Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Climate activists on trial for blocking an oil train may be about to set a controversial legal precedent. According to Mother Jones, for the first time in American legal history, activists will be allowed to present their concerns about climate change as a legal defence for their allegedly criminal actions;
Activists on Trial for Blocking Oil Train Will Argue It Was Justified by Climate Change
n September 2014, five climate activists with Rising Tide Seattle managed to halt the passage of a crude oil train at the BNSF Delta rail yard in Everett, Wash. After eight hours blocking the tracks, the five were arrested and charged with criminal trespass and blocking a train. Today, they go on trial.
In court, the activists—known as the Delta 5—will argue their act of civil disobedience was necessary. A spokesperson for Rising Tide said the activists “will be the first ever to argue that their actions were justified because of the threat of climate change, using the ‘necessity defense.’ The outcome of [the] trial could set national precedent for climate related civil disobedience and is being carefully watched.” The defendants will call on a rail safety expert and a climate scientist to argue that their actions were justified.
…
“There came a point where I could no longer sit back and wait for the politicians to act,” said Delta 5 member Patrick Mazza. “I had to put my body on the line to demand not talk, but action on a massive scale to rapidly replace fossil fuels.”
Read more: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/01/oil-train-activists-trial-climate-change
I’m sympathetic to concerns about shipping oil by rail. In my opinion, building an oil pipeline, like the pipeline President Obama recently vetoed, is a much safer way to transport flammable hydrocarbons, than transporting oil by train.
But how could climate concern possibly be a plausible defence for criminal acts?
The law recognises that extraordinary actions, which would normally be illegal, are sometimes justified in extreme circumstances, such as an immediate threat to someone’s life.
However, Climate Change in no sense qualifies as an immediate threat to someone’s life. Climate change does not have the same desperate imminence, as extraordinary circumstances which are currently recognised by the law, such as responding to a home invasion or a violent assault. Even if climate change ultimately threatened the survival of humanity, it is advancing at a literally glacial pace.
Activists should recognise that there is time for them to change climate policy by legal means, through political campaigns, to try to persuade voters to support the climate cause at the ballot box. Committing crimes won’t persuade people, except for the handful who already think climate change is a major threat. The fact voters aren’t listening is not a justification for breaking the law. If activists want people to listen, they could start by presenting a compelling case for action – something they have so far failed to provide.
Having said this, there is precedent, a possibility the protestors might win their court case. In 2008, protestors in England were found not guilty of criminal damage, after presenting a climate defence.
UPDATE – It looks like the “necessity defence” has just been rejected by the court. http://qz.com/594560/a-judge-just-dealt-a-bitter-setback-to-us-climate-change-protesters/
Them their butts to jail. Minimum 10 years.
it could backfire
now they have to prove the connection between fossil fuels and climate change in court
worst case nightmare scenario for climate science
” it could backfire
now they have to prove the connection between fossil fuels and climate change in court
worst case nightmare scenario for climate science..”
I like that idea.. make them justify the motive…
I would suggest self immolation as a better way to attract attention..like the Buddhist monk (1960s Vietnam) or the Tunisian fruit vendor ( spark of the Arab Spring).. of course they would have to use bio fuel not fossil fuel..sic.
Jamal Munshi January 14, 2016 at 6:49 am
“it could backfire”
Yes if the District attorney wants their scalp.
First. in a “save the earth” defense you have the obvious, the earth is still here. So no need for criminal activity.
Second, fourteen months after their actions you had Paris COP21. which was planned at the time ‘Delta 5’ acted. So to make the save the earth defense work they have to discredit COP21 and show President Obama as ineffectual. Can’t have it both ways, Ether the proper authorities are capable of dealing with the problems if there are any, or not.
If the immediate threat did not exist then the defense fails.
This could get interesting.
michael
And then there will be train stoppages or derailments to block the GMO corn shipments and the non organic foods and those savage meat haulers.
The counter-argument would follow that a person might feel so “threatened” by the protesters that extreme action was necessary.
This is a classic case where a judge should not allow a jury to determine anything but the question of law, were they trespassing? If they are not guilty then it has to be by reason of mental defect, (they did not no that what they were doing was a violation of the law).
The question here is not if the protesters are guilty or not, the facts are pretty clear in this case. The question is: Do they get a judge who’s incompetent or somewhat corrupt, and subsequently loses control of the jury?
