0:00

Direct action is not a new

0:02

idea. We've talked in previous episodes

0:04

in the season about how it

0:06

was used by the suffragettes by

0:08

various civil rights movement and it's

0:11

not new to climate or other

0:13

environmental issues either. Probably.

0:15

The best known organization when it

0:17

comes to these sorts of tactics

0:19

in the environmental space is Greenpeace.

0:22

From blocking whaling bodes, to walking

0:24

on to offshore platforms, Greenpeace activists

0:26

have been putting their bodies in

0:28

the way of environmental harms for

0:31

decades. Six

0:33

Greenpeace activists are on trial in front of

0:35

a jury at Maidstone Ground. Called for causing

0:37

thirty thousand pounds worth of damage to the

0:40

Kings.power station. There was a very real danger

0:42

according to our lawyers that we would go

0:44

to jail. This. Is from

0:46

a short video that was made documenting

0:48

an action in the Uk in two

0:51

thousand and Eight. But. When

0:53

they got their day in court, the

0:55

activists made a novel arguments. They'll.

0:58

Get their actions were justified because they were

1:00

trying to highlight the dangers of climate change.

1:02

There was a lawful excuse of

1:04

the the how we caused by

1:06

the damage of painting was insignificant

1:09

compared with the emissions from Kingsnorth.

1:11

For that one day alone and

1:13

the moments when the jury became

1:15

most engaged was when the witnesses,

1:17

the defendants or the scientific witnesses

1:19

were talking about the effects of

1:21

climate change on our kids and

1:23

on our grandchildren. a suddenly I

1:25

think it for our actions into

1:28

a different context that made them

1:30

look quite frankly proportionate. a reasonable.

1:32

And it worked. It was the

1:34

first time that what's called a

1:36

climate necessity defense had worked, and

1:38

it sparked lots of similar defenses

1:40

all over. The. world it's verdict we

1:43

think marks a tipping point for

1:45

the climate change movement one twelve

1:47

normal people say that it is

1:49

legitimate for direct action bring the

1:51

shut down a coal fired power

1:53

station because of the home that

1:55

because the planet than one has

1:57

to ask where exactly that leaves

1:59

government energy Then,

2:04

just about a decade later, the

2:07

UK government passed new laws that

2:09

not only restricted what protesters could

2:11

do, but also

2:13

how protesters were allowed to

2:16

defend themselves in court. Some

2:20

judges don't apply the new laws so

2:22

strictly, but others have held people

2:25

in contempt for just trying to

2:27

explain themselves. In

2:29

some courtrooms, the climate necessity

2:31

defense has been effectively outlawed.

2:34

How did that happen, and how did

2:36

it happen so quickly? That's

2:39

our story today. After

2:41

the break, reporter Isabella Kaminski joins

2:43

us from the UK with a

2:45

story about the backlash against climate

2:48

protests and how an obscure

2:50

law from the 1600s might

2:53

be activist best hope. She

2:56

also wrote a piece for our website

2:58

on this topic. You can find that

3:01

at Drilled.media. I'm

3:03

Amy Westervelt, and this is Drilled,

3:05

the real free speech tech. If

3:15

you are banking with most banks,

3:18

they are loaning out your deposits

3:20

to fund fossil fuel projects. Yeah,

3:22

that's right, a little known fact,

3:25

but that means

3:27

that one pretty straightforward, easy thing

3:29

to do to remove your support

3:31

from the expansion of fossil fuel

3:33

projects is to move your bank

3:35

account. That's where Atmos

3:38

comes in. Atmos is a

3:40

fintech offering that provides checking and

3:42

savings accounts, as well as residential

3:45

solar loans for people looking to

3:47

align their money with their values

3:49

on climate. All

3:53

funds go towards shifting massive amounts

3:55

of capital to climate infrastructure. Currently,

3:58

Atmos supports utility scale and

4:00

residential solar. It has

4:03

also created a climate positive ecosystem

4:05

with cash back partners, non-profit

4:07

support and deposits. There

4:10

are no account fees or minimums. It's

4:13

FDIC insured up to $250,000 and you get 5% cash

4:15

back on sustainable gold. Atmos aims to shift money away

4:24

from activities that directly harm the planet

4:26

and towards those that help preserve it.

