Greenpeace tenders attacked by reckless police

[Captain Bill]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

I believe you're incorrect on this. US Constitution applies to the states through 14th Amendment (enacted in 1868):

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

By denying Rosa Parks her lawful and constitutional right to use public transportation in the same way any white person had a right to use it the state was in violation of Art 14. As simple as that.

Basically stated - any of the subsequent Civil Rights legislation is redundant and was passed to molify certain constituencies and to get more votes for those politicians voting "yes" on it.

Now we can certainly have a discussion as to why some states still as late as 1950s refused to abide by the US Constitution but that would be a whole other matter.

Up until the 1954 Supreme court decision Brown vs Board of Education and Parks own 1956 supreme court ruling in her own case the Supreme court had considered segregation in public accommodation perfectly legal and this started with Plessy vs Ferguson in 1896 when they ruled that segregation was not a violation of the 14th amendment. By the way an amendment is not an article. Since the supreme court had ruled previously that segregation was not a violation of the 14th amendment it was not as "simple as that" and under the law in place at the time she chose to sit in the "white seat" she did not have a legal right to do so. I applaud her and am thankful she chose to do what she did. It was a brave thing she did in that day and time and could have easily cost her her life. Civil disobedience can be a wonderful tool for advancing causes, but one must be willing to gamble on the outcome and loose.

[StuM]

> Civil disobedience can be a wonderful tool for advancing causes

The key word being "civil". There is nothing civil about GP's actions.

And it's not just "disobedience" either, it's planned acts of aggression.

[Rustic Charm]

Those few that are trying to suggest that it's hypocritical for 'protesters' like Greenpeace to being using ships, are I think trying to paint Greenpeace as 'anti oil'. And of course if they are 'anti oil', then you would have a point. But Greenpeace is not anti oil. They recognise that oil reserves are unsustainable and that oil as with coal generation is such a huge contribute to the problem of climate change. So did the US President when recently speaking in Queensland, Australia.

Greenpeace is opposed to drilling in pristine and highly regarded areas where both the environment and the economy in the area can be significantly affected. Is anyone on here truly of the belief that the big BP giants should have the ability to stick oil wells anywhere? The Great Barrier Reef? Antarctica? I know one would but it would be a very much minority I suggest that would believe in that.

The ridiculous argument that if your opposed to putting an oil rig in The Great Barrier Reef Marine Reserve, therefore you are a hypocrite for using modern conveyances is just plain illogical and childish. It's no different than being opposed to animal cruelty = vegan; anti nuclear power, or anti nuclear missiles = opposed to nuclear medicine. There is no logic to this sort of thinking.

The correct actions of the Navy, if any law had been broken, in this matter would have been to have arrested the protesters, confiscate their vessels, if in deed they were breaking the law. I don't think it's clear whether they were breaking the law, but if they were then that's what should have occured. The deliberate ramming of vessels in such aggressive manner was dangerous and reckless. It put the lives of not only the protesters at significant risk but the Navy personel on the tenders.

There are those of you who will maintain Greenpeace lies, and yet I've not seen this referenced? Yet clearly Navy has lied with their explanations.

StuM has posted there not 'civil', and they are planned acts of aggression but can't name the aggression. The only aggression I seen was from the Navy.

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by Captain Bill

Up until the 1954 Supreme court decision Brown vs Board of Education and Parks own 1956 supreme court ruling in her own case the Supreme court had considered segregation in public accommodation perfectly legal and this started with Plessy vs Ferguson in 1896 when they ruled that segregation was not a violation of the 14th amendment. By the way an amendment is not an article. Since the supreme court had ruled previously that segregation was not a violation of the 14th amendment it was not as "simple as that" and under the law in place at the time she chose to sit in the "white seat" she did not have a legal right to do so. I applaud her and am thankful she chose to do what she did. It was a brave thing she did in that day and time and could have easily cost her her life. Civil disobedience can be a wonderful tool for advancing causes, but one must be willing to gamble on the outcome and loose.

I'm aware of that case law. But again the Civil rights act of 1964 did not add anything which was not on the books by 1964. Also, and that's the pink elephant in the room, the SCOTUS was Constitutionally correct in Plessy v Ferguson but there was no effective mechanism as per Art. 14 at the time to make the states provide EQUAL accomodations. But that again is another story for which we here are not equipped to discuss. Had Rosa Park and other blacks been provided with their own bus which went around on the same schedule as the "whites' bus" I'm sure the outcome of that discussion would have been different (and that's what all the affirmative action programs are trying to achieve now - the minorities' own bus or a guaranteed seat at the front of the cabin instead of an equal and unobstructed access to the bus in general). After all for all intents and purposes separate does not automatically mean not equal. And vice versa.

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

Those few that are trying to suggest that it's hypocritical for 'protesters' like Greenpeace to being using ships, are I think trying to paint Greenpeace as 'anti oil'. And of course if they are 'anti oil', then you would have a point. But Greenpeace is not anti oil. They recognise that oil reserves are unsustainable and that oil as with coal generation is such a huge contribute to the problem of climate change. So did the US President when recently speaking in Queensland, Australia.

