Should Chris Packham Break The Law?

In the documentary Chris Packham: Is It Time to Break the Law?, the presenter embarks on a personal journey to decide if it is ethically acceptable to break the law to protest against government policies on climate change. Packham, a well-known broadcaster and environmental campaigner, has long been one of the loudest voices calling for action to counter the climate crisis. Despite his efforts, he feels he has failed as a climate activist, and the documentary sees him weighing up whether more radical action is required. He meets activists who believe in mass civil disobedience and violent action, and he speaks to Greta Thunberg, who has decided that breaking the law is acceptable as long as it doesn't harm anyone. Packham ultimately concludes that those who break the law are on the right side of ethics.

Chris Packham's personal journey

In the documentary "Chris Packham: Is It Time to Break the Law?", Chris Packham embarks on a personal journey to decide if it is ethically acceptable to break the law to protest against government policies on climate change.

Packham, a broadcaster, environmental campaigner, and wildlife presenter, has dedicated his life to conservation based on his absolute devotion to wildlife. He has been one of the loudest voices calling for serious action to counter the climate crisis. However, despite decades of scientific agreement on the grave danger facing life on Earth, and a growing number of people demanding urgent change, governments have failed to take decisive action. This has left Packham feeling exasperated and questioning his methods.

He begins the documentary in a state of self-reflection, recognising his failure as a climate activist. He has participated in peaceful, democratic activism, such as marching, writing banners, and posting posters, but feels that none of it has worked. He watches in despair as David Attenborough's speech at COP26 is forgotten when oil lobbyists enter the conference. He returns home, by his own admission, clinically depressed.

Packham then embarks on a quest to discover if he is willing to follow groups like Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil in taking non-violent protest to new levels. He meets with activists who believe that mass civil disobedience is necessary to force policy change, including radical environmentalist Andreas Malm, who believes in extreme, violent action. He also speaks to Extinction Rebellion co-founder Roger Hallam, who dares him to get arrested, and Greta Thunberg, who has decided she is willing to break the law as long as it doesn't endanger or harm anyone.

Throughout the film, Packham's compassion for the young activists and his sense of shared desperation, fear, and urgency come across. He is seriously contemplating a radical shift and concludes that those who are on the wrong side of the law are on the right side of ethics.

Effectiveness of armchair activism

In the documentary "Chris Packham: Is It Time to Break the Law?", Chris Packham embarks on a personal journey to decide if it is ethically acceptable to break the law to protest against government policies on climate change. This film raises important questions about the effectiveness of armchair activism, also known as slacktivism, online activism, or internet activism. While social media has played a positive role in raising awareness and enabling social justice movements to gain visibility, the concept of armchair activism has its limitations and pitfalls.

One of the main issues with armchair activism is that it often involves posting and sharing content without taking concrete actions or fully understanding the issue at hand. This can lead to virtue signalling, where individuals publicly express their opinions to demonstrate their morality without following through with tangible actions. While social media allows for the rapid spread of information and the formation of like-minded communities, it can also create echo chambers that reinforce existing beliefs and hinder genuine discussions with those who hold different views.

However, armchair activism can also be a powerful tool for change when used effectively. It provides a platform for activists to amplify their voices and reach a wider audience. For example, activists like Greta Thunberg and Malala Yousafzai have successfully utilized social media to gain visibility and spread awareness, but they have also actively organized protests, petitioned governments, and spoken out publicly, demonstrating that online activism is most effective when coupled with offline actions.

Furthermore, armchair activism has the potential to galvanize a complacent society and spark conversations about important issues. It can be a safe space for activists to seek help or recognition, especially during times like the pandemic when physical gatherings are restricted. Additionally, online platforms enable activists to connect with like-minded individuals and collectively brainstorm solutions to pressing issues.

In conclusion, the effectiveness of armchair activism lies in its ability to strike a balance between online visibility and offline action. While social media provides a powerful tool for raising awareness and connecting activists, it should not be the only arena for activism. To create meaningful change, individuals must be willing to translate their online activism into tangible actions, such as organizing protests, engaging in difficult conversations, and actively working towards their cause beyond the confines of their armchairs.

The role of violence in activism

In the documentary "Chris Packham: Is It Time to Break the Law?", Chris Packham explores whether it is ethically acceptable to break the law as a form of protest against government policies on climate change. The documentary features activists who believe that mass civil disobedience is necessary to force policy change, including radical environmentalist Andreas Malm, who advocates for violent action.

