The meaning of peaceful protest

[Lucifer]

On the 30th of August, my ship was entering Long Point Bay on Lake Erie, heading for Nanticoke to unload coal. At about 7:30 am, we received a radio transmission from a Greenpeace ship, who informed us that they were going to peacefully protest the fact that we were carrying coal to be burned at a generating station. At around 8 am, with no warning, a Zodiac pulled alongside us, while we were still underway, someone on board it threw a boarding ladder over our rails, and before we could react, two activists scaled the ladder and chained themselves to our unloading boom.






(Keep in mind how incredibly dangerous this is. If that person was to fall, they would die. No question about it. We were moving at 12 knots (about 14 miles per hour) and 300 feet behind that person is a propeller consisting of three 9 foot high blades! A woman was killed this summer in Montreal because she decided to go for a swim off a yacht when a ship was passing! she was sucked underwater by the propeller wash and drowned.)

Next the people in the Zodiacs painted "No Coal! No Nukes! Clean Energy!" on the side of the ship.



On orders from our head office we reduced speed and went to anchor to await the proper authorities to remove the people from the ship. Once the propeller stopped, a third activist suspended herself from a lifting point above the rudder, in an attempt to prevent us from moving again.





Again, seriously dangerous, not only to her, but also to the ship. If we had dragged anchor (if the anchor started to slip and move along the bottom), the ship would be helpless to prevent ourselves from running aground, and possibly causing an enviromental disaster.

After about 4 hours, the Ontario Police Tactical Terrorist Unit came alongside and removed the activists.






In my opinon, this isn't a 'peaceful protest'. When a ship is illegally boarded while at sea, it is considered piracy. Under the International Maritime Organization's Maritime Security Act (which both Canada and the USA are signatories to), any illegal boarding of a ship raises the vessels security level to MARSEC 3, which is a terrorist act. If we had been in American waters when this happened and we had informed the US Coast Guard of a terrorist act, these two 'activists' would be in a lot more hot water than they are in Canada! Here, they've been charged with two counts of criminal mischief apiece.
Not to mention, the cost of the cleanup of the ship's side ($2000 of marine paint, not to mention the overtime cost of the crew to repaint as quickly as possible); the cost of having a fully loaded ship sitting idly at anchor for 24 hours ($40,000/day): once a ship goes to MARSEC 3, there are specific procedures that must be followed to return to a normal operating level and it takes a while to do; and the emotional cost to the crew. I (and 7 others) were supposed to get off for scheduled vacation that day. Having to wait another day may not seem like a big deal to some, but keep in mind, I had been on that ship for 4.5 months without a dayoff! The rest hadn't been off in 3 months. My watchman had a cracked forearm suffered in a fall two days before and had to wait an extra 24 hours before seeing a doctor!

Now, TFP, is this a peaceful protest?

[Elphaba]

Lucifer, I would only attribute this form of protest as nonviolent which I think is often considered "peaceful." But as you have pointed out, "peaceful" protest can have significant physically "violent" consequences. Decades ago, I supported Green Peace's effort to protect endangered whales by surrounding the whale, and that effort led to meaningful protections that have brought back the whale populations. But this particular action is reckless and radical, and I believe borders on eco-terrorism. This group could have tried to hamper the delivery of coal at the dock, but I think they wanted higher "drama" to insure greater news coverage. I suspect that they got the greater coverage they wanted, but perhaps at the cost of their credibility as a "peaceful" organization.

Whomever dreamed up this operation needs to spend some time in prison to reconsider methods of addressing the clean air issue.

[MSD]

Boarding a ship like that is piracy and the pirates should be shot before they are able to get on board.

And nuclear energy is clean, efficient, and the only current viable way to reduce fossil fuel dependency

[analog]

Pirates. Should have shot 'em. If you're that stupid to board a ship illegally, you need to be shot.

[Baraka_Guru]

I'm not sure if you can call it piracy if they didn't do anything like kidnap, murder, steal, or sabotage (causing a certain amount of damage). I think it depends on territorial laws.

And as far as nuclear energy is concerned... clean & efficient? Did you forget to factor in construction, waste, and disposal costs?

[Elphaba]

Oh goodie...wouldn't that be a great news event.

