And more comments…

Over on Letters From A Tory (LFAT), there’s a great letter on ‘Spot the terrorist’ and the fruity extensions our Labour masters are making to definitions of extremism. This time, however, they’ve chosen to classify the politically driven, faith-fuelled antics of environmentalists as potentially violent extremists, alongside animal rights nutters, dissident Irish republicans and Al Qaeda. Notes that there may be some overlap among the environmentalists and the animal rights terrorists are, I’m quite, quite, legally disclaimingly positive to be mere rumour and/or coincidence.

Anyway, my three comments thus far:

Since a court has ruled that belief in AGW can constitute a ‘faith’ and thus attract religious protection, should it therefore be a surprise that the most zealous converts want to use force to impose their views on the rest of us?

Seriously, from a security point of view, ANY unauthorised persons on a runway should be shot dead and their bodies removed by bomb disposal robots.

and:

The difference in the *quality* of the case is obviously immaterial to the climate fundamentalist True Believers. It was a demonstrable and incontrovertible FACT that women were rendered 2nd class subjects by being denied the vote. It is an extremely controversial THEORY that says a few bald monkeys burning some fuel has and is driving the entirety of our changing climate.

and:

@Gubulgaria – That does rather ignore the violence directed against policemen and conveniently redefines physical force (as in ‘they forced their way past police into buildings’ or ‘they broke in and applied force to’ objects they disapproved of – Kingsnorth) as non-violence. To imply that violence can only be committed against a person is to betray the neo-luddism that drives a lot of Green ideology.

EDIT: UPDATES:

I am saying that we legislate specifically against UNSANCTIONED acts of violence. Demo workers and the rest have legal authority to do their jobs. Politically motivated Greens breaking into premises or assaulting people/destroying objects do not.

That’s called the ‘rule of law’ but, I’m sure, like most theocrats, you only recognise a law that accords with your divinely revealed scripture.

and

“violence may have been committed against the police, who are regarded as persons under the law, but then that quote doesn’t come from the article above, so I’m not sure what story you got it from.”

Also, I hate to break it to you, but you are still a human being if you take a job that certain green-totalitarians don’t approve of, such as a Police officer. Policemen and women are still humans and have all the rights thereof.

It is interesting, though, to note how quickly the non-person meme has spread amongst the Green Fascist movement and how seemingly unaware they are of how ugly it appears to educated people, or how it betrays their desire to reduce the human population quite dramatically.

and:

@ Gubulgaria

Sigh.

“So you do consider decorators and chefs to be violent occupations, but legalised violence? Or have you spotted the indefensibility of your position?”

Demolition is a violent act and that is what we were discussing, not decorators. However, if you decorate my house without my consent, you are a vandal. And if you cook my food without my consent you are a thief and/or a vandal. It is the consent, the permission, the *authorisation* which permits these acts.

“And you have no source for your ‘they forced their way..’ quote, which I suppose, you made up due to a lack of any real examples?”

Yeah, I couldn’t actually be arsed to dig any up as I was working at the time. Now though…

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/13/2302351.htm

or

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6817751.ece

or

http://www.theenvironmentalnews.co.uk/2009/10/29/activists-storm-power-station/

where ’storm’ is defined as:

“Definitions of storm on the Web:

* ramp: behave violently, as if in state of a great anger
* take by force; “Storm the fort”

Which certainly suggests violence…

“I particularly like the way you interpret a joke about the police as revealing an urge to genocide, whilst your own comment –

“ANY unauthorised persons on a runway should be shot dead and their bodies removed by bomb disposal robots.”

presumably is a sign of a gentle and forgiving nature.”

No, you chose to define violence against a police officer as not being violence and you weren’t joking. My comment was also not a joke, predicated upon an understanding of the terrorist threat we face from other theocratic fascists who like to blow up aircraft for reasons other than their carbon footprint.

Oh blimey, it kept going overnight so my morning spew was:

Wow, I see while I went to bed, this argument continued. All I have to add is that when Green supporters are quibbling over what is and is not violence, who is and is not a person worthy of having their rights respected, that it shows up the kind of Bolshevik thinking that is the engine of their neo-maxist ideology.