Jessa Latona and Heather McCabe not going to prison for GMO vandalism

johnboy 3 August 2012 63

gmo wheat vandalism

The ABC brings news that the Greenpeace Two have succeeded in their appeals to the better nature of Justice Penfold and won’t be spending time in the pokey for their wheat whacking ways:

Prosecutors told the ACT Supreme Court, a jail term was warranted because the attack was planned in full knowledge the law would be broken and the women had shown no remorse.

But the defence told the court Greenpeace has now paid more than $280,000 in reparations, and both women are now aware of the seriousness of their actions.

Lawyers for the women urged a suspended sentence.

Justice Hilary Penfold agreed, but will not impose a formal sentence until October.


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
63 Responses to Jessa Latona and Heather McCabe not going to prison for GMO vandalism
Filter
Order
Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 10:09 am 05 Aug 12

Jethro said :

bigfeet said :

Jethro said :

It would be a crime. You would deserve to go to jail.

You would not be a terrorist.

Was terror created from the act of cutting down some GM crops?
No.
Therefore, no terrorism.

You are confusing a few concepts here.

There is no necessity to create a feeling or “terror” to fulfill the legal definition of “terrorism”

For example, if there were a serial killer in a particular area targeting the elderly, or children, or just anyone at all, it would certainly be create a feeling of terror (or be terrifying) for many people in that area.

But that is not terrorism.

There are offences designed to cover these types of things. It is illegal to kill someone. It is illegal to blow up a building. It is illegal to destroy property.

It is not the act, but it the reason behind it that makes an act terrorism.

I see your point, but disagree.

Terrorism must incorporate the act, not just the ends. Terrorism stands out as a crime amongst crimes. It involves more than the ‘ends’ but the ‘means to the ends’.

The crop destruction was certainly done for political purposes. It (possibly) involved violence (if you include destruction of property as violence).

But, I’m sorry, I just can’t see it falling under the umbrella of terrorism. The fact that these women got let off without a prison sentence suggests that the law doesn’t see it as terrorism either (although, as they say, the law is an ass; on the other hand, Australian law isn’t skewed in favour of anyone who could possibly be classified as a terrorist).

To fall back on Wikipedia… “terrorism is the systematic use of terror… Definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear.”

Cutting down some plants could fall under a range of crimes, some of which demand lengthy prison sentences. But it is not terrorism. No fear was created. No people felt terrorised. No-one was threatened or put in harm’s way. No-one felt as though they were in harm’s way.

At the end of the day, what happened was some people cut down some plants with a brush cutter. Trespass? Yep. Destruction of property? Yep. Vandalism? Yep. Industrial sabotage? Yep. Prison sentence deserving? I would say so.

Terrorism? No. It doesn’t matter that there was a political motive, otherwise all political protest would be terrorism. It doesn’t matter that there was violence (against a plant), otherwise all violent crimes would be terrorism.

The families of those who were killed in London, Bali, New York, Lockerbie, Belfast, Madrid, Munich, Beslan would argue vehemently against including this crime as terrorism.

I’m sure you feel passionately about what happened. But labeling any crime as terrorism only serves to devalue the word.

Look, I’m sorry, you may feel very strongly that what happened was a serious offense (I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with you on that), but it just is not terrorism. Terrorism is a crime that stands out against other crimes.

If Greenpeace were to choose terrorism as their MO against GM crops, they would have taken steps to create terror. They would have targetted civilians

Well said and agree 100%

milkman milkman 7:49 am 05 Aug 12

Jethro said :

milkman said :

Truthiness said :


no one was injured, no one was killed. sure, some possessions were destroyed but that’s not terrorism, its just childish.

You’re a disgrace. How about I take an ax to your car while it’s unattended – after all, it would just be a bit of childish fun.

It would be a crime. You would deserve to go to jail.

You would not be a terrorist.

Was terror created from the act of cutting down some GM crops?
No.
Therefore, no terrorism.

I’m not suggesting it IS terrorism. I agree that it is a crime, and should be deslt with as such.

One One 5:35 am 05 Aug 12

PS: Grass isn’t someones home, and its a work site (like a building site I would assume).