4:29

Their pledge is to only lend to sectors

4:32

that help to rapidly accelerate the transition toward

4:34

a clean, fair and

4:36

transformed tech economy. So

4:39

if you want to bank with a company

4:41

that is supporting a carbon-free future,

4:44

head to Atmos. Head

4:47

to joinatmos.com.

4:50

That's joinatmos.com.

5:05

Environmental justice is a talking point

5:07

in every politician's toolkit, but do

5:09

you ever wonder where it all

5:11

began? On this week's ThruLine, we're

5:14

taking you back to 1978,

5:16

where a fight against a toxic

5:18

dump in North Carolina started the

5:21

environmental justice movement. Join

5:23

NPR's Climate Week and listen to

5:25

ThruLine wherever you get your podcasts.

5:31

Hey, it's Amy. If you're

5:33

curious to hear what businesses

5:35

and organizations are doing and

5:38

what more they should do

5:40

to confront climate change, I

5:42

recommend the award-winning podcast Climate

5:44

Rising, produced by Harvard Business

5:46

School. Named one of the

5:48

best environmental podcasts by earth.org,

5:51

Climate Rising gives you a behind-the-scenes

5:53

view into how some of the world's

5:55

business leaders are confronting climate change.

5:57

Including go-to brands like Microsoft

6:00

and Google. If you need a place to

6:02

start, definitely check out a

6:04

recent episode featuring Ashley Orgain, Chief

6:07

Impact Officer from 7th Generation. They're

6:09

the folks that make everything from

6:11

recycled napkins and paper towels to

6:13

dish soap, all sorts of home service

6:16

products. In that episode,

6:18

Ashley discusses ambitious plans to

6:20

achieve a real zero, not

6:22

net zero, climate goal. Each

6:24

episode explores the many challenges

6:27

and opportunities that climate change

6:29

presents to innovators and entrepreneurs

6:31

and how businesses across the world are

6:33

striving to make a more positive impact

6:36

on the planet. Go listen to

6:38

Climate Rising on Apple, Spotify, or wherever

6:40

you get your podcasts. And tell them

6:42

we sent you. My

6:56

name is Isabella Kaminski, and I'm a

6:58

freelance journalist based in the UK who

7:01

specializes in environment and climate change. So

7:04

Isabella, from your reporting and

7:06

also just from kind of watching

7:08

things unfold from afar, it seems

7:10

to me like there's been a

7:13

pretty significant shift in the UK

7:15

government's approach to protests in a

7:17

fairly short amount of time. But

7:19

I'm curious if that jives with what you

7:21

found as well. Yeah, so I

7:23

think it's worth going back to 2008 when

7:27

energy firm Eon was trying to build the

7:29

UK's first new core-side power station in 20

7:32

years. And it wanted to

7:34

do that at King's North in the south

7:36

of England because there was already an old

7:38

power station there. And that became the focal

7:40

point for climate activists at the time. And

7:44

so one day that year, six

7:46

Greenpeace activists climbed up one of

7:48

the station's smokestacks, these 200-meter-high chimneys,

7:50

and tried to shut it down by occupying it

7:52

and painting on it. So they

7:54

were arrested, and they had to go to court, where

7:56

they made this really novel argument that

7:58

they had a lawful excuse for what they've

8:01

done because the damage caused protect other people's

8:03

property from the effects of climate change. And

8:06

the majority acquitted them. That

8:08

at the time made the New

8:10

York Times's list of top influential

8:12

ideas for the year. It helped

8:15

the government firm up with climate commitments. Later

8:17

that same year, the UK passed into law

8:19

the Climate Change Act. You can't

8:21

necessarily make a direct link, but everything's

8:24

helped shift the conversation. EON

8:26

then also abandoned the plan to build more coal.

8:28

King's North was actually demolished and

8:31

the UK now generates only a tiny proportion of

8:33

its electricity from coal. But

8:35

a decade later, government inaction

8:38

on climate change was stalling. And

8:41

activists started talking to each other more

8:43

and looking really intensively at how they

8:45

could harness this idea of non-violent direct

8:47

action to change the conversation. And

8:50

out of that, extinction rebellion was born.

