As Martin Luther King said, moderates are our biggest obstacle to freedom. Here's how they enabled my prison sentence.
Note: This article was transcribed from a prison phoneline. You can listen to it here.
Yesterday, myself and four others were imprisoned for four to five years. The conservatives and the liberals have got it all sewn up. The narrative is set: for the conservatives, it's job well done. For the liberals, it's another chance to go through the motions of an "injustice trial". But this is not about five nice white middle-class people being banged up for "protest" on "the climate." It's about a few million not-so-nice white people deciding to have a few hundred million brown people die. Just for starters.
This is not about "climate change"; we agree with the judge on that. It is about murder. At scale. Forever. And that is a bad thing, a very bad thing, an evil thing. When the United Nations recently said we have two years to save the world, that they are not being "melodramatic," that economies will be "devastated," they mean it. Not in some distant future. In the next 10 to 20 years, that's what 1,000 public statements have said. It's what 10,000 peer-reviewed papers have said. It's coming. It is what it is. At some point, you'll be stepping over body parts on the way to work, going "well, you know."
What do you think David Attenborough means when he said "we face the end of civilization"? A picnic? What do you think 1 billion refugees at 2 degrees Celsius, 20 times the number at the end of World War II, looks like? Really?
Conservatives are the bad guys and liberals are the bad guys who pretend to be good guys, and the latter are the worse, which is why historically they are held in more contempt. They knew but they did nothing. As Martin Luther King said in a letter from a Birmingham jail, it's the moderates that repress, distract, sabotage the resistance to injustice. They are the main problem. Of course, the Carbon State and its functionaries are going to put people in prison for years if they come up with a resistance plan proportionate to the level of criminality we objectively face. If they are willing to have a few hundred million black people starve to death, then why be surprised that they pervert the course of justice?
This trial was not about "the right to protest." It is not about "a cause," "an issue." It's civil resistance against the biggest death project in human history, the greatest ever act of criminality. This trial was an experiment with the truth, as Gandhi called it. We were not trying to win, we were trying to tell the truth as if the truth was real, as if this slaughter, starvation, and rape is real. It was integrity, not expediency. So obviously, we spoke that truth. Obviously, we got interrupted. Obviously, we continue to speak even when the judges shouted at us to stop, had us dragged from the dock, banged up in jail. This is what evil looks like. It's what it does. And it's just the beginning.
Integrity at the present time is resistance, nothing more, nothing less. It's the opposite logic to expediency. Expediency is trying to have your cake and eat it. To maintain your privilege and status while appearing to do good. Expediency is to write an article about the trial but not glue your hands to your editor's desk. Expediency is to call for justice but not to challenge to judge because it will do in your career. Expediency is to lead a march but not have anyone sit down and be arrested. Expediency is doing everything that looks good but does no good. Expediency is betrayal. Betrayal of your family, your country, this world, but also of yourself—that temporary spark of consciousness in the void of eternity. Consciousness is truth, beauty, love. When you're on your deathbed, you will not be thinking about your career, the stuff you had; you'll be thinking about whether you became what you know yourself to be, a soul.
Integrity is a hard path. Your ego has to burn in a fire that destroys its desire to control. Integrity is humiliation, failure, being forgotten. As the greatest soul of the 20th century, Simone Weil, said: when you have an important decision to make, choose the most costly option. We might add, "in the 2020s," because if you don't, the cost will be far greater. In a week or two, all this trial business will be old news. All that will be left for us is the dual brutality of a British prison. Today I had boiled rice with fried rice. Yesterday, boiled rice with pasta. A few days ago, a note came through that cell door: two paragraphs, a guy down the row had killed himself. The new inmates bang on their iron doors all night, yelling, caged and enraged.
As this article wrote itself in my head, I cried. Not tears of self-pity, not of anger, but of determination. I know who I am. I know what I am doing, and that's why I'm Britain's most influential climate campaigner, as they like to call me. Take note: in the end times, integrity trumps expediency. I'm smiling. Are you?
