roachboy

i dont see the problem.
i dont think it a particularly great action, but i dont see the problem with it.
its a standard type of greenpeace action.
they apparently like zipping around in zodiacs (tm).

anyway

the op is strange.
i cant figure out the point.
is it

(a) to present a view of the action from the side of folk who are positioned as "the man" by it even though they are simply working for a shipping company--which raises the question of whether and how thse who transport goods on a contract basis are complicit in the system of usage that is the object of the protest.

this seems kind of interesting.
why is no-one addressing it?

(b) the fact that the community kinda knows lucifer, in the way that we know anyone via 2-d, makes the responses to the post curious. i cant figure it out: is the logic above "we know lucifer---we empathize with him--- therefore greenpeace sucks?"

if that's not the basis for the various "greenpeace sucks" remarks above, then what is?

i have no iron in this fire, so am curious.


(b.1) given the way in which the op is framed, it is almost an interesting diary entry. in which case, there is no larger political point being raised--it is simply an experience that is being relayed.


(c) that a protest inconviences has no bearing on whether it is peaceful or not, useful or not.
this kind of action is SUPPOSED to inconvenience.
it isnt about stopping the use of coal in general--it is theater.
all direct action is theater.

you could object to it by saying that the action did not take account of the feelings and responsibilities of the ship's crew, and that would be true--but so what?
are you saying that you oppose any such political action?
or that you only oppose this one because you found it inconvenient?

from here the question becomes a version of (a).

variation: when did it come to pass that inconveniencing those affected was meaningful in judging a political action?
if the protest is directed at an element of the normal operation of the status quo, then it follows that there would be some value--if fleeting--in disrupting that status quo.
the problems with this follow from the idea of direct action itself, and not from the inconveniencing of people as a function of direct action.


sure, it would have been better for you, lucifer, to get on with some time off and for your crewmate to get medical treatment faster--but do these factors obviate the political expression of the activists?
or is it that you might support such political expression so long as it doesnt affect you?
i really do not understand what your argument is on this.

ancillary:

that such an action can be interpreted legally as piracy doesnt make it piracy.
this is obvious.

that "security" hysteria is as it is means nothing. that greenpeace could be taken as a "terrorist group" indicates that the law involved is so badly written that it makes no distinction between "terrorist" and peaceful protest. given that, i dont know why you'd invoke it. unless you see yourself as some kind of victim of a "terrorist action"....

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite