§1. We are told that certain tactics by the European climate justice movement “alienate” the public. For all practical purposes, this discourse could be a pseudo-argument by the “opinion-making” elites who want to see their comfort untouched and can be summarized as “It’s not that bad, leave me alone.” What is most interesting is that so far there is no evidence supporting this claim but it’s being repeated over and over acritically. What is actually happening here?

§2. All groups who experimented with public disruption actions report an increase in visibility, an increase in popular support and an increase in recruitment. These all, in comparison to several baselines: in comparison to the year prior to experimentation, in comparison to other groups in the same movement landscape, in comparison to other countries where those tactics were not experimented. We know this, because these groups have explicit and detailed mechanisms to monitor and evaluate their strategic tests.

They all report, also, a high level of repression and criminalization, comparable with “anti-terrorism” and “anti-mafia” procedures. These two are not acritical concepts and were regularly used as façade for racist, xenophobic and simple classist policies, with the objective of marginalizing certain sectors in the society and take their political content away in public opinion.

These climate justice groups have hundreds up to thousands of cases in court, potentially (or factually) hundreds of millions of euros in fines, tens of people in jail (either on remand or imprisoned) and face hundreds of police raids in their home where all electronic devices were confiscated. The groups report that this repression indeed reduces recruitment. So, from the state’s perspective, it seems to work as smart repression.

Repression framework

§3. While repression becomes more tangible in court and in the hands of the police, it actually starts much earlier. Televisions, newspapers, politicians and public officers all join the choir and persuade the general public that it’s okay to criminalize these activists. There are several methods to reach this goal. 

First is to represent them as “activist” rather than how they represent themselves (doctors, mothers, scientists, students, plumbers, etc.). 

Second is to obscure their motivations and the reasons they are taking action, focusing on technicalities in a sort of whataboutism (What if an ambulance would need to pass in an action? What about emissions in China? What about the plastic in your mobile phone? Etc.). 

While these two tell the general public that these are not ordinary people and they are doing actions for no actual reason, they would now be ready for an offensive third step: repression by police force and in courts. We know this strategy, because it is the same strategy used in islamophobic and racist policies against grassroots anticolonial and anti-imperialist groups. 

§4. We are, however, not only the objects of the strategy of the ruling class. We are also subjects, and we can question their discourse. One way to do it is to pay attention to evidence when it appears. Some such evidence appeared in the Legal in Action conference in Amsterdam in October 2024, which deserves to be highlighted and registered.

Repression strategies and counter-strategies

§5. Letzte Generation in Germany reports that the courts imposed on them abbreviated cases resulting in quick trials. These would by definition be focused on the “facts”, ignoring the motives and intentions. These quick trials would not allow defendants to talk about the climate crisis at all. Evaluating an act or any behavior without any reference to the context in which it took place and then calling it a crime is, of course, absurd. So Letzte Generation boycotted the trials. These boycotts implied a fine on the defendants, but it also turned the abbreviated cases into regular cases. Letzte Generation also has a couple of complaints in the Constitutional Court about this attitude of the courts that exemplify the second step of smart repression.

§6. In France, however, Dernière Rénovation reports that the judges have recognized the courtrooms as public platforms. As public platforms, the courtrooms are thus subject to the same constitutional rights that citizens have, and therefore the defendants have freedom of expression. Climate justice groups were not only allowed to talk about the climate crisis in court, but also invited climate scientists to give expert opinions. This then allowed them to give enough context for their strategy, proving that their actions were indeed proportional in comparison to the societal risk they aimed to avoid.

§7. In the United Kingdom, the situation is quite different, not only because the legal system is different but also because there are juries. The best example so far is probably the Whole Truth Five, who participated in an online webinar mobilizing for a road blockade and therefore received 4 to 5 years prison sentences just for talking. The high sentence is not the most interesting part. The judge specifically prohibited the defendants from talking about the climate crisis, the Whole Truth Five consistently insisted on talking about the climate crisis, the judge got them arrested and taken out of the courtroom, and the trial continued without the defendants. This repeated a few times.

Why would that be? What would a judge have to lose if the defendants talked about the climate emergency? The answer might be surprising if you thought the public was alienated by road blockades.

A few months ago, Trudi Warner, a 69-year-old retired social worker, went in front of a courthouse before a hearing and held a sign that said “Jurors! You have an absolute right to acquit a defendant according to your conscience.” The jurors do not have to justify their decisions by referring to penal code. The law states clearly that the jury is expected to pay attention to the court hearing and then decide whatever it finds appropriate. Trudi Warner was herself arrested and put on trial. However, the High Court affirmed her right to remind the law to the jurors. So the juries can now decide whatever they want, and the Defend Our Juries campaign has made an enormous effort to make sure that was the case.

If we were to believe in the alienation hypothesis, we would expect all activists to be found guilty. Right? The expected outcome would be that even if the Slow March disrupted the road for less than ten seconds, they would be found guilty. Systematically and consistently. 

What we saw instead was an increase in high profile acquittals by jury. For instance, in Bristol, a group of activists destroyed the public statue of a slave owner, explained their motives based on the colonial past of England, and were acquitted. There are quite some examples, but this next one deserves our attention. 

Three supporters of Just Stop Oil participated in a road blockade and also “decommissioned the petrol pumps by breaking the display glass and covering it with spray paint.” The jury acquitted them. There was unquestionable factual evidence of criminal damage. They didn’t deny the action, instead they told the jury about the climate emergency and oil. The jury thought that their action was reasonable.

This explains why judges wouldn’t let people talk about their motives and intentions. But it also provides evidence against the alienation hypothesis. The jury knew that they were Just Stop Oil activists. The jury knew that they broke the display glass in the petrol station. And the jury sided with climate justice.

Distinguishing Repression and Alienation

§8. We don’t know whether a particular slogan, a specific tactic or a campaign will work in achieving its objectives, before trying it. 

Past experience can be useful in guessing the impacts and adjusting our practice. However, the “past” is not an objective, universal reality. If today the climate justice movement fails to mobilize millions (be it due to inertia in other organizations, smart repression demobilizing the movement, or some other political reason), then tomorrow the “alienation” hypothesis will be presented as fact by the ruling class even though it is not based on evidence. 

It is important to register that in this case (as in so many historical examples, from anti-communism in Indonesia to racism-dressed-as-war-on-drugs in the USA), repression will cause alienation, not the other way around.

---