[albania]

Greenpeace wants us to give up on our fight with mother nature. Wake up people or we'll never win. Maybe they just ran out of things that made sense to protest against. Unless they have some feasible, cost effective (magical )solution to the energy issue it seems sort of asinine to protest.

[Shauk]

i'm all for a more "green" way of living but this is stupid.

I mean yeah it's better than loading the shit with explosives and going "FUCK COAL MOTHER BITCHES!" in sky writing, but still, it's pretty dumb, it doesn't target the people who matter. The people who matter are you and me. We need to make our own decisions about what kind of energy sources we support by voting or being active in politics where it counts. This...this does nothing but make people want to act in opposition to spite such absurdity.

[Frosstbyte]

"Peaceful protest" has taken on a bizarre and particularly twisted meaning. "Peaceful" to these protesters apparently means that they do not threaten to actively harm you in your physical person (i.e. they won't hit you or push you or shoot you) but they're thrilled to and intend to cause whatever manner of emotional or financial discomfort they can by whatever method they can. If you've ever watched a video of the Seattle WTO protests, that fact will become abundantly clear. For some reason, to them, it is "non-violent" and "peaceful" to barricade a street so that a person can't get to work unless they "force" their way through a chain of people who have locked their arms together. The poor person trying to get to work, then, finds himself the "violent" one because he has to move the other people in order to get past them.

Trespassing is ok, nuisance is ok, making things difficult or impossible for other people is ok. They're twisting language to suit their needs and purposes because to do otherwise would make them less sympathetic and more like the people they're so eager to stop.

In this case, they're going particularly to the extreme. They were trying to prevent the cargo from reaching its destination. Though pirates are usually smart enough to take the cargo for themselves, depriving the rightful owner of their cargo by illegally boarding the ship sure sounds like piracy to me. They should be treated no less harshly than any other pirate or terrorist. End of story.

[QuasiMondo]

Makes me want to club a baby seal just to spite them.

*NOTE: QuasiMondo does not condone or approve of the use of clubs or other blunt instruments to bring harm to baby seals, sea lions, and other creatures of the sea, land, air, and outer space, if such animals exist. QuasiMondo cannot be held responsible for individuals who would like to do such things.

[ngdawg]

Like Elphaba, years ago I supported Green Peace, even sending them a portion of a tax refund.
This...is fucking stupid and they aren't very well informed.
Except for brainless stunts like this, Green Peace has no clout, no credibility and very little viable agenda, IMO.
Wonder if I can get my donation back after 16 years?

Edit: This just occured to me. How was their boat powered? Didn't think solar power could get a boat to move....And, looking over their site(they really are out of touch with reality), I noticed they went by submarine to study life underwater...can solar power/wind power work underwater?

[Dilbert1234567]

arg i hate green peace... can't they just get a life...

[Ustwo]

When one of the founders of Greenpeace thinks they have been taken over by wackjobs I think he has a point (no time to find the article).

I miss when they were known for protecting whales.

[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"....

[kutulu]

You need to hire some ninjas to deal with these pirates.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by roachboy

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"....

Who would be better equipped to deal with the problem?

You are endangering a ship and its crew with unqualified peaceful protesters. This by the way was the point of the original post. Even though you are not shooting gun or blowing up bombs, it doesn't mean you are peaceful. Purposely endangering lives in a symbolic gesture for TV coverage may not be as 'bad' as a suicide bomber, but its not 'peaceful'.

[Willravel]

Facts:
1) Piracy is robbery committed at sea. Their intention clearly was not to steal anything, nothing was stolen, therefore it was not piracy. They illegally boarded a vessel in international water.

2) No one was hurt, and the protesters clearly intended no physical harm to any of the workers, therefore it's non-violent.

[Infinite_Loser]

If they would have blown a hole in the hull, then that would be considered a 'non-peaceful' protest. As it stands, all they did was cause you a minor inconvenience. Annoying? Yes. Worthy of the term piracy of terrorist? Absolutely not.

[Glory's Sun]

Originally Posted by willravel

Facts:
1) Piracy is robbery committed at sea. Their intention clearly was not to steal anything, nothing was stolen, therefore it was not piracy. They illegally boarded a vessel in international water.

One could argue that they robbed the company of revenue (to the tune of $40,000 per day) and other expenses.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by guccilvr

One could argue that they robbed the company of revenue (to the tune of $40,000 per day) and other expenses.