Greenpeace is opposed to drilling in pristine and highly regarded areas where both the environment and the economy in the area can be significantly affected. Is anyone on here truly of the belief that the big BP giants should have the ability to stick oil wells anywhere? The Great Barrier Reef? Antarctica? I know one would but it would be a very much minority I suggest that would believe in that.

The ridiculous argument that if your opposed to putting an oil rig in The Great Barrier Reef Marine Reserve, therefore you are a hypocrite for using modern conveyances is just plain illogical and childish. It's no different than being opposed to animal cruelty = vegan; anti nuclear power, or anti nuclear missiles = opposed to nuclear medicine. There is no logic to this sort of thinking.

The correct actions of the Navy, if any law had been broken, in this matter would have been to have arrested the protesters, confiscate their vessels, if in deed they were breaking the law. I don't think it's clear whether they were breaking the law, but if they were then that's what should have occured. The deliberate ramming of vessels in such aggressive manner was dangerous and reckless. It put the lives of not only the protesters at significant risk but the Navy personel on the tenders.

There are those of you who will maintain Greenpeace lies, and yet I've not seen this referenced? Yet clearly Navy has lied with their explanations.

StuM has posted there not 'civil', and they are planned acts of aggression but can't name the aggression. The only aggression I seen was from the Navy.

You are being very disingenuous on the issue. Please tell us which areas now used for oil drilling was not "pristine" before such oil drilling took place? Or for that matter which areas were not "pristine" before humans decided to use same for habitation?

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

StuM has posted there not 'civil', and they are planned acts of aggression but can't name the aggression. The only aggression I seen was from the Navy.

Do you really think that the guys with crash helmets and backpacks on the boat up against the side of the drill ship were NOT intending to do exactly what they did from the same ship to the Russians in the Arctic?

Boarding a vessel is aggression.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

You are being very disingenuous on the issue. Please tell us which areas now used for oil drilling was not "pristine" before such oil drilling took place? Or for that matter which areas were not "pristine" before humans decided to use same for habitation?

'Disingenuous'? your calling me insincere? Based on what have I said that you would say this?

I don't understand your 'pristine' point your making?

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by StuM

Do you really think that the guys with crash helmets and backpacks on the boat up against the side of the drill ship were NOT intending to do exactly what they did from the same ship to the Russians in the Arctic?

Boarding a vessel is aggression.

I don't know what their intentions were yet Stu and neither do you. I don't know what was in their back packs and I know they wear crash helmets when ever they are on their tenders. It's part of their safety kit. Police do it to and so do the navy.

Greenpeace claimed prior to the incident that they were merely intending on carrying out a peaceful protest. Until the navy attacked them, it was peaceful. There was no attempt to board.

If they were planning on boarding, I'd support their being arrested. Without doubt. I actually thought the Russian's were justified in arresting them in the Arctic and Greenpeace people knew they would be arrested. They simply were not counting on the silly 'attempted murder and piracy charges' that initially eventuated.

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

'Disingenuous'? your calling me insincere? Based on what have I said that you would say this?

I don't understand your 'pristine' point your making?

I'm sure you do but are not willing to face the truth. Which is that all of us here by buying and maintaining FRP boats are contributing in a major way to all the environmental problems GP is harping about. And knowing that to pontificate here about GP and their mission is the ultimate height of hypocrisy. I would not take seriously any ardent GP supporter who sails an FRP boat with an engine. Period.

I'm outta here. This is getting silly.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

I'm sure you do but are not willing to face the truth. Which is that all of us here by buying and maintaining FRP boats are contributing in a major way to all the environmental problems GP is harping about. And knowing that to pontificate here about GP and their mission is the ultimate height of hypocrisy. I would not take seriously any ardent GP supporter who sails an FRP boat with an engine. Period.

I'm outta here. This is getting silly.

Well, I think your more 'radical' than the members of GP with that view.

I do not accept that me owning a boat with an engine is a 'major' contributer to the problem. It's a logic that just escapes me that you can believe this.

[Captain Bill]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

I'm aware of that case law. But again the Civil rights act of 1964 did not add anything which was not on the books by 1964. Also, and that's the pink elephant in the room, the SCOTUS was Constitutionally correct in Plessy v Ferguson but there was no effective mechanism as per Art. 14 at the time to make the states provide EQUAL accomodations. But that again is another story for which we here are not equipped to discuss. Had Rosa Park and other blacks been provided with their own bus which went around on the same schedule as the "whites' bus" I'm sure the outcome of that discussion would have been different (and that's what all the affirmative action programs are trying to achieve now - the minorities' own bus or a guaranteed seat at the front of the cabin instead of an equal and unobstructed access to the bus in general). After all for all intents and purposes separate does not automatically mean not equal. And vice versa.

I think your wrong about the effect of the Civil rights act. There were numerous supreme court rulings by that time with regards to government provided accommodations such as city bus systems, schools etc., but most "public" accommodations are actually privately owned, and up to that time it was up to the individual proprietor whether to discriminate or not. This applied to employment as well. I think that it was probably as important to people of color that non-discrimination laws be applied to privately owned accommodations and employment as well.

This is starting to drift severely at this point so this will be my last post on this drift.

[Coops]

That will be everybody's last post I am afraid. As usual with these threads it has run it's course with the same arguments again and again. We have decided that it is time to finish it. Time to give this subject a rest for a while.

Thank you.

Coops.