Originally Posted by
JamesWales
Sorry, for me, this is another example of a slight absence of logic or reason.
You cannot make any assumptions from someone's opposition to people blocking the M25 in relation to climate change in 2021 to someone else throwing themselves in front of a horse in 1913 about votes for women.
There have been thousands of illegal protests around the world; some may be just, some weren't. Time will tell.
By your logic, no one can call for Mick McCarthy to be sacked, because people used to call for Alex Ferguson to be sacked a year into his tenancy. Or no one can protest a war in 2021 because people also protested going to war against Nazi Germany, and they were wrong to do so. You just can't make assumptions and you can't easily compare two totally different scenarios.
It's different scenarios, so you are presenting a strawman argument.
No one is saying that votes for women wasn't critical and a wholly just movement. The point there is that there were no democratic means to protest. Women literally could not vote. They couldnt enact change by democratic means.
However, climate change activists can vote. They can protest, they can lobby and they can (and do!) enact change, as no doubt they have helped make the UK one of the most rapidly decarboning countries in the world.
You can support the message (or not!) and not support the means. There's dozens of examples of that. I support trans rights for example, but I don't support harassing Labour MPs about it. I support a two-state solution in Palestine/Israel, but I don't support hounding jews. I support insulating British homes, but I don't support people blocking roads they have no right to do.