8:54

I'm Dr. Gayle Bradbrook. I'm

8:57

one of the co-founders of Extinction

8:59

Rebellion. Before co-founding

9:01

Extinction Rebellion in 2018,

9:04

Bradbrook had spent several years

9:06

getting involved in various environmental and

9:08

social justice fights. Isabella

9:10

visited her at her home in

9:13

Stroud, a small town in the

9:15

picturesque Cotswolds Hills in southern England in

9:17

the fall of 2023 to

9:20

get more of her story. I was

9:22

talking on a rights group at university. I sort of

9:24

got involved in green politics as well, but I have

9:26

to admit, you know, my dad's a coal miner, was

9:28

from a working class background, sort of bounced off the

9:31

middle class vibe without realizing that's what

9:33

was going on for me. No disrespect

9:35

to the people. Eventually

9:38

Bradbrook got her PhD in molecular

9:40

biology. She says she found it

9:42

difficult to be a working-class woman

9:44

in science and ultimately made her

9:46

way back to social justice work,

9:48

mostly working with NGOs. And

9:51

I suppose it was really helpful in that

9:53

it helped me to learn about strategy and

9:55

partnerships and fundraising and a

9:58

whole plethora of, like, you know, programs. delivery

10:00

time to start. So at the same time, it

10:02

makes it quite clear that, you know, NGOs are

10:04

generally part of the problem, they're part of the

10:06

solution. And then I did some called Street Call

10:09

Economics as a video, still a record can round

10:11

us that. I was trying to teach people economics

10:13

on the streets, because I think we're all ignorant

10:16

of that. And

10:18

yes, we did find that video. Here's a

10:20

little bit from it. This is from 2013.

10:22

And Bradbrook is

10:24

standing in front of a bunch of handmade

10:26

signs. One of them

10:28

reads, Remember the golden rule, those

10:30

with the gold make the rule.

10:33

I feel really honored to share this

10:35

evening with you. And my

10:37

concern is economic literacy. What

10:40

do we know and understand about economics? And

10:44

so tonight, we want to do two things

10:46

really to talk about economics. And

10:48

for me, that's about showing the connection between

10:50

different issues, there may be things

10:52

that you already know about, like death

10:54

or inequality, or, you know,

10:56

peak oil or whatever. But how do these things

10:58

link up that that's the thing that I

11:01

felt confused about and wanted some clarity around.

11:03

So I wanted to share where I've got

11:05

to on that. And then the

11:07

second thing is to talk about talking about

11:10

economics. So, you know, I really believe

11:12

we can't leave economics to economists. At

11:15

this point in time, Bradbrook was

11:17

working with the Tax Justice Movement

11:19

and participating in math options around

11:21

wealth inequality, mostly tax strikes. And

11:24

then she had an

11:26

experience. It put her on the

11:28

path to connecting with Roger Hallam,

11:31

an organic farmer whose land had been

11:33

destroyed by extreme weather. Hallam

11:35

was studying for a PhD at

11:37

King's College London researching social change

11:40

and the history of social movements.

11:43

Their meaning has sort of become the

11:45

stuff of legends in climate spaces. You

11:51

probably know this sort of slightly weird story of

11:53

going off and praying with psychedelics that did happen.

11:55

It was all very profound. It

11:58

wasn't the first time we worked with those meds. that was his

12:00

depth there. And the prayers were

12:03

answered. I met Roger Hallam, he

12:05

was doing similar and different research

12:07

that was complementary and had this

12:09

with me and then started gathering

12:11

energy around social change movement which originally

12:14

was called Compassionate Revolution, the under-rising up and

12:16

then XR was a campaign as well. So

12:18

is it fair to say that that was

12:20

about something broader than climate?

12:22

Oh definitely. I

12:25

can send you the rising up original. I

12:27

remember reading about it, that since when

12:29

did climate become the focus then? Or

12:33

has it never been entirely? No, because for me

12:35

it's just if it's a symptom of a wise

12:43

and malays, it's not the thing. And

12:45

that is such a problem in climate

12:47

activism because of the vision people come

12:49

in and want to solve climate change

12:51

and you can't solve climate change because

12:53

that's not the problem that chooses symptoms.

12:56

Bradbrook and Hallam didn't just relate to

12:58

each other, they were also very compelling

13:00

for a lot of young activists who were

13:02

fed up with the stalled progress on

13:05

climate in the UK. And

13:07

initially they had some really big wins.

13:09

Here's Isabella again. So

13:12

it had a huge positive impact. In

13:14

about sort of less than a year after

13:17

the activists started having these conversations, they

13:19

managed to succeed in getting thousands of

13:21

people onto the streets of London in

13:23

this really, really unprecedented display of climate

13:26

solidarity. You know, some people were

13:28

arrested but the actions also changed the

13:30

public and political mood around climate change.