Anyone got a pic of the CSIRO notices on all their gates/roads, along with notice given to all property owners that join the site in question for at least 3km?

I ask the above given containment and security failure require conviction of the org and people who ran the test. This had better not been able to expose a national park or anything thats native

One One 5:29 am 05 Aug 12

so they didn’t kill anything?

if so what did they kill? GMO isn’t a plant – its IP and patient until its given legal rights to grow wild (until then its considered a weed, perhaps a BIO weapon).

I love the bit about breaking the law – where does one submit such evidence? Theres loads of evidence against several ACT government and Federal departments on actions that clearly show ‘full knowledge of breaking the law’.

But which law? Commonwealth law, ACT Government law, or International Monsanto Bribed Law?

Think there’s a drink driving minister who may be in that bag ‘with full knowledge of breaking the law ‘. lets see how his case was managed – oh that’s right, its for the good, that was done for the public at large.

🙂

Jethro Jethro 1:42 am 05 Aug 12

bigfeet said :

Jethro said :

It would be a crime. You would deserve to go to jail.

You would not be a terrorist.

Was terror created from the act of cutting down some GM crops?
No.
Therefore, no terrorism.

You are confusing a few concepts here.

There is no necessity to create a feeling or “terror” to fulfill the legal definition of “terrorism”

For example, if there were a serial killer in a particular area targeting the elderly, or children, or just anyone at all, it would certainly be create a feeling of terror (or be terrifying) for many people in that area.

But that is not terrorism.

There are offences designed to cover these types of things. It is illegal to kill someone. It is illegal to blow up a building. It is illegal to destroy property.

It is not the act, but it the reason behind it that makes an act terrorism.

I see your point, but disagree.

Terrorism must incorporate the act, not just the ends. Terrorism stands out as a crime amongst crimes. It involves more than the ‘ends’ but the ‘means to the ends’.

The crop destruction was certainly done for political purposes. It (possibly) involved violence (if you include destruction of property as violence).

But, I’m sorry, I just can’t see it falling under the umbrella of terrorism. The fact that these women got let off without a prison sentence suggests that the law doesn’t see it as terrorism either (although, as they say, the law is an ass; on the other hand, Australian law isn’t skewed in favour of anyone who could possibly be classified as a terrorist).

To fall back on Wikipedia… “terrorism is the systematic use of terror… Definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear.”

Cutting down some plants could fall under a range of crimes, some of which demand lengthy prison sentences. But it is not terrorism. No fear was created. No people felt terrorised. No-one was threatened or put in harm’s way. No-one felt as though they were in harm’s way.

At the end of the day, what happened was some people cut down some plants with a brush cutter. Trespass? Yep. Destruction of property? Yep. Vandalism? Yep. Industrial sabotage? Yep. Prison sentence deserving? I would say so.

Terrorism? No. It doesn’t matter that there was a political motive, otherwise all political protest would be terrorism. It doesn’t matter that there was violence (against a plant), otherwise all violent crimes would be terrorism.

The families of those who were killed in London, Bali, New York, Lockerbie, Belfast, Madrid, Munich, Beslan would argue vehemently against including this crime as terrorism.

I’m sure you feel passionately about what happened. But labeling any crime as terrorism only serves to devalue the word.

Look, I’m sorry, you may feel very strongly that what happened was a serious offense (I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with you on that), but it just is not terrorism. Terrorism is a crime that stands out against other crimes.

If Greenpeace were to choose terrorism as their MO against GM crops, they would have taken steps to create terror. They would have targetted civilians

DrKoresh DrKoresh 12:54 am 05 Aug 12

bigfeet said :

It is not the act, but it the reason behind it that makes an act terrorism.

+1000. Perfectly worded, can we all agree on this definition? Because I’m sick of the specious arguments against it.

bundah bundah 12:10 am 05 Aug 12

DrKoresh said :

bundah said :

Comparing having one’s premises and belongings being destroyed to sabotaging crop experiments is totally absurd and disproportionate.

No it isn’t, sabotaging the work and careers of the researchers involved isn’t a victimless crime, as much as you seem to think it is. Destroying valuable research crops because of an irrational hatred of GMO with no factual basis is absurd and disproportionate.

