"On Thin Ice": Western Nations Crack Down on Climate Activists with Arrests & Jail Terms

[Uncle Joe]

As the climate crisis continues to accelerate, wealthy governments in the West are clamping down on climate protest. According to a new report from Climate Rights International, demonstrators around the world are being arrested, charged, prosecuted and silenced, simply for using their rights to free expression. One of those prosecuted is activist Joanna Smith, who last year applied washable school finger paint on the exterior glass case enclosing Edgar Degas's renowned wax sculpture, Little Dancer, at the National Gallery of Art to draw attention to the urgency of the climate crisis. She was charged and later sentenced to two months in federal prison for her civil disobedience. We speak to Smith just a week after her release, and to Linda Lakhdir, the legal director of Climate Rights International. "Countries who have held themselves up as beacons of rule of law are essentially repressing peaceful protest," says Lakhdir. Smith says the nonviolent action she took was intended to highlight the disparity between a sculpture of a child protected from the elements with a strong plexiglass case and the billions of children around the world left unsafe and vulnerable by climate change's effects. "The crisis is here now, it's unfolding in front of us, and our governments are failing us," she explains.

Democracy Now! is an independent global news hour that airs on over 1,500 TV and radio stations Monday through Friday. Watch our livestream at democracynow.org Mondays to Fridays 8-9 a.m. ET.

[cab67]

1. There's a difference between peaceful protest and vandalism.

Even washable paint can damage display cases.

We desperately need to do something about climate change, but defacing art is not a very smart way to prompt such action.

[Uncle Joe]

3. It was Plexiglas, not art and ten years in prison is a ridiculously draconian sentence

for using washable child school art paint to protest for the protection of hundreds of millions of real live children.

Their protest highlighted the insane nature of what modern society values.

[cab67]

4. I said it was the display case.

Throwing anything on a plexiglas display case risks damage to the case. Even washable paint. I work in museums a lot - I've seen what can happen.

What this person did was unbelievably foolish. Maybe 10 years is too harsh, but a stretch in prison was definitely warranted.

[Uncle Joe]

5. They didn't throw anything, they rubbed it, you said it was art and ten years is insane and immoral.

"We desperately need to do something about climate change, but defacing art is not a very smart way to prompt such action."

[cab67]

6. No, I said it was the display case.

Even washable paint can damage display cases.

Rubbing it on is even worse!

[Uncle Joe]

7. Rubbing washable child's paint on a display case is not "defacing art,"

it's defacing the display case.

[cab67]

8. understood.

The first sentence specified "display case."

And it's still vandalism that risks damage to the structure.

[Uncle Joe]

9. That was in reference to your post# 1

""We desperately need to do something about climate change, but defacing art is not a very smart way to prompt such action."

and facing ten years in prison for rubbing washable child's paint on a plexiglass case is insane and immoral.

[cab67]

10. the sentence preceding it said "display case."

I know what I wrote.

Others have indeed defaced actual works of art for this purpose.

I stand by what I said - 10 years is possibly too harsh, but what this person did risked damage to a work of art, and for that, she should be held accountable.

It's not just the plexiglas. This exhibit probably has an electronic security system in place. (In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it went off when the case was painted.). They may also have sophisticated climate-control systems to maintain an appropriate temperature and humidity level within the case, not to mention lights. Any of these could have been damaged or destroyed by having a liquid applied to it. (I'm sure the paint dribbled down after her handprints were spread all over the glass.).

There's also the matter of having the display case or base actually dislodged. This is why I said it was worse because the paint was smeared by hand - the case is doubtless heavy, but depending on how securely it was attached, it could have come loose or fallen off. Unlikely, perhaps, but not impossible. I've seen it happen. Conversely, the paint could have dried between the case and base, which would cause the two to stick together and increase the risk of damage if the case has to be taken off for whatever reason. And though I don't know what the base was made of, the likeliest materials are wood (which can warp) or metal (which, depending on the type, can rust).

Then there's the water and cleanser used to remove the paint. That, too, can damage the case or base. It would have to be applied very carefully. I'm sure they didn't just have the custodian wipe the paint off with some Windex and a paper towel, either - it would have been done by a trained conservator.

Like I said, this is coming from direct experience. I work in museums - natural history rather than art, but exhibition technology is basically the same - all the time. I've had specimens taken out of display cases so I could study them. It's not always just a matter of having a couple of muscular individuals pick up the glass; there may be custom-made mounting clips, not to mention any wiring from security, lighting, or climate control. And the case has to be put somewhere safe while the case is open. I've seen it go wrong - thankfully, not with a specimen I was going to look at! - so I take any sort of vandalism to any sort of museum exhibit very seriously.

[stopdiggin]

2. hope you enjoyed your stay in the graybar

there is nothing inconsistent about modeling 'rule of law' - and the incarceration of those that break it.

It should also be kept in mind that the 'goal' here is find oneself arrested, and facing a judge. Who perhaps does not approve (or is compelled not to approve) of your actions? Quelle surprise!