13:33

You know, polls show that concern grew, Parliament

13:35

later declared climate emergency and

13:38

the UK set its first net zero target. And

13:40

that was all in the 12 months after Extinction

13:43

Rebellion launch. And it also

13:45

sparked further protests around the world as

13:47

well under the banner of Extinction Rebellion

13:49

and through other climate activist groups. Bradbrook

13:53

said she thought that super

13:55

successful first year was because

13:57

Extinction Rebellion's approach was so different.

14:00

not in terms of using direct action

14:02

per se, but something a little more

14:04

ephemeral. What I

14:06

believe created the success in

14:10

2019, and it was limited, but we did

14:12

smash through climate denial. There was a spirit

14:14

that was created. It's of the right hemisphere

14:16

that that's the playful side of humanity, that's

14:19

the side of humanity that's visionary, collaborative, and

14:22

together, and believes in itself.

14:25

But at the same time, it sparked this

14:27

backlash. So the same year

14:29

that the government set that net zero target,

14:32

a group called Policy Exchange put out a

14:34

report, and they called it extremism

14:37

rebellion. And that report warned

14:39

that extinction rebellion was a major threat. And

14:41

so the government had to do something to crack down on this

14:44

type of protest. If you've

14:46

been listening to this series all

14:48

along, that name, Policy

14:50

Exchange, might sound familiar.

14:53

We've mentioned this organization before because

14:56

it's an Atlas Network member.

15:00

Here is Richard Walton, a former

15:02

senior policy fellow at Policy

15:04

Exchange, and the lead author

15:06

of the report that Isabella just mentioned

15:09

talking on a podcast shortly after

15:11

the release of the report. You'll

15:14

hear the host first and then Walton. Mr. Walton,

15:16

thanks for coming on the show. Now, while I

15:18

may support many of their motives, I can't support

15:21

the way they act, but they're not really the

15:23

mafia, are they? They can't be called an organized

15:25

crime gang. Good morning. Good

15:27

morning, Nick. Well, certainly

15:30

the behavior that we've seen

15:32

is rather typical, but

15:34

they are certainly engaged in organized

15:36

criminality on the large scale. And

15:38

their tactics is one

15:40

of civil resistance model that is

15:42

based on illegal

15:44

action. So I think

15:47

what we saw over the weekend with

15:50

the blockading of the various news

15:53

print outlets was a form

15:55

of anarchism, effectively. It was rather

15:58

typical. This is a group of that

16:00

rejects democracy and the liberal free market

16:02

economy and explicitly seeks to

16:04

overturn both. This

16:09

is something we've talked about in this season

16:11

too, this framing of climate activists

16:13

and particularly those engaging in direct

16:15

action as being these scary anarchists.

16:18

Definitely that's something that Atlas Network think

16:20

tanks in particular have been pushing. Isabella,

16:24

did you see the UK media

16:26

kind of amplifying that message too, or

16:29

any politicians sort of picking up that thread

16:31

and running with it? Yeah,

16:34

definitely. They started to, certainly certain sections

16:36

of the media started to repeat the

16:38

kind of language that was being used

16:41

and the framing of these groups as

16:43

a threat rather than trying to draw

16:45

attention to a serious issue. And

16:47

then it wasn't too much longer before

16:50

the UK began actually putting

16:52

some of this stuff into legislation. So in 2022,

16:54

2023, the UK Parliament passed

16:59

two really significant pieces of law,

17:02

which gave law enforcement agencies

17:04

much greater powers to

17:06

stop protest tactics that were considered

17:09

to be disruptive. Certain aspects

17:11

of those laws was they were

17:13

being developed in Parliament, which was

17:16

struck down. The government later sort

17:18

of pushed through secondary regulation to

17:21

try and bypass the parliamentary process.

17:23

So these pieces of law have

17:26

really made it harder for people to

17:28

protest and given enforcement authorities,

17:31

given the police much

17:33

greater power to stop it before

17:35

it happens and while people are

17:37

protesting. We also know that

17:39

in the summer of 2023, at

17:42

a policy exchange garden parties, Prime

17:45

Minister Rishi Sunak thanked the organisation for

17:47

its help with these legislative changes.

17:50

I love that it was at a garden

17:52

party. That makes it land so much more.