So the misguided actions of those two young females in destroying research work is comparable to someone destroying your home and belongings is it?Well perhaps we should undertake a poll and see what the majority think shall we? For the record at no stage did i imply that the researchers were victimless so read my comments more carefully before you make ludicrous assumptions if that’s at all possible.

bigfeet bigfeet 11:51 pm 04 Aug 12

Jethro said :

It would be a crime. You would deserve to go to jail.

You would not be a terrorist.

Was terror created from the act of cutting down some GM crops?
No.
Therefore, no terrorism.

You are confusing a few concepts here.

There is no necessity to create a feeling or “terror” to fulfill the legal definition of “terrorism”

For example, if there were a serial killer in a particular area targeting the elderly, or children, or just anyone at all, it would certainly be create a feeling of terror (or be terrifying) for many people in that area.

But that is not terrorism.

There are offences designed to cover these types of things. It is illegal to kill someone. It is illegal to blow up a building. It is illegal to destroy property.

It is not the act, but it the reason behind it that makes an act terrorism.

Jethro Jethro 7:52 pm 04 Aug 12

milkman said :

Truthiness said :


no one was injured, no one was killed. sure, some possessions were destroyed but that’s not terrorism, its just childish.

You’re a disgrace. How about I take an ax to your car while it’s unattended – after all, it would just be a bit of childish fun.

It would be a crime. You would deserve to go to jail.

You would not be a terrorist.

Was terror created from the act of cutting down some GM crops?
No.
Therefore, no terrorism.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 6:37 pm 04 Aug 12

HenryBG said :

DrKoresh said :

There’s no company on Earth that’s business plan is to be evil to people, and the childishness of people who think like that is really grating.

So Nestle didn’t kill hundreds of thousands of infants by marketing baby formula to stupid poor people who couldn’t afford it?
Exxon isn’t disseminating deliberate disinformation (via Heartland) to enable them to continue to cause global warming which will kill a whole lot of poor people?
The nylon industry didn’t use racism to eliminate their competitors in the Hemp industry?
The Asbestos industries aren’t currently forking out millions in compo on account of knowingly putting their workers in danger?
The Tobacco companies didn’t spend decades paying fakexperts to deny smoking causes cancer?

You need to get real. A lot of people think money is more important than ethics or morals. Monsanto is well up there with the rest of the evil, cynical money-grubbers.

Exactly. Most multinationals are evil just by existing.

DrKoresh DrKoresh 6:32 pm 04 Aug 12

bundah said :

Comparing having one’s premises and belongings being destroyed to sabotaging crop experiments is totally absurd and disproportionate.

No it isn’t, sabotaging the work and careers of the researchers involved isn’t a victimless crime, as much as you seem to think it is. Destroying valuable research crops because of an irrational hatred of GMO with no factual basis is absurd and disproportionate.

DrKoresh DrKoresh 6:27 pm 04 Aug 12

Truthiness said :

“unlwaful display of force”

so if a cop kicks your head in, that’s not violence because it is lawful?

that definition would also allow all kinds of force, an unlawful display of magnets, an unlawful display of lifting, an unlawful display of flower arrangement?

I put it to you that the lawfulness of an act has no bearing whatsoever on whether said act is violent. the violence of an act is determined by its nature and extent, not its relationship with a given legal system.

had the 911 planes flown into a greenhouse and harmed no one, would the public have been terrorised? terror comes from fear for ones own life, not fear for property.

capitalists love their property and assets, love equating its value and well being to their own. it is crucial to remember though, you are not what you own.

no one was injured, no one was killed. sure, some possessions were destroyed but that’s not terrorism, its just childish.

You are a part of our capitalist society, as evidenced by your ability to contribute to this site. The real childishness is in your hypocrisy at railing against the society that you’re voluntarily a part of. You’re vague example of a cop kicking someone’s head in is stupid. The police don’t run around indiscriminately bashing heads, despite your delusions we don’t in fact live in a Fascist state, and when you compare it to one you demonstrate the naivety of your pseudo-cynical perspective.

milkman milkman 6:18 pm 04 Aug 12

Truthiness said :


no one was injured, no one was killed. sure, some possessions were destroyed but that’s not terrorism, its just childish.

