This is the best summary I could come up with:
Reverend Dr Sue Parfitt, 82, and Judy Bruce, an 85-year-old retired biology teacher, entered the library and tried to smash the glass case protecting the historic document using a lump hammer and chisel.
The British Library in London holds two of the four surviving copies of the Magna Carta, with the others being held at Lincoln and Salisbury Cathedrals.
In a statement, the British Library confirmed two people had “attacked the toughened glass case” containing the landmark charter in its treasures gallery.
Read more on Sky News:Plane skids off runway injuring at least 10 peopleBread recalled after ‘rat remains’ found in loaves
The latest protest comes after the High Court ruled the government acted unlawfully by approving a plan to cut carbon emissions.
The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero argued the UK could be “hugely proud” of its record on climate change and the case was largely about process, with no criticism in the judgment of its detailed plans.
The original article contains 341 words, the summary contains 161 words. Saved 53%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
JSO once again proving the anti-democratic nature of their movement by attacking a foundational document in our democracy.
Maybe they wish to make some point you haven’t recognized. Maybe they don’t feel any more represented by what you are pleased to call a democracy than the writers of that document were by their kings?
Great! Can’t wait to see them pick up seats at the next general election
reading that was like watching a person trying to throw a stone at the sky and missing
Haha funny joke but they have a point. They would achieve so much more if they actually did something rather than this sort of thing. There are actual people who are actually trying to implement political policy they could join them. Smashing the case doesn’t seem to achieve anything, by your own emission they didn’t actually break it so what’s the point. They literally did nothing.
The point is that ancient document only has value if there are still people around to value it. The point is that the political system is fundamentally broken and is easily gamed by those with money- who are, of course, staunchly opposed to anything that would interfere with their rent-seeking behavior, including and especially stopping the flow of oil. The point is that joining a volunteer organization or a political organization is, and has always been as long as I have been alive, mostly either a joke, or a bandaid-on-a-festering-wound solution, or both. The point is that people who vote are voting for their direct, usually short-term interests- having gas in the car is an absolute necessity for getting to work and thereby putting food on the table for a family. That’s a difficult sacrifice to make, even if, in the long-term, people know it’s apocalyptic. The point is that this document they targetted got them attention. The point is showing the world that they’re willing to work outside of acceptable societal norms, sacrificing their livelihoods and freedom, for what they believe in. The point is that slowly, more people will recognize and find ways of resisting, even while still continuing to vote in a broken system whose first job is to uphold ancient broken irrelevant laws and perpetuate its own existence.
The point is that if we don’t all do something, now, right now together, the world will fall apart.
Examine your conscience. Do you really believe that parliament will pass a law limiting the flow of petrochemicals? If you believe, as I believe based on the evidence I’ve seen in my daily life, that the world is getting hotter and it’s because of burning petrochemicals, don’t you think they should have already by now, and long since? If they don’t, what do you think the people who are supposed to be represented should do about it? Do you really think voting will solve this by itself?
This document has at the very least value as an historical artefact regardless of how broken our current system of democracy is. Destroying it just turns more people against their cause. I understand they’re making a point about how the majority will not vote for policies which help the environment. Democracy is fundamental to creating a society where people have a say in how politics is done. Are you suggesting the government should push through policies that the majority are against? Even if they did they’d risk losing the next election. Or are you suggesting we get rid of democracy altogether? I’m not sure an autocracy would be a good thing overall even if they were working to improve the environment. Ultimately the issue is that the majority of people prioritise their current lifestyle over sustaining the environment. Enforcing policies which the majority are against isn’t really a healthy solution to this. If JSO want to change people’s minds, maybe focusing on educating people and non harmful protests would go a lot further than vandalising stuff and causing disruption.
When I said it only has value when there are people to value it, I didn’t mean the system would break further, I meant that we are in the middle of an anthropogenic mass extinction. They didn’t succeed- two octagenarians were not meant to- but the next time they might actually try. They aren’t looking for recruits, they are warning us. They are getting more desperate.
Am I suggesting the government do- no. If the system of government were going to take meaningful action to curb a global mass extinction event, it would have by now.
The government will do whatever it wishes, as it ever has. I advocate overthrowing the government. Revolution. Bloody, violent revolution if necessary. To whatever new system will take the existential threat seriously, and wield its vast inherited power to prevent that apocalypse. Autocracy, communism, whatever will not hum and haw and wait for a more convenient season to face toward annihilation with a bold face and take the difficult, necessary steps.
Educating people… Please: Listen to yourself. Read back your own words. “healthy solutions” instead of inconvenient lifestyle changes, the value of history over an existentially threatened future.
People dont want to be ‘educated’ by people they equate to doomsayers standing on the corner with a megaphone. And do you seriously think people havent been trying, for decades now to do that very thing?
The environment… people have been told its about the environment, and it is that. It is about the plants that are reducing in quantity and quantity in the stifling heat and soon not to be producing enough for everyone to eat. It is about the beetles and the earthworms who do their thankless toil maintaining the earth for those plants to grow. It is about the fish who choke on our waste and the fungi we prevent from accessing.
It is also about us. What will we eat? Where will our children play? What layers of ventilated plastic will we have to wear to survive the heat? We. Live. In. The. Envirnoment.
You want an education? Here’s one few seem to know about, and I dont wonder why: Ocean acidification. CO2 dissolves in our ocean and the pH goes down. More CO2, more acidic. This in turn dissolves the shells of marine life. Those marine life produce almost 80% of the oxygen we need to fucking breathe. In combination with the burning, clearcutting and, generally, rape of the planet’s forests and jungles that we might continue to eat fucking hamburgers, we will, sooner than anyone could possibly wish, Suffocate.