17:56

So you wrote in your story also about

17:59

not only how these laws

18:01

have led to more arrests, but how they've

18:04

impacted activist court proceedings, which I think is

18:06

really, really interesting. Can I just have you

18:08

kind of walk us through what you found

18:10

out on that front? Yeah,

18:12

sure. So I've been speaking to lots

18:14

of activists who have been arrested and

18:16

have been through the court system.

18:19

And the really key thing is here that

18:21

activists, when they get to court, whatever

18:23

the crime they're accused of is, they

18:26

want to be able to explain their motivations for why they

18:28

did what they did. And for some

18:30

that's about getting the issue on

18:32

the record, talking about climate change, for example.

18:35

For others, it's about trying to persuade the

18:37

jury that what they did was proportionate and

18:40

that they shouldn't be convicted. But

18:42

judges have discretion in how they run particular

18:44

trials in their court. And that's

18:46

led to this really wide variety

18:48

of different outcomes for protesters. So

18:51

in some courts, they've been

18:53

given pretty free rein to

18:55

explain their motivations for what

18:57

they did. In some,

18:59

they've been allowed to use particular

19:01

legal defences. So for example, necessity.

19:04

That's saying that what they did was necessary to

19:06

avoid a greater harm to the planet. But

19:09

in others, they've been really strictly barred from

19:11

even mentioning climate change at all. So

19:14

I've heard activists describe this as a justice

19:16

lottery, with some people being convicted and

19:18

go to prison and others found not guilty and allowed

19:21

to go home. But at the same

19:23

time, juries vary quite a lot. And in many

19:25

cases, they've been a quitting activist for a

19:28

whole range of offenses, whether or not

19:30

they've managed to explain their motivation. So

19:32

the result is that not all judges

19:34

or politicians are very happy with that situation.

19:36

And so there's been this growing tension about

19:39

how to deal with climate protesters in a

19:41

proportionate way. And meanwhile,

19:43

climate protesters are quite frustrated that

19:46

they're being handled so differently in different parts

19:48

of the country and in different courts, even

19:50

within the same city. Is

19:53

there anyone kind of

19:55

working on just specifically that issue,

19:57

like the inconsistency of things being

19:59

done? applied. I mean, that could go well

20:02

or poorly for activists. I would guess

20:04

that, you know, if someone's like, the

20:06

judges should all be implementing this to

20:08

the letter of the law, or we should

20:11

come up with something that's more unifying.

20:13

I don't know, this strikes me as

20:15

like the classic thing that court

20:17

cases exist to do, right, is figure

20:19

out this kind of inconsistency. There

20:22

are people and I know people who

20:25

are tracking with spreadsheets, you know, what's

20:27

happening to different people and different courts.

20:30

And so some of them have

20:32

figures for about half of protesters,

20:34

for example, being acquitted, compared to

20:36

the other half found guilty by

20:38

juries. You're right, though, that absolutely

20:40

could backfire because you

20:42

could end up in a situation where the court

20:44

actually look and say, we want to apply the

20:46

stricter sentences to everybody rather than the most lenient.

20:49

So there's just two things going on here. It's

20:51

protesters feeling that the

20:54

sentences being handed down to them are too

20:56

strong, because in some cases, the jail sentences

20:58

that have been hand down have been significantly

21:01

bigger than they have been in

21:03

previous protest trials. That's

21:05

something actually the UN is looking at

21:07

because there is concern about how the

21:09

courts have applied this. But

21:12

in other cases, they're talking about the inconsistency. So there's

21:14

the tougher sentences on one hand, and on the other

21:16

is the lack of a kind of clear

21:19

guidelines for how to treat these cases. I

21:23

think some of these cases are going to the Court of

21:25

Appeal. So there might

21:27

be higher courts deciding

21:29

how it can be applied to the lower ones. But so

21:32

far, there isn't any any guidance on that. We

21:35

don't know exactly

21:37

what discussions have been had except

21:39

the potential of being placed, but

21:41

we can see that change in

21:43

charging decisions. Dr.