We're appealing to the new Attorney General to stop this madness. Over 1000+ public figures, including singer Chris Martin (Coldplay), top human rights lawyer Sir Geoffrey Bindman KC and the UK's former chief scientist, Sir David King have signed an open letter against the insane sentencing. Read the full letter and signatories at https://defendourjuries.org/wtf/
Sign the Petition - after all, you can't lock up the truth. Then come to the demonstration to free truthtellers at 2-4pm on August 3rd in Parliament Square. A coalition of groups will be coming together for our freedom. Sign The Petition For My Release
If you'd like to send me a message of support, you can email a note through to me in prison by sending it to rogerremanded@gmail.com
As always, you can sign up for nonviolent civil resistance with Just Stop Oil in the UK or via the A22 Network internationally. Tell your story; Ask a question; Interpret generously http://storybythethroat.wordpress.com/tell-ask-listen/
Conservatives have lost their way. They are jailing the people trying to stop social collapse. In fact, they have become the fanatics. Who's the Real Fanatic?
Note: This article was transcribed from a prison phoneline and originally published in the far-right newspaper, The Daily Mail, as part of an effort to appeal to a conservative revolution. You can listen to the audio version here.
During my sentencing on Thursday, I was called a fanatic by Judge Hehir. This word was published on the front pages of the national press. I think I have a right to respond.
For over two decades, I was a farmer in Wales, supplied my community with vegetables, and lived a family life. I worked very hard, paid my taxes, and was no harm to anyone. I was doing my job, but the politicians were not doing their job. Along with millions of other farmers, I was forced out of business by extreme weather events—months without rain, months with nothing but rain, now yearly events.
Central to my personal belief is the idea of balance. I have the same orientation as many traditional conservatives, such as Edmund Burke. Destroying the weather systems in order to take money is not balanced; it is a crime. My political views are rooted in the philosophy of John Locke, the father of classical liberalism. We should live under the rule of law, and so should the government. The basis of the law is the welfare of the people. If a regime enables the destruction of the lives and livelihoods of the people, then the government is a tyranny, and the people have the right to rebel.
Front pages of the billionaire-owned, Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph on the trial.
No "functioning democracy" enables the obliteration of our way of life for the next hundred thousand years. Or are we living in 1984, where the consequences of going over two degrees by burning new oil and gas is a continuation of the rule of law?
Judge Hehir said in the trial that these effects of what he called "climate change" were "neither here nor there." He was given 200 pages of scientific evidence but refused to change his mind. Furthermore, he refused to let the jury see that evidence so they could make up their minds. He merrily declared that the human race going to "a fiery end" was not relevant in a British court.
Can you imagine if he had said that about the 50 million killed in World War II? If he had said that about the millions murdered by the Nazis? John Locke was clear: any government that plans the death of its citizens is breaking the law, in the past, in the present, and in the future. No exceptions.
When our children read about what Judge Hehir said a decade from now, they will have one word to describe him: fanatic.
*****
He isn't getting very far in his attempt to 'appeal to a conservative revolution' judging by the universally negative comments under the article published in the Heil:
In contrast to Ms Phillipson, the Mail is a passionate defender of free speech.
No one has been more critical than this newspaper of the dangerous and disruptive stunts carried out by Just Stop Oil.
But in the name of debate we today publish a letter by the cult's leader, Roger Hallam, jailed for five years for his part in immobilising the M25.
He denounces the trial judge as a 'fanatic' for not letting him spout climate hysteria to the jury. But that was legally irrelevant.
While accepting people should 'live under the rule of law', Hallam and his fellow eco-cranks believe their views entitle them to live outside it.
Every second of his stiff sentence is thoroughly deserved.
[image caption] 'Dangerous and disruptive': While accepting people should 'live under the rule of law', Roger Hallam and his fellow eco-cranks believe their views entitle them to live outside it'
Nothing will change without you making ultimatums. Celebrities need to engage in civil disobedience to spark a revolution. ⌛Is There A Time Limit Or Not? A Letter To Celebrities
A lobster in a pot, Dreaming a while Under the summer moon - Basho
Note: This article was transcribed from a prison phoneline. You can listen to the audio version here.