Violence as a form of activism refers to the use of physical force or harm to achieve a particular political or social goal. It is important to distinguish violent activism from conventional politics, which typically involves election campaigning, voting, passing laws, and lobbying politicians. While activism is typically associated with peaceful protests and rallies, it can also take the form of violent attacks.

Violent activism can be seen as a form of civil disobedience or radical protest, where individuals or groups believe that breaking the law or using physical force is necessary to bring about social change. In some cases, violent activism may be seen as a last resort when all other forms of protest have failed to achieve the desired outcome. However, it is important to note that the use of violence in activism is highly controversial and may lead to negative consequences, such as backlash from the public or authorities.

Violent activism has been used throughout history to address a variety of issues. For example, during the American Revolution, the Boston Tea Party involved economic sabotage, which was a form of violent activism against British rule. In the context of climate change activism, violent action could involve damaging pipelines or defacing websites of companies contributing to environmental harm.

While violent activism may be effective in certain situations, it is essential to consider the potential risks and consequences. Violence can lead to harm, injury, or loss of life, and it may also detract from the message or cause that activists are fighting for. Additionally, violent activism may result in legal repercussions, with activists risking arrest or prosecution for their actions. Furthermore, violent activism can be counterproductive, as it may alienate potential supporters and create divisions within society.

Overall, the role of violence in activism is complex and highly debated. While some activists may resort to violent action as a last resort or out of desperation, it is generally seen as a controversial and risky strategy. Non-violent forms of activism, such as protests, rallies, and lobbying, are typically preferred as they are seen as more effective and ethical ways to bring about social change.

The Just Stop Oil movement

In the documentary "Chris Packham: Is It Time to Break the Law?", Chris Packham embarks on a personal journey to decide if it is ethically acceptable to break the law to protest against government policies on climate change. The Just Stop Oil movement is a British environmental activist group that primarily focuses on the issue of human-caused climate change. The group aims to lobby the British government to commit to ending new fossil fuel licensing and production using civil resistance, nonviolent direct action, traffic obstruction, and, at times, vandalism.

The group was founded in February 2022 and began protesting at English oil terminals in April 2022. They describe themselves as decentralised and non-hierarchical, with activists operating in autonomous blocs that share resources but have no formal leadership. Just Stop Oil has received criticism for its disruptive and often illegal methods of activism, including blocking roads and bridges in London, spray-painting buildings, and vandalising fuel pumps.

However, they have also been successful in keeping 4.4 billion barrels of oil in the ground and won a victory in 2024 when no new oil and gas licenses were granted. The group believes that rapid social change has only ever come from everyday people disrupting the status quo and that civil resistance through nonviolent pressure can force change. They argue that the government is prioritising corporate profits and the wealth of billionaires over the wellbeing of ordinary people and the planet.

Just Stop Oil calls for an end to new oil and gas projects, stating that the extraction of new oil and gas resources is an obscene and genocidal policy that will destroy families and communities, ultimately, humanity. They criticise the government for wasting billions on subsidies and tax breaks for the fossil fuel industry and ineffective technologies, arguing that the choice is between a rapid transition to a low-energy and low-carbon world or social collapse.

The group has organised numerous protests, including storming the British Grand Prix track, disrupting football matches, targeting artworks in museums, and staging demonstrations at various locations such as universities, airports, and government buildings. As of April 2022, their supporters have been arrested over 2,100 times, with many spending time in prison.

The ethics of breaking the law

In his documentary, *Is It Time to Break the Law?*, Chris Packham embarks on a personal journey to decide whether it is ethically acceptable to break the law as a form of protest against government policies on climate change.

The documentary sees Packham meet with activists who believe that mass civil disobedience is necessary to force policy change. This includes radical environmentalist, Andreas Malm, who advocates for extreme, violent action. Packham also speaks to Roger Hallam, co-founder of Extinction Rebellion, who challenges Packham to get arrested, stating that it is public figures who lead the way in times of crisis.

The film raises important questions about the effectiveness of traditional forms of protest, such as marching and banner-writing, in bringing about the urgent change needed to address the climate crisis. Despite decades of scientific agreement and increasing public concern, governments have been slow to take decisive action. This has led to a sense of desperation, fear, and urgency among climate activists, who feel that more radical measures may be necessary to create meaningful change.

However, the potential consequences of breaking the law, such as arrest and legal repercussions, are also important considerations. The documentary presents a nuanced exploration of these ethical dilemmas, with Packham ultimately concluding that those who break the law in the name of climate activism are on the right side of ethics, even if they are on the wrong side of the law.

Frequently asked questions