These eco-terrorists didn’t think clearly. Stopping one train for a few hours accomplishes nothing except to annoy the railroad and oil company. Burning down one or more oil refineries would actually reduce oil product consumption, at least for a while. Their goal was therefore not to reduce “climate change” but to gain attention for their cause. Should it be legal to commit a crime to gain attention? God help us if that comes to pass.
I agree with Mike and you both.
This sounds like the correct answer for an honest judicial system.
It could be argued that as cult members, their mental capacity has been diminished and they no longer have the judgement to determine what is right or wrong in the eyes of the law.
let me add…”and should therefore be removed from society.”
Rather than try and stop train shipments, a more effective way to stop energy use would be to adopt terrorist tactics and go around sabotaging power plants , power lines and gas stations, leaving EVERYONE stuck in the dark ages.
Don’t give them any ideas.
Hopefully the rail company also goes after these clowns with a civil lawsuit.
Hard to get a payout from these types of losers with nothing to their name.
If you could prove a conspiracy, you might be able to go after any organization that supported them.
Meanwhile, at the fantasy world of The Guardian:
“Climate change disaster is biggest threat to global economy in 2016, say experts”.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/14/climate-change-disaster-is-biggest-threat-to-global-economy-in-2016-say-experts?CMP=twt_gu
Paul Homewood covers this story here at “Not a lot of people know that”:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/01/14/climate-change-disaster-is-biggest-threat-to-global-economy-in-2016-say-experts/#more-19785
The only possible explanation is that the Guardian, and they economists it is writing about, are from another planet. One cannot blame everything on climate change on a planet were the climate is not noticeably changing, unless, of course, it isn’t about climate change at all!
In the old west, the penalty for stealing a mans horse was often quite severe, because the horse was vital to a man’s survival and livelihood. Since then, the horse has been largely replaced by fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are now vital to our survival and livelihood, perhaps even more than horses used to be.
Here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia page on horse thieves, concerning the 19th Century Western US: “Since these farmers and migrants depended on their horses, horse thieves garnered a particularly pernicious reputation because they left their victims helpless or greatly handicapped by the loss of their horses. The victims needed their horses for transportation and farming. Such depredation led to the use of the term horse thief as an insult, one that conveys the impression of the insulted person as one lacking any shred of moral decency.”
Since fossil fuels are equivalent to the 19th Century horse, any attempt to deprive people of fossil fuels should be viewed as particularly despicable. The Despicable 5 should not only be tried for their crimes, but publicly recognized as ‘lacking any shred of moral decency’!
http://risingtideseattle.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/xEverettBlockade.png.pagespeed.ic.yhPsHja4Tc.jpg
The “strong team on a nearby bridge” has 4 (four) members. Hilarious.
At least they have seen Monty Python And The Holy Grail.
I notice the sub line in the sign “not conductors”. Now look at those guys sitting in chairs under the sign. Do they not look like they may have been conductors? Is this really a union issue about losing conductor jobs shrouded in the “climate change” theme to garner sympathetic support??
Necessity should force replacement of oil trains with oil pipelines (less energy needed to move the oil), and more natural gas pipelines. As well as more nuclear power.
Release the experts!
Some folks have worried that the prosecutors will ‘throw’ the case.
There are two methods by which other parties may give evidence in a case; intervenor and friend of the court. These are allowed when the outcome of a case might affect third parties. It gives them the possibility to protect themselves.
The defendants in this case will plead necessity. That means they had to break the law in order to prevent a greater harm. I would say that the precedents aren’t on their side; here’s an example:
I followed Groklaw for years and learned one thing. Lawyers are often surprised by the outcome of court cases. That said, I don’t think the necessity defense will work in this case. IANAL YMMV
It hasn’t, so far I believe.
http://qz.com/594560/a-judge-just-dealt-a-bitter-setback-to-us-climate-change-protesters/
The judge told the jury to ignore the necessity defense. That’s good but it doesn’t mean the jury will follow that instruction.
If these activists are given a free reign, there is no telling what damage they will do. They’ve already forgiven themselves for things they haven’t even done yet. I live in Oregon, and the rank and file street greenies are an incredibly arrogant, self-righteous, sanctimonious bunch who can do no wrong, AND who are catered to by the powers that be within the state – particularly Portland. This court case is a recipe for disaster – REAL disaster, not computer model speculations. Activists being given justification and absolution by the courts would unleash anarchy at their whim.