First things first, thank you so much for speaking outside the court last week and for publicising the appalling mockery of the trial. And thanks to all the others who have spoken up as well. But please remember, this situation is not about us, the #WholeTruthFive. The British legal system is institutionally unjust. Young people are kept on remand for two years or more, and many others have no voice in our brutal prison system.
I am writing this open letter to remind you, and those reading, that we are living through the most fucked up moment in human history. It is so easy for us all to follow the well-worn script: protesters fight for justice, get banged up, liberal notables come to the rescue, the fight continues, and then the good guys win. The anti-slavery campaigns, women's vote, trade union and civil rights, and all the rest of it—all good stuff. But to think that this is where we are at in 2024 is to be as willfully deluded as our friend Judge Hehir, for two reasons.
First, the situation is beyond massive; it's global and murderous. The injustice is incalculable: a third of Pakistan underwater, 50 degrees plus in India, millions of refugees streaming out of the Sahel and Central America. The obscenity of destroying our children's lives—it goes on and on and on. Clive Lewis MP speaking at our rally. It's time to give the Labour Party an ultimatum.
Secondly, and most critically, there is a time limit, is there not? Or are we still pretending? We are on a cliff edge. This movement was founded shortly after the IPCC report in 2018, saying we have a decade left to half emissions. We will go over 2°C in the 2030s: one billion refugees. We have two years left (“to save the world”), according to the UN, as outlined a few weeks ago. I could give you another hundred data points: methane, glaciers, forest fires, ice, ozone, acidification. We are in a total fucking emergency. As the civil resistance movements have been pointing out since 2018, if this does not stop, our kids will starve. These islands will become uninhabitable. What was that about the AMOC collapse? Minus 10 to 30 degrees temperatures in UK winters—and then it goes on forever.
The last of our worries is getting banged up for a year or two. Please understand your responsibilities. Causes have demands; emergencies have ultimatums. Nothing will change without you making ultimatums. Clive [Lewis] needs to say to the Labour Party, "Cancel the Tory licences, or he will resign." Jenny [Jones] needs to glue herself to the House of Lords benches. Chris [Packham] needs to lead the marchers to sit down and keep doing it until he's put in prison. All of you need to engage in civil disobedience to force the national media to have a two-hour documentary on the starvation of our children. Chris Packham needs to lead a mass civil disobedience march.
I am tired of the lazy excuses on all of this. Look at XR, Insulate Britain, Just Stop Oil, and now this trial. There is no time for anything else. The liberal classes have to resist; otherwise, we will have fascism. In the 2030s, the next generation will go, "You did what? A march, a speech? A petition? What the fuck?"
But most of all, this is what I have to say: our civilization is built on the delusion of control, the utilitarian privilege of being able to ask, "Will it work?" You're not put in this world to stand by, to hedge, to prevaricate. We are put here to do the right thing in the face of evil. That is why we got dragged out of court for acting upon this truth. Now the baton is being passed to you. For the sake of the next 10,000 generations, don't drop it.Tell your story; Ask a question; Interpret generously http://storybythethroat.wordpress.com/tell-ask-listen/
This is my closing speech to jurors in the Whole Truth Five trial. Afterwards I was found guilty and given a 5-year prison sentence.
Note: This speech was transcribed from a prison phoneline. You can listen to the audio version on Spotify/Apple Podcasts or watch the Youtube video with subtitles.
I would like to start by acknowledging that this has been a strange and difficult trial. As the judge has said, he has never had defendants dragged from the court and put in prison, and it's not usual for the jury to be sent out so often, prevented from hearing what a defendant has to say. I want to apologise for the commotion; it is not how I would like a court case to proceed, but I'd like to draw your attention to a very important outcome of this disruption, namely that the judge was persuaded to change his mind and allow you to see four relevant, agreed facts about this case—about the harm and the criminality that myself and my fellow defendants were intending to draw attention to and prevent.