21:47

Graham Hayes is a researcher in social

21:49

movements at Aspen University. As soon as

21:51

those changes happen, the ability

21:54

to defend yourself in court

21:57

is much lesser and the

21:59

penalties much greater. Hayes

22:01

and his colleague Dr. Stephen Kamis,

22:04

who's an associate law professor at

22:06

the University of Birmingham, have been

22:08

tracking what's happening in the courts

22:10

ever since the UK passed its

22:12

new protest laws. In

22:15

2019, Dr. Gail Bradbrook, the Extinction

22:17

Rebellion co-founder that you heard from

22:19

earlier in this episode, was arrested

22:21

for breaking a window in a

22:23

government building during a protest. She

22:26

just went to trial in 2023, and

22:28

the judge in her trial refused to

22:31

let her explain why she was protesting

22:33

in the first place. The

22:35

judge repeatedly warned her to stop speaking

22:38

when she disobeyed that order and told

22:40

the jury to disregard what she was saying.

22:42

So in that context, thinking

22:45

about Gail Bradbrook's trial and

22:47

the judge's warning that if

22:49

she continued to overstep the bounds that

22:51

he'd set that he could move to

22:53

a judge-only trial. I mean, am I

22:55

right that that provision was designed to

22:58

address jury intimidation sort of in the context

23:00

of serious organised crime? Is that why that

23:02

was developed in the first place? Yeah, it

23:05

was twofolding for the criminal justice act, and

23:07

it was finally contentious at the time. And

23:12

another thing that came up in

23:14

your piece that was new to

23:16

me as a non-UK listener was

23:18

this idea of jury nullification. And

23:20

I think it's interesting

23:23

sort of the role that this concept

23:25

is playing in these cases, and especially

23:27

around the court proceedings. Can I have

23:29

you kind of define that for folks

23:32

who are tuning in from outside the UK? Sure,

23:35

this is a really fascinating idea. So it

23:38

refers to this key legal idea which

23:41

actually dates back about

23:43

500 years. And in 1670

23:45

jurors in a particular case were ordered by

23:48

a judge to find two Quakers guilty

23:50

of illegal preaching. So

23:53

the jury led by a man called Edward

23:56

Bushell refused, And they

23:58

were jailed and fined until a court. Eventually

24:00

cleared them. That

24:03

cases out become the sort

24:05

of celebrated and principle of

24:07

religious and political freedom, and

24:09

thus the resulting prince was

24:11

known as jury nullification. The

24:13

idea is that juries can

24:15

play a people. Based

24:17

on their consciences and in fact in

24:19

the Old Bailey which is the central

24:21

criminal court thing led to piles and

24:23

London is actually and great. On to

24:25

a marble plot that that's. How important

24:27

the side areas? But

24:30

in response to what's been happening

24:32

in some of that cases against

24:34

climate protesters in court, a sixty

24:37

eight year old woman stood outside

24:39

one of the courts, and she'd

24:41

written this principle of near a

24:43

jury nullification onto a cop. Or

24:46

sign for she wrote jurists,

24:48

You have absolute right to acquit defended

24:50

according to your conscience. The judge in

24:52

that case where he was taking the

24:55

trial of anti obsessed as was not

24:57

happy and he felt that at the

24:59

lady Trudy Warner was trying to interfere

25:01

with the jewelry. And

25:04

he referred her for concept

25:06

of course as I see

25:08

that she was trying to

25:10

sway the jury into making

25:12

a particular kind of decisions.

25:14

So when that treaty next

25:16

went back to court, he

25:18

ordered her to be arrested

25:20

and she was later charged

25:22

with contempt of court. Saudis

25:24

arrest then sparks lots of

25:26

other people to do similar

25:28

things. so they started. Standing

25:31

outside court with very similar signs

25:33

reminding Juri that they have right

25:35

Quick to A Quick says been

25:38

a series of escalating protests. And

25:40

the from a handful of people to

25:42

over two. Hundred and at the

25:45

latest counts in December. More

25:48

than five hundred people stood outside

25:50

around fifty cause in the Uk

25:52

holding up very similar signs reminding

25:54

juries of this. t legal

25:56

principle as a couple of

25:58

people have also charge but

26:00

most of those protesters have not had

26:02

any kind of, haven't had their details

26:05

taken and haven't had any kind of

26:07

legal consequences to doing that. But it's

26:09

led to this this growing rile

26:12

about what is proportionate.

26:16

I think until we get a ruling in the

26:18

Trudy Warner case we won't exactly know how this

26:20

will be dealt with from from from there onwards.

