in the North it is customary that the prisoners do some labor in the prison like work in the kitchen or in the library. I guess things are not so nice in the UK torture centers for the Army members with the white noise, electric shocks and weatherboarding.
Then there is the issue of credible sources, the first and the second article are based on Tolokonnikova’s husband’s sayings or tweets! Wery unbiased and wery reliable indeed.The third one is the best: the mother of one of the captured Britons expresses her worry that her child might go missing like Tolokonnikova has gone according to hearsay. Speculation based on hearsay based on hearsay, ah the level of BBC journalism. The latter two articles are old news; that is Russia: that has been, is and most likely will be normal in Russia

What about the inconsistency with the articles? One said: “they were charged with hooliganism motivated by religious hatred” and the other said: “She is serving a two-year jail term for hooliganism.” I know that being charged about something does not necessarily mean that one is also convicted from that charge, but since we are talking about Russia being convicted as charged in this case is more likely than not. Also being sentenced from “hooliganism motivated by religious hatred” is of course far different thing, in English that is conviction from a HATE crime. I found at least three different sources that confirm Tolokonnikova been sentenced from a hate crime:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...nnikova-moved-to-siberian-colony-8937145.html
http://www.smh.com.au/world/pussy-r...-in-russian-prison-system-20131111-2xb3b.html
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2013/04/20134269380126527.html

btw. Two years from a hate crime is rather mild sentence or what say our American friends?

The low quality of BBC was truly revealed when they wrote that “taiga” means “virgin forest”, well unless “virgin forest” is a synonym with “boreal forest”. If they do not even have their concepts right how can they have their facts right?

BBC is a government owned and funded institution, thus there is no way to call it honestly unbiased. It maybe that, but I find it highly unlikely.

As I did, and found it being on much higher journalistic level that say the BBC.

 

I think any news article you read in an area that you have expertise you will notice mistakes.
Mistranslating taiga is a pretty minor one.

There are always two or more sides to every story so it makes sense to cast your net as widly as you can and have the time for.

In the BBC 's defence they have a mandate to remain neutral and un biased.
They are not funded from general taxation but through a licence which everyone in the UK has to buy if they own a tv.

Which ever party is in power has a row with the BBC because they don't follow a party line.

Obviously they will seem biased to you because of your misty eyed adherence to the use of violence to separate Ni against the wishes of the majority of the people who live there.

Don't feel you have to find loads of examples of BBC base because I'm sure there are many, but maybe not as many as Fox .

 

Some of us find Fox to be the only non gov't run news in America.

I find it very disheartening that modern journalist will accept the restriction of only asking scripted questions.

 

I know what you mean nothing is more infuriating than an interviewer not listening to the answers and sticking to an agenda.

Well perhaps deliberately asking pointless questions to needlessly reduce victims to tears.

I mistrust anything to do with the Murdocks.

Like I said don't rely on just one source for the news we don't know what we aren't being told.