You’re a disgrace. How about I take an ax to your car while it’s unattended – after all, it would just be a bit of childish fun.

bundah bundah 6:09 pm 04 Aug 12

Tetranitrate said :

Truthiness said :

no one was injured, no one was killed. sure, some possessions were destroyed but that’s not terrorism, its just childish.

So if somebody burns down your home while nobody is inside, it’s just a bit of childish fun?

Comparing having one’s premises and belongings being destroyed to sabotaging crop experiments is totally absurd and disproportionate.

Tetranitrate Tetranitrate 4:29 pm 04 Aug 12

Truthiness said :

no one was injured, no one was killed. sure, some possessions were destroyed but that’s not terrorism, its just childish.

So if somebody burns down your home while nobody is inside, it’s just a bit of childish fun?

Truthiness Truthiness 4:07 pm 04 Aug 12

“unlwaful display of force”

so if a cop kicks your head in, that’s not violence because it is lawful?

that definition would also allow all kinds of force, an unlawful display of magnets, an unlawful display of lifting, an unlawful display of flower arrangement?

I put it to you that the lawfulness of an act has no bearing whatsoever on whether said act is violent. the violence of an act is determined by its nature and extent, not its relationship with a given legal system.

had the 911 planes flown into a greenhouse and harmed no one, would the public have been terrorised? terror comes from fear for ones own life, not fear for property.

capitalists love their property and assets, love equating its value and well being to their own. it is crucial to remember though, you are not what you own.

no one was injured, no one was killed. sure, some possessions were destroyed but that’s not terrorism, its just childish.

DrKoresh DrKoresh 3:14 pm 04 Aug 12

c_c said :

Jethro said :

I studied terrorism as part of a pol sci unit major at uni. There are many competing versions of what terrorism is.

It is pushing it to include using a whipper snipper to destroy property as terrorism.

You’re confusing means with purpose.

Had the DGSE used some kind of drill to sink the Rainbow Warrior instead of explosives, then an act of state sponsored terrorism (and a terrorist act in France’s own words) would suddenly not be according to such a conception.

Jethro said :

To me eco-terrorism is using violence for environmental purposes.

Violence has a broad meaning.

Oxford defines it as including an unlawful display of force, and many definition take this to include the destruction of property.

Exactly my point. Only a lack-wit would restrict the definition of terrorism to include physical violence against human beings.

c_c c_c 2:42 pm 04 Aug 12

Jethro said :

I studied terrorism as part of a pol sci unit major at uni. There are many competing versions of what terrorism is.

It is pushing it to include using a whipper snipper to destroy property as terrorism.

You’re confusing means with purpose.

Had the DGSE used some kind of drill to sink the Rainbow Warrior instead of explosives, then an act of state sponsored terrorism (and a terrorist act in France’s own words) would suddenly not be according to such a conception.

Jethro said :

To me eco-terrorism is using violence for environmental purposes.

Violence has a broad meaning.

Oxford defines it as including an unlawful display of force, and many definition take this to include the destruction of property.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 9:27 am 04 Aug 12

Haha only a lack wit would consider this terrorism.

HenryBG HenryBG 9:16 am 04 Aug 12

DrKoresh said :

There’s no company on Earth that’s business plan is to be evil to people, and the childishness of people who think like that is really grating.

So Nestle didn’t kill hundreds of thousands of infants by marketing baby formula to stupid poor people who couldn’t afford it?
Exxon isn’t disseminating deliberate disinformation (via Heartland) to enable them to continue to cause global warming which will kill a whole lot of poor people?
The nylon industry didn’t use racism to eliminate their competitors in the Hemp industry?
The Asbestos industries aren’t currently forking out millions in compo on account of knowingly putting their workers in danger?
The Tobacco companies didn’t spend decades paying fakexperts to deny smoking causes cancer?

You need to get real. A lot of people think money is more important than ethics or morals. Monsanto is well up there with the rest of the evil, cynical money-grubbers.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site