Fuck the magna carta, and fuck a democracy that refuses to let us come up for breath.
peaceful education, forsooth. this education is inherently violent, and I for one am tired of pretending it isn’t.
deleted by creator
its not antidemocratic to want a planet to breathe in.
a piece of paper is not more important than that.
This has nothing to do with the MC so attacking it delegitimizes their movement.
is your movement doing anything better?
anyone doing anything at all is legitimate to me, thats how low the bar is right now.
No it’s not. But it’s also not really related to anything that’s actually the problem or remotely relevant.
I agree with their objectives in the broad strokes, I just question their methods. Every time they are reported about, it’s always because they’ve done something strange and irritating to the general population. They’re not targeting big businesses, or airports, or car production plants, which you would have thought they would have done. No, they’re always throwing paint on something.
It’s weird and pointless.
what method are you employing to make it happen?
To make what happen. What is “it”?
I simply object to strawman arguments suggesting that any course of action is a good course of action. No it’s not, it’s stupid if it’s stupid. It doesn’t matter how worthy the cause is. Oh how self-righteous you feel about it.
Messing around with people’s lives doesn’t help anyone, it doesn’t help the cause, it doesn’t help spread the message, all it does is make people hate you. I object to them turning climate activism into some kind of publicity stunt. Publicity stunts require a purpose, these don’t have one, they are simply causing trouble for the sake of it. They know that none of what they are doing will have any impact because they’re not targeting anyone, anything, or any entity that has anything to do with the claimate crisis.
“it” being phasing out oil, and ending excess consumption, i tought it was obvious.
ruining some shitty piece of paper isnt messing with peoples lives nearly as much as climate change is. for some reason people seem to be more defensive of the piece of paper.
if you hate their means of raising awareness, you should have a better means instead of just defending the status quo.
1 They damaged a case. Not thee document.
2 King Henry did more to damage any actual democracy it ever stood for. Then there actions did.
3 if you are you suggesting their is anything democratic about how our current government runs. You need to find a new dealer.
What’s your favorite boot to lick?
What’s your favourite Kool Aid to drink?
Purple!
Ooh yeah!
I’m not the one in a death cult.
JSO are literally employing cult like tactics where their followers are being told that it’s them against the world (and they have exclusive access to the truth).
No one is denying climate change is an issue the needs addressed. The only thing that is being debated is whether our response is proportionate to the threat. There’s no way that offending ~80% of the population by threatening sacred cows like beloved art and legal documents is a productive approach.
The art and legal documents are the ones the media(who runs oil ads) decide to put on blast. They don’t report when they dump paint on CEO’s cars. I wonder why?
Also, protests are suppose to be annoying. Ignorable protests don’t do anything.
And frankly, there are people dying of heat stroke, crops failing because of unpredictable weather, whole communities getting displaced as sea levels rise or the air dries up. Being mad on behalf for the pieces of paper seems pretty petty.
They hardly claim to have exclusive access to the truth. Just look at the published research by climate scientists for the past 50 years or more.
No one is denying climate change is an issue the needs addressed.
Plenty of people are. My neighbors for instance.
the question here is why some people here are offended by ruining a piece of paper, but not offended by climate change.
if you dislike their methods whats the one you are employing?
The way things are going, it will be lost any way shortly…
Do you really think them pair had any realistic chance of breaking that glass anyway?
From what I can tell the whole point of these protests is just iconoclasm. These presumably well meaning people have been told that the world is literally ending and that they need to make a statement by (mainly symbolically) attacking objects that other people value.
The climate crisis is genuinely a crisis but it’s not going to be a cataclysm event like Roger Hallam is describing. It will likely play out as a gradual worsening in living conditions as certain occupations become unviable, increasing numbers of freak weather events, and then finally warmer countries becoming unliveable.
All of those outcomes are awful but shock tactics like this aren’t going to convert anyone to the cause.
warmer countries becoming unliveable.
Just this is bad, very bad in so many ways. Even if you just mean large areas of Africa - where are the people going to go? The current political, economic, etc, etc of immigration will be nothing compared to that - right wing parties get a boost, stretched resources become overstretched, our food supply diminishes. But it won’t just be parts of Africa - southern Europe gets hit by brutal heatwaves now, that is only going to get worse and a lot of our food comes from Italy and Spain. They are some of largest sources of rice, the others are India, Pakistan and Burma, as long as the monsoons aren’t disrupted. If there’s any shortfall in rice production they’ll start reducing exports to feed their own people.
Agree it’s bad. I just worry that JSO are taking the wrong approach in being abrasive instead of trying to win the argument.
So why are you highlighting their activities and, absurdly, calling it an attack on democracy? You are giving their ‘shock tactics’ publicity (whilst denouncing those tactics as ineffective), claiming to agree with their message, and at the same time accusing them of an entirely different agenda: ‘anti-democratic’. You make no sense.
Having a nuanced opinion means - to me - that understanding that climate change is bad but also understanding that there is a limited amount that we can do as individuals or a country to resolve it.
When I see JSO doing these stunts I worry that they are delegitimising the entire cause of climate change by taking such a hardcore stance. (And seemingly not caring about other societal norms in their protest.)
Edit: Having a right to protest is part of democracy; threatening cultural artefacts most people value is anti-democratic.
Democracy is like monarchy. It only works because of magical power tokens.
No shit. You’ve got to be a total shithead to attack such core beliefs of humanity.