26:22

I just think we have probably have to wait

26:24

and see. I think what I would say is

26:28

that judges have different personalities and

26:30

they use contempt or the threat

26:32

of contempt or the threat of

26:34

imprisonment in order to

26:38

demonstrate their

26:40

authority in the courtroom and

26:43

you regularly see some

26:45

judges threaten prison

26:47

to defendants to keep them

26:49

in line. So

26:55

the people who have had legal repercussions

26:57

are truly Warner and two young women.

26:59

All of them are being charged

27:01

with contempt. I haven't spoken to them directly

27:04

on the record because they're going through this

27:06

legal process. I have

27:08

spoken to three generations of one family who

27:11

were some of the protesters outside one of the courts.

27:14

They were very passionate about why they were

27:16

doing this. For them it

27:18

was about much more than climate change

27:20

although that was super important. This was

27:22

about a really important fundamental

27:25

principle of essentially freedom

27:27

of speech. So what

27:29

is your name? I'm Renee Slicer.

27:31

I'm Sarah McDonald. I'm Vivi

27:34

McDonald. And you're three generations

27:36

the same family right? And so

27:38

why have you come to Bristol Crown Court today? Really

27:40

to stand up for the

27:44

rights of life actually. For me to

27:46

stand up for life. I've

27:49

done a lot of climate activism and

27:52

I've taken part in the

27:56

actions against the Government

27:58

of Bristol. What

28:00

concerns you about those bills? I

28:03

think a lot of things are funny

28:05

about those bills. I think the

28:09

clampdown on protests really

28:11

reflects how the government is

28:13

trying to and what direction our

28:17

country is being taken in, in

28:19

a way to repress people expressing

28:21

their opinions and to repress

28:24

assembly, which has been

28:27

throughout history a way to cultivate change.

28:29

And I think clamping down on that

28:31

really reflects their

28:33

opinions on not just

28:35

the climate protests, but historical

28:37

protests as well and how

28:39

those have manifested and

28:42

been brought forward in the tradition of

28:44

cultivating change. It's more important than ever

28:46

to continue protesting and

28:49

to continue fighting for change

28:52

in light of how the government is trying

28:55

to repress them. Yeah, that's

28:57

the thing that strikes me the most about

28:59

the court proceeding stuff is just how, you

29:01

know, whether climate

29:04

is an issue that you

29:06

care about or not, or whether

29:08

you think these protesters are justified

29:11

or not is sort of beside the point.

29:13

Anytime you're curtailing people's

29:15

ability to defend themselves

29:18

or curtailing what they're allowed to say

29:20

in their defense, it seems like potentially

29:22

something that folks might be concerned

29:24

about. Absolutely. And that's one of the points

29:26

that protesters are making, although

29:28

obviously they want to draw attention

29:31

to climate change and for people

29:33

who've been involved in various kinds

29:35

of activism to not

29:38

go to prison and to be found

29:40

not guilty. This is a really

29:42

fundamental point about allowing

29:44

people to express their motivations

29:47

and giving juries as

29:50

a kind of representative sample

29:52

of the public, the ability to

29:54

make informed decisions about people's actions

29:56

and about essentially what is right

29:58

and wrong. Otherwise, you're giving all

30:01

that power to a judge

30:03

and to the judiciary rather than the people

30:05

themselves. So, all

30:07

of this stuff that you've been

30:09

talking about kind of played

30:11

into Gail Bradbrook's case as

30:13

well. Yeah, so Gail had

30:16

two trials and the first

30:18

trial, which was earlier in

30:20

2023, had to be aborted

30:23

because she kept talking about

30:25

her motivations for her

30:27

actions. And the judge was

30:29

really unhappy about that. He basically

30:32

refused to let her do so, accused

30:35

her of tampering with the jury, and

30:38

said that the trial would come to an

30:40

end and would start again later. In

30:43

between her two trials, there were various

30:45

hearings where she was trying

30:47

to negotiate what she was allowed to say, the extent

30:49

with which she was allowed

30:51

to describe her motivations and

30:53

talk about climate change. And the judge was

30:55

really pushing back on that. He was incredibly

30:59

limited in how

31:01

he allowed her to frame her defense and

31:04

was basically striking down any kind of legal

31:06

defense that she had to make. So,

31:10

by the time of the second trial, where

31:12

there was a fresh jury, she

31:14

was very technically restricted and she

31:17

was defending herself as well. During

31:20

the actual case though, she managed

31:22

to sort of push back on quite a bit of it

31:25

and the judge was

31:27

repeatedly stopping her from talking and

31:29

reminding her of his previous

31:31

rulings. But she did

31:33

manage to, in various ways, get

31:36

across most of what she wanted to the jury.