These four simple facts shine a light on a world of evidence you were prevented from considering in this trial, and it is common sense that if you are not allowed to see both sides of the argument, you cannot be sure of guilt. It is also, therefore, obvious that this has not been a fair trial—not by any common-sense definition. Is this how justice should work? You have heard already, you have to be sure to convict. In any UK court, you have to be sure. As a lawyer said in another trial I was involved in, even if you are just a tiny, tiny bit unsure, the law says you have to find the defendant not guilty. This is because a defendant is innocent unless proven guilty. The prosecution has to prove beyond doubt that there was no reasonable excuse in this particular case, as laid down by an act of Parliament.
Of course, the judge has instructed you that the facts about the massive harm created by the emission of greenhouse gases are not relevant in this case. But you should note that he has also conceded that, to quote, “The facts are as you find them.” You have to interpret those facts, you have to make sense of them, you have to decide what it means—what a fact, an agreed fact, means when it says we face a catastrophe, catastrophic consequences as a country if emissions are not stopped. We face some cold, hard facts in this trial. The judge might want to avoid them, but you make up your own mind. The facts as you find them—this is your job. This is what the law on jury equity means. You have to make up your own mind. You're independent in this court. It is a great responsibility, and given the agreed facts, your responsibility goes well beyond this courtroom.
This charge, as you know, has two aspects: the charge of conspiracy—conspiracy to cause a public nuisance—and then also the charge of public nuisance itself, public nuisance without a reasonable excuse. I will deal first with the conspiracy element. I was not part of any conspiracy. I have said so on oath. I was not party to any agreement to go to the countries. I did not go to any organising meetings. I received no paperwork or documentation. I took no trips, and I did none of the organising. It is not up to me to prove to you these things, but for the prosecution to prove that I did receive paperwork, go to meetings, etcetera. And you all have noticed that they have provided no evidence—no evidence at all. And the reason is because there is no evidence. I was simply not involved.
The prosecution says they have powerful evidence. Notice they didn't say conclusive or overwhelming evidence. What they mean to say is there's some evidence. Some evidence is not proof. You cannot be sure, and if you cannot be sure, then you cannot convict, because you don't have the documents, the equipment, the reports of meetings—there was none.
And so, in my case, they have to try and prove my guilt with the single 20-minute Zoom talk that I did. That's it. As I've said, I've done hundreds of these sorts of talks on civil disobedience, making arguments for people to be involved in specific civil disobedience campaigns. Never before have I been arrested for such a talk.
When I was arrested, I expected to be let out the following day—not put in prison on remand for four months and then put on a curfew tag for one and a half years so I couldn't go out late in the evening. Most of the speech is about the general reasons and arguments for why action is needed, why, and how civil disobedience works. As Dan Shaw introduced me, I was there to give the reasons to step up. I was there to give reasons; I was not part of a conspiracy.
It seems the whole case against me revolves around just 10 lines of the speech—that I knew that the project needed around 60 people, that I said, "We need to get involved." So, on the point of the 60 people, the fact of the matter is, this was widely known. Lots of people knew we needed around 60 people. That does not mean that I was involved in a conspiracy, part of an agreement to take joint action. Knowing information might be part of a conspiracy, but it's common sense that it does not provide conclusive proof. For that, you need corroborative material evidence. As I said, evidence of going to organisation meetings, activities, possession of paperwork, etc. Just knowing something in itself is clearly insufficient.
And when I said, "We," I was saying we are the movement in a general sense. Again, in and of itself, it proves nothing. In contrast, if I'd said, "We need to step up, and I want all of you to join me in a planning meeting next week when I'll go through all the details," then that would have been clear evidence. I did not say that, did I? Because I was not involved. I was not there to make an agreement; I was there to make an argument, to give reasons. That's why the person after me was going to, to quote, "Go into exactly how it works." Why was this? Because I did not know those details. I didn't know about the future meet-up. I knew nothing about what was happening, when, and where. I was there simply to do one thing—to make a speech.
To conclude on this, to be sure, you need to have evidence of concrete actions, material evidence, to be totally sure of innocence. You have to know. You need people to know nothing about the conspiracy. In the middle, as it were, I myself knew something, but that was it. You can speculate that I knew more and I was involved in more things, but self-evidently, you cannot be sure. And because you cannot be sure, you cannot convict.
And there's one more thing to be said about the prosecution case against me. What are the implications for protest?
on August 20, 2024, 1:04 am