I understand what you're saying, but they were not paid the $40,000 per day. Their only benefit was personal satisfaction.

What they did was vandalism.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by willravel

Facts:
1) Piracy is robbery committed at sea. Their intention clearly was not to steal anything, nothing was stolen, therefore it was not piracy. They illegally boarded a vessel in international water.

2) No one was hurt, and the protesters clearly intended no physical harm to any of the workers, therefore it's non-violent.

If I held a gun to your head, never intended to shoot you but wanted to get out the news for my cause would it be 'non-violent' if no one got hurt?

Or less extreme...

If one of the police unit sent to deal with it fell to his death trying to get someone off the rigging would it be 'non-violent'?

They were acting in an unsafe manner, on a ship whos working I doubt they understood well, in a publicity stunt.

And yes they did steal, they didn't 'take' the coal, but they cost the company involved a lot of money. They intended to hurt the operation of the coal plant as well. I'm not a lawyer but I'm sure if there is any point in suing greenpeace they would be liable for damages.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

If I held a gun to your head, never intended to shoot you but wanted to get out the news for my cause would it be 'non-violent' if no one got hurt?

I'd call that apples and oranges. They had no weapons. Their intent was clear: stop the ship and vandalize it. Being a pansy green liberal myself, I can say with reasonable certainty they wouldn't have gotten violent.

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Or less extreme...

If one of the police unit sent to deal with it fell to his death trying to get someone off the rigging would it be 'non-violent'?

If he was pushed, then it would be violent. If he fell because he slipped, he's clumsy and it's natural selection. Unfortunate, but to blame the protesters is like blaming the owner of the refrigerator that started the fire a fireman died in. Circumstance would have been to blame.

Originally Posted by Ustwo

And yes they did steal, they didn't 'take' the coal, but they cost the company involved a lot of money. They intended to hurt the operation of the coal plant as well. I'm not a lawyer but I'm sure if there is any point in suing greenpeace they would be liable for damages.

You don't need to be a lawyer to understand that no theft occurred. The Greenpeace people didn't walk away with that which was lost by the company, so there was no theft. Had Greenpeace taken the coal off the ship, then there would have been a theft, and thus piracy.

[Infinite_Loser]

Originally Posted by guccilvr

One could argue that they robbed the company of revenue (to the tune of $40,000 per day) and other expenses.

You can't 'rob' someone of unearned revenue.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by willravel

I'd call that apples and oranges. They had no weapons. Their intent was clear: stop the ship and vandalize it. Being a pansy green liberal myself, I can say with reasonable certainty they wouldn't have gotten violent.

You didn't answer the question but it can be skipped, its just to get people thinking what 'violent' is.

If he was pushed, then it would be violent. If he fell because he slipped, he's clumsy and it's natural selection. Unfortunate, but to blame the protesters is like blaming the owner of the refrigerator that started the fire a fireman died in. Circumstance would have been to blame.

If you start a malicious fire on purpose and a fireman dies I think you are guilty of manslaughter. I've heard of arsonists charged with murder for that sort of thing before. Likewise you put these men in danger by your own illegal actions. As a direct result they were put in the same danger. Had one died it was your illegal action which resulted in their death. Law and fire officers put their lives in danger every day because of people doing stupid stuff, but to do something stupid on purpose raises it from 'job hazard' to 'willfull endangerment'

You don't need to be a lawyer to understand that no theft occurred. The Greenpeace people didn't walk away with that which was lost by the company, so there was no theft. Had Greenpeace taken the coal off the ship, then there would have been a theft, and thus piracy.

It would be easy to argue that they 'captured' the vessel since it was unable to go about its business due to their illegal actions. As such it would be larceny (they deprived the owner of their property) and I'd call it piracy as well. Just because they didn't go into port to sell their prize doesn't mean the ship wasn't in effect commandeered.

What you see as a peaceful protest I see as the capture of a ship at sea. Do you think the crew had any right to stop them from doing what they did? Say subdue them and put them in a makeshift brig? What about shooting them as they tried to board?

[kutulu]

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

You can't 'rob' someone of unearned revenue.

No, but there are quantifiable losses that the ship's owner took. Greenpeace should be held liable for them.