Like I’ve said since the nineties, the biggest threat of climate change is the activists. And I think things are going to get a lot worse before they get better… IF they get better.
“Free rein” is the proper expression (saith the old horseman).
I learn something new every day here. I actually looked this up and this was what I found:
‘The usual spelling of the phrase meaning freedom to do as one pleases is free rein, not free reign. The latter is a common misspelling, and it almost makes sense given reign‘s meaning (i.e., the exercise of sovereign power). But free rein, an allusion to horseback riding, is the original form, and it is much more common in published texts.’
And the ‘exercise of sovereign power’ was actually how I always interpreted the phrase, and in this context, actually fits better.
Nevertheless, your correction is duly noted.
Yes your honor, I set fire to the houses to ward off evil spirits which is my protected right of religious expression. And as you can plainly see – IT WORKED!
Given the defense they plan to mount, the next time a railroad has to deal with such stupidity, I recommend they get some muscle there, drag the activists over to a stand of trees, and chain them in place. That way, the railroad can claim that they, too, were saving the planet by saving those particular trees. How on Gaia could the activists complain? Either all get convicted, or none do.
This legal action will be in:
Snohomish County South District Court
Just north of Seattle, Washington
What could go wrong?
Do you have a point?
Maybe he is indicating pipelines are a better idea?
That will be it, Duster, a pipeline is a much better idea. If only someone had thought of it… Oh, wait.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/100best/images/storyD_main.jpg
After the first Gulf War….As MarkW says, do you have a point
If I were the Judge, I would ask the question “How did you get to the rail yard?” When the five answered via a hydrocarbon powered vehicle, I would throw them out. To further his case the judge could determine the extent of their hydrocarbon dependence.
This is a highly dangerous precedent on the part of the courts to even allow this type of argument. This has the potential for eco/green groups, completely of their own ideology, to bring the US industrial/resource sector to a complete halt – because of climate change concerns. Even road transportation could be targeted on account of climate change, oil transportation, food shipments targeted, ship traffic disrupted – this is pure madness on the part of the court. Then again in Obama’s America there is 50/50 chance the green will indeed win their case and if so the insanity that could occur is beyond imagination.
This constitutes domestic terrorism, and their actions must not be allowed to stand. They deserve both jail time, and hefty fines.
Agreed! This is what they should be charged with. Domestic terrorism. That’s a charge that should be flung at those heading Greenpeace and other such activist groups, not just their foot soldiers. They are, after all, organizations hell-bent on disruption and destruction, without ever applying research or scientific thought to check if their hateful notions are sound.
Their beliefs make them a cult. Their actions make them criminal. Their demands are anti-human. Even their treatment of their own people, those on the bottom rung, those collecting money for them door-to-door or in shopping malls, is shockingly poor. These groups have no respect for anything or anybody, they just want to tear down civilization. It’s deliberate. They are gleeful at the very thought. They’re not even bothering to hide it anymore.
Let’s see them try to get out of paying taxes with the defense based on protest against tax revenue being used by evil oil companies with subsidies. Insanity has its limits.
Will the jury be able to distinguish between a climate science defense and the insanity defense? The defense team may not care.
Remember, this is Washington state. The jury may be high.
LOL But this could also involve the judge and as far as the 8 hour delay? Maybe they all had to sober up before making decisions?
Remember the airlines’ time-worn edict for pilots: “Eight hours, bottle to throttle.”
In Australia, a guy
– forged bank letterhead
– got a phone number which he answered claiming to be a bank officer
– lodged a fake Stockmarket announcement that purported to withdraw funding from a coal mine, causing the manipulation of the stock
He naturally became a hero of the meeja, and the Greens party outright supported his criminal action.
One might assume forgery, impersonation and stockmarket offences might draw several years in prison.
Look it up to see what the actual deal agreed by the prosecutor was.
In “the good old days” our heros (Gandhi, MLK, Mandela) used the tool of Civil Disobedience to show that their convictions outweighed and personal discomfort. All expected, and were “rewarded” with jail time for their actions. As a result, their sacrifice brought converts over to their side.
Today’s liberal loons are so pampered they expect that the “righteousness” of their cause should exonerate them from any punishment at all. (e.g. the whole “occupy” movement which was resurrected from 1960s campus radicals).
A far cry for the moral courage of Buddhist monks who would die for their cause.