31:39

The result was not really what

31:41

she wanted because she was found guilty. She

31:44

Told me that she was happy because

31:47

she had managed to at least explain

31:49

herself, which the judge hadn't really wanted

31:51

her to do. In That case as

31:53

well. coming into the court in the

31:55

morning, there were many people sitting outside

31:58

with the jury nullification slogans. On

32:00

that placards have which the judge.

32:03

Told the jury that they should sort of you

32:05

know take with a bit a pinch of salt.

32:07

So the all these factors were coming together A

32:09

this trial of have the Extinction rebellion founder. Proud.

32:12

Broke was sentenced to fifteen months

32:14

in jail, but the judge immediately

32:17

suspended that sentence. She was

32:19

also given a twelve month supervision

32:21

order and hundred and fifty hours

32:23

of community service. Once.

32:25

The sentencing ended. Brad brick

32:27

release her seventy. Five. Page

32:29

dossier of evidence. All the stuff

32:32

the judge said she couldn't use

32:34

to defend herself. And

32:36

she criticized the judicial for

32:38

some for both and inconsistency

32:40

and for curtailing people's ability

32:42

to defend themselves. In. A

32:45

press statement that Extinction Rebellion sent

32:47

out crowd Brooks said quotes are

32:49

so called. Justice System is a

32:51

lottery for climate defenders and not

32:53

fit for purpose when it comes

32:55

to tackling the climate and nature.

32:57

Crisis. Meanwhile.

33:00

Several. Other climate activists are either

33:02

in jail or awaiting trial in

33:05

the Uk. The

33:09

next year there going to be

33:11

quite a few more trials of

33:13

time protesters, some of them accused

33:15

of quite significant damage, so it'll

33:17

be interesting. To see how the

33:19

cool a treat. Them, whether they

33:22

become even tougher, make it

33:24

even harder for activists to

33:26

to make defenses, and whether

33:28

the sentences are going to

33:30

be even less lenient. I

33:32

understand that some activists are

33:34

going to be making formal

33:36

complaints about Uk government. That's

33:38

it's it's acting disproportionately and

33:40

possibly violating. Some international laws about

33:42

the right to free speech and

33:44

the right to protest so. I

33:46

think that the be a really important things

33:49

and account for as the Uk government is

33:51

aware of it's image of the widest. And

33:54

say that kind of action might.

33:57

help the so it up as being said

34:00

somewhere which likes to present itself as a climate

34:02

leader and a bastion

34:04

of free speech, but it is

34:06

necessarily living up to that reputation right now. Drilled

34:13

is an original Critical Frequency

34:15

production. This episode was

34:17

reported by Isabella Kaminsky and

34:20

written by me, Amy Westervelt. Our

34:23

senior editor for the series is Eileen Brown.

34:26

Our senior producer is Martin Zaldes-Ostwick.

34:28

Our design and scoring also by Martin

34:31

Zaldes-Ostwick who composed much of the music

34:33

in this episode. Mixing

34:35

and mastering by Peter Duff. Our theme

34:37

song is Born in the Hand by Four Known.

34:40

Fast checking by Wudan Yan. Our

34:43

artwork is by Matt Fleming. Our

34:45

first swim in my attorney is James Leipzig.

34:48

The show was created by Amy Westervelt. You

34:51

can find a companion web story

34:53

to this episode on our website

34:55

at drilled.media. You

34:57

can also subscribe to our newsletter there. It

34:59

comes out once a week and includes a

35:01

little bit of analysis on what's happening

35:03

in climate, plus a roundup of the

35:06

top five stories or studies to check

35:08

out each week. It's never

35:10

more than a 10-minute read and people tell

35:12

us it helps them stay on top of

35:14

all things climate. If you want

35:16

to support our work, you can also leave us

35:18

a reading or review. It

35:20

genuinely helps us find new listeners. And

35:23

finally, if you would like to

35:25

fund more climate accountability reporting, you

35:28

can sign up for a paid subscription

35:30

to either the newsletter or the podcast.

35:33

A subscription gets you access

35:35

to ad-free episodes, bonus,

35:37

and early content. And

35:39

every dollar you contribute goes toward more

35:42

reporting and more stories. Thank

35:44

you for that support. That's

35:46

it for this time and we'll see you next week.

36:00

you