[Frosstbyte]

It blows my mind that some of you people think that boarding a ship is a legitimate form of protest. Is coming into someone's house or car also legitimate? Why is a ship a different and less protected form of property than one of those?

Their intent was to reduce the value of the ship and its cargo to zero, thereby depriving the owner of his property. Though they wanted it to just disappear instead of taking it for themselves to sell, their intent was to take it from the rightful owner and do with it what they wanted. Think outside the box a little bit. That's all robbery is-taking something from someone else so you can do what you want with it. The endangered a ship and its crew, themselves and the rescue personnel who were required to forcibly remove them from the ship.

Do you think there should be no punishment for that? That it's just "creative free speech"? Your rights end when they interfere with my rights. The company took quantifiable losses as a result of this action. People were put in peril. They trespassed on property and illegally boarded a ship at sea. I think a slap on the wrist is wholly inadequate.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

If you start a malicious fire on purpose and a fireman dies I think you are guilty of manslaughter. I've heard of arsonists charged with murder for that sort of thing before. Likewise you put these men in danger by your own illegal actions. As a direct result they were put in the same danger. Had one died it was your illegal action which resulted in their death. Law and fire officers put their lives in danger every day because of people doing stupid stuff, but to do something stupid on purpose raises it from 'job hazard' to 'willfull endangerment'

They aren't deliberately creating a situation where a rescue vehicle or person will be in danger. They are only putting themselves in danger. That's now a lot of nonviolent protest work. I myself have put myself in front of things that could hurt me in protest. It was not to put in danger those who would stop me, but to help those who are in the process of doing something harmful to allow their humanity (not wanting to kill me) override their want to do what they're doing. It's really quite simple.

If, as an example from the Simpsons, I were to live in a tree expected to be cut down, I would only be putting myself in danger to prevent that tree from being removed. The police are under no obligation to put themselves at risk to stop me, and are free to find alternatives that are less dangerous if they choose to try and get me down.

Originally Posted by Ustwo

It would be easy to argue that they 'captured' the vessel since it was unable to go about its business due to their illegal actions. As such it would be larceny (they deprived the owner of their property) and I'd call it piracy as well. Just because they didn't go into port to sell their prize doesn't mean the ship wasn't in effect commandeered.

It's a very weak argument to say they captured anything. The protesters joined workers on the boat. The only reason the boat didn't move was because the helmsman (correct term?) didn't want to hurt the protesters near the rudder. BTW, looking at the picture, the protester would have been fine assuming the line she was on was strong enough. The ship could have moved easily, therefore there was no capture.

Originally Posted by Ustwo

What you see as a peaceful protest I see as the capture of a ship at sea. Do you think the crew had any right to stop them from doing what they did? Say subdue them and put them in a makeshift brig? What about shooting them as they tried to board?

Shooting them would have clearly been excessive, as they made their intentions clear before even boarding the ship when they radioed them. They radioed in over a half an hour before the initial boarding. I would have just notified the coast guard. I mean how far out can the coast guard be on Lake Erie?

Originally Posted by Frosstbyte

It blows my mind that some of you people think that boarding a ship is a legitimate form of protest.

Where did anyone say that? I must have missed it.

[Frosstbyte]

Your defense of what they did in the first part of post 27 sure makes it sound like you think this is legitimate. What did you intend for it to mean?

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by Frosstbyte

Your defense of what they did in the first part of post 27 sure makes it sound like you think this is legitimate. What did you intend for it to mean?

I'm arguing that what the protesters did wasn't piracy and was non-violent.

What they did was wrong. They should not have boarded the ship, and they should not have committed vandalism. There were better options, and as a protester, I feel like these people give me a bad name. A better way to have done this would to have gotten a permit to protest at the docks where it was headed, on a public street, and had local media covering it. Bring pictures of people who are victimized by the pollution and information in flyers outlining why you're doing what you're doing.

While this swashbuckling bullshit looks impressive, it tends to make more enemies than friends and that defeats the purpose.

Edit: an even better idea (yes, I'm a genius) would be to get in contact with the coal miners union and push them to request training for green energy work, saying that since the market may be moving away from coal soon, they need job security. Maybe get them training to construct solar cells or to work on hydro electric or wind power stations.

[Lucifer]

Originally Posted by willravel

The protesters joined workers on the boat.

