Gli attivisti di Just Stop Oil che avevano spruzzato Stonehenge con polvere arancione sono stati rimossi dopo il processo
https://news.sky.com/story/just-stop-oil-activists-who-sprayed-stonehenge-with-orange-powder-cleared-following-trial-13461252
di topotaul
8 commenti
What’s the point following the law? Just cite human rights and you can do anything.
What precedent does this set, is it now okay to spray paint protected monuments? 😏
They’re a bunch of Tarquins, of course they had a better chance of being cleared.
I don’t really see how this result is actually compatible with the law. Cleared of some charges, sure. But they *did* deface Stonehenge.
If they’ve been cleared of doing that despite having openly done that then they’ve set a precedent that no protected monument is actually protected. The only question is if it’s a legal precedent or a defacto precedent where anybody can deface a monument, label it a protest and then expect to be cleared of the charges.
I wonder if maybe, were I on the jury of that particular case, I might be swayed by arguments that 10,000 tonnes of oil is spilled worldwide as the increasingly damaging effects of climate change are unravelling and that oil companies know all this, do very little about it (in the case of climate change- actively try to undermine this) and never face any consequences- and that maybe, the people who protest this might have a point
I always thought JSO was a plant org by big oil to create outrage in the right wing media. This too fits the bill. Damage an iconic building, get let off the hook and do it again. OUTRAGE in Daily Hail, WhAT iS THisCOUntry ComiNG to?
From the Guardian article, especially for those who have strong, uninformed opinions:
*During his summing up, Judge Dugdale said that to find the three guilty, the jury would have had to be satisfied a conviction would be a proportionate interference in their rights to freedom of expression and protest.*
*He said: “If individuals disagree with what our government is doing on certain matters they are entitled to protest.*
*“For any of the defendants to be convicted, you have to be sure not just that they had committed the elements of the offence but you also have to be sure that a conviction … would be a proportionate interference with their human rights to express their opinions and protest against government inaction.”*
I assume they were cleared because the prosecution was unable to prove any damage caused to stonehenge.