Is a protest more important than attending an appointment to treat aggressive cancer? Is any cause, even with a reasonable justification, worth risking a life? Who gets to decide what is more worthy? Following the recent Rex v Hallam case, these are the questions that ought to be raised.
Just last week, a ‘Just Stop Oil’ campaign involving major disruptions to the M25 (November 2022), saw five activists sentenced to imprisonment. Amongst these activists, was the leader of the movement, Roger Hallam, who will face a five-year sentence, the longest ever issued for a non-violent offence.
The average sentence for a robbery is four years. The maximum sentence for common assault is six months. Those guilty of drug crime often receive 3.3 years. Yet here stands five campaigners sentenced to at least four years in prison, all due to their fight for a more sustainable future. It is worth noting that the ‘Whole Truth 5’ have all been convicted of similar offences and they will likely be released before serving their full term. However, particularly in regard to the earlier statistics listed, the issuing of a five-year sentence feels disproportionate to the offence committed.
Throughout the court case, the evidence marked against the protestors was bountiful. Consequently, with the protest spanning over four days, there was 121 hours and 45 minutes of road impact time, alongside an economic cost of £769,966, and over £1 million to cover the involvement from the Metropolitan Police. In defence of ‘Just Stop Oil’ however, this damage seems meagre in comparison to the USD$38 trillion of damage forecasted by the mid-century to be the yearly cost of climate change, almost 13 times the amount of the UK’s current GDP.
The case continues to list several personal stories to further convey the extent of damage caused by the protest. The judge referred to: ‘people who missed flights’, ‘people who missed funerals’ and ‘an HGV driver unable to deliver £5,000 worth of food to a hospital’ amongst other examples. However, the Just Stop Oil campaigners may point to the predicted number of climate refugees, or the increase in food insecurity, to appease the comparatively short-term impact of their actions. Nevertheless, the judge’s inclusion of these stories is impactful when analysing the determination of his sentence. In referring to these examples, we see the real people affected by the actions of a minute few, who took it upon themselves to decide whose freedoms were worth violating.
The judge expands on this in his sentencing remarks, convicting Hallam as a ‘campaigner’ turned ‘fanatic’. Appointing themselves as the ‘sole arbiters of what should be done about climate change, bound neither by the principles of democracy nor the rule of law’, the Just Stop Oil campaigners have appeared to use the just cause for a healthier planet, exempting themselves from the legal and democratic systems. Their actions have demonstrated their belief in their right to sacrifice others’ freedoms for future freedoms. Whilst the concern for such future freedoms are valid, it is the arrogance of the ‘Whole Truth 5’ to position themselves above the law, and above democracy which has tarnished the integrity of protesting for a cause which should be unanimously supported. Has the heedless ‘fanaticism’ that has come to be associated with ‘Just Stop Oil’ lost them crucial brownie points in the moral world of protesting?
Just Stop Oil has never shied away from their reckless intent of saving the planet. Indeed, on their website they state that ‘This is how civil resistance works: applying nonviolent pressure until we force change to happen’, falsely implicating civil resistance with forced change. They cite examples of ‘how the Freedom Riders forced an end to segregated buses in 1961’ and ‘how disabled people won accessible transport in the nineties’ to support their form of protesting. What the campaign appears to ignore, however, is that their best chance at change is not by blackmailing the government into accepting undemocratically supported change spearheaded by a small few; their best chance at change is by working with the legal system, not against it.
Ultimately, the state is the only system which can curtail your freedom, and only once they prove beyond reasonable doubt that offence has been caused. For Just Stop Oil to restrict people’s freedoms in the same way that the democratic state does not only disregards, but fundamentally undermines the legitimacy of our legal system.
This is not to say that climate change should not be taken seriously, but that legal and politically effective means should be enacted when campaigning for any issue. The concerns about the efficacy of our political system’s capacity to address the issue of climate change are indeed valid. However, this ought to be improved by working with our political system, without causing disproportionate disrespect to society. Just as Just Stop Oil invokes their rights to freedom of protesting without interference, individuals should also be able to carry out the freedoms they are entitled to, whether that be attending school, a funeral or a cancer appointment.
So, is the sentence disproportionate? On balance, no. A precedent ought to be set to prevent the notion that any action, however reckless, can be taken in the name of climate change. No one person can appoint themselves above the law simply for pursuing a worthy cause. Ultimately, the sentence is an important deterrent to ensure that civil disobedience does not equate to civil disorder.
Image: Just Stop Oil
Comments