The protesters didn't 'join' us on board. They boarded illegally. Illegally! And in an unsafe manner while the ship was underway. We didn't invite them onboard. By that reasoning, it would be perfectly allright for me to come to your office and sit on your desk interferring with your ability to work, as long as I didn't get violent towards you.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by Lucifer

The protesters didn't 'join' us on board. They boarded illegally. Illegally! And in an unsafe manner while the ship was underway. We didn't invite them onboard. By that reasoning, it would be perfectly allright for me to come to your office and sit on your desk interferring with your ability to work, as long as I didn't get violent towards you.

Read post 29, please.

[Frosstbyte]

So given that we both agree it was wrong for them to do that, instead of snarky jpegs, what do you think ought to be done to protesters who illegally board a ship like this? We've expressed our opinion that they ought to be treated like pirates and given our reasons as for why. I think the analogy is perfectly appropriate, though, technically you are right that he did not specifically address your point.

[wheelhomies]

Originally Posted by kutulu

You need to hire some ninjas to deal with these pirates.

lol!

irrelevant comment: they did have balls...

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by Frosstbyte

So given that we both agree it was wrong for them to do that, instead of snarky jpegs, what do you think ought to be done to protesters who illegally board a ship like this? We've expressed our opinion that they ought to be treated like pirates and given our reasons as for why. I think the analogy is perfectly appropriate, though, technically you are right that he did not specifically address your point.

I love snarky jpegs. They help to literally illustrate my points.

Attacking them would be like attacking protesters having a sit in at a restaurant. It would be assault.

Originally Posted by Willravel the Amazing, in post #27

They radioed in over a half an hour before the initial boarding. I would have just notified the coast guard. I mean how far out can the coast guard be on Lake Erie?

Call the police immediately and then cooperate with the police when they get there. Until then, act responsibly. The best way to stop a protester is to meet them with equal force. If they try to board your ship, get between them and getting on. If they move towards sensitive parts of the ship, put yourself between them and that part of the ship. Only take reactive action, and you've already won. It's really that simple.

[Ustwo]

Sorry Will you lost me with 'joined' the workers on the boat.

We will agree to completely disagree.

[ShaniFaye]

I know this has nothing to do with the current conversation at hand, but Im interested in who took the pictures?

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Sorry Will you lost me with 'joined' the workers on the boat.

We will agree to completely disagree.

I don't know why people are getting all worked up over that. The vessel was illegally boarded by protesters. Joined is simply a descriptive term, and I never excused their going on to the boat. Enough with the strawmen already. Jesus.

Originally Posted by ShaniFaye

I know this has nothing to do with the current conversation at hand, but Im interested in who took the pictures?

I was kinda curious about that, too.

[mixedmedia]

I understand that this was a pain in the ass, and perhaps not a particularly effective pain in the ass, but a completely valid pain in the ass within the historical realm of political pain-in-the-assism.

Anyone remember the Boston Tea Party?

[Infinite_Loser]

Originally Posted by kutulu

No, but there are quantifiable losses that the ship's owner took. Greenpeace should be held liable for them.

How's it quantifiable? There's no evidence to say that the company would be $40K richer right now. Said number is simply an estimate and, in most cases, isn't accurate. You can't sue for losses of revenue that you didn't earn, otherwise any protest which resulted in the loss of revenue for a particular business would be liable for a suit. The only thing which they can and should be held liable for is vandalism.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by willravel

I don't know why people are getting all worked up over that. The vessel was illegally boarded by protesters. Joined is simply a descriptive term, and I never excused their going on to the boat. Enough with the strawmen already. Jesus.

Sorry again will, but its not a straw man, I really find none of your arguments compelling. We know you and I have different world views and standards of evidence. To me it was the illegal capture of a ship at sea and green peace should be liable for damages, and had any police or crew been injured or killed as a result of that action, held accountable for that aspect as well.

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

How's it quantifiable? There's no evidence to say that the company would be $40K richer right now. Said number is simply an estimate and, in most cases, isn't accurate. You can't sue for losses of revenue that you didn't earn, otherwise any protest which resulted in the loss of revenue for a particular business would be liable for a suit. The only thing which they can and should be held liable for is vandalism.

The cost of operating a ship per day is not difficult to determine.