Jessica
Reznicek protesting the construction of the 1,721 mile long
Dakota
Access oil pipeline at a construction site near Keokuk, Iowa in 2016.
On Wednesday, the US attorney’s office for Southern Iowa announced
that it had charged two women, Jessica Reznicek and Ruby Montoya with four
counts of malicious use of fire, malicious use of fire to commit a felony, and
conspiracy to damage an energy facility. If convicted, the two women could face
several decades in prison.
These charges are related to the 2016 protests of the construction
of the Dakota Access oil Pipeline. Reznicek and Montoya started their protests on
the night of the 2016 election, claiming to be fighting to save the environment
and for an end to US reliance on fossil fuel. Reznicek and Montoya were
arrested for using a crowbar to peel the letters off of a government sign, and
later admitted to using oxyacetylene torches to pierce the pipeline and setting
fire to heavy machinery that was being used to construct the pipeline. Their
interference delayed the completion of the pipeline for several weeks.
The pipeline was officially completed in June 2017, and today, 570,000
barrels of oil flow through it today.
This news is particularly relevant given the recent youth climate
protests. It raises interesting questions about how aggressive proponents of action
to combat climate change will have to be in order to be noticed. What kinds of
things will the movement have to do in order to attract media attention and
advance their agenda? Will climate protests become violent in the future?
Discussion Questions:
1.
Were Reznicek and Montoya too aggressive in
their protesting of the pipeline? To what degree do they have the right to protest
the construction of this pipeline? Should they face prison time for their actions?
2.
Do you think Reznicek and Montoya’s methods of
protest are good or bad for the environmentalist movement? How will public perception
of the environmentalist movement change because of their actions?
3. Do you think these types of methods of aggressive protest methods will become necessary in the near future in order to promote political action to mitigate climate change? Is it likely that climate change protests will become violent as the situation worsens?
Reznicek and Montoya’s aggressive approach to protesting probably will discredit the environmentalist movement, likely contribute to the misconception that environmental activists are not “sane.” I think public perception may turn sour for environmental activism, as it will seem as proof that activists are not “civil,” or other such things. I think it is entirely possible that climate change protests will become more drastic (not necessarily violent) in order to further pressure politicians to do something; most politicians have already shown their hand and are likely not to change their stance unless faced with extreme pressure, if at all.
ReplyDeleteReznicek and Montoya's approach was certainly too aggressive -- while it may have gotten media attention it sure didn't contribute at all to the environmentalist cause. The pipeline did end up being completed after all, and well, a felony is a felony; they still need to serve time for it. Contrary to what Audrey says, though, I don't think this will discredit the environmentalist movement that much. The whole movement is already based behind statistical, not physical (for the most part) evidence, so those who believe in science who hear about it likely won't be swayed by a small act of violence (but if the whole movement turned violent, doubts would arise), while those who would be swayed likely didn't truly believe in the cause to begin with, and likely never would have. I feel that if environmentalists are truly ever pushed to extreme violence to push their agenda forward, it will already be too late and the violence would be a last ditch attempt, because the people who lead the movement are sane, and know that as long as gradual change is still possible, they need to have a good public image to push their agenda.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that Reznicek and Montoya’s methods were too aggressive as they were damaging property of the government. Although this was a good strategy to grab attention to the issue, I think the best way to combat environmental issues is with more people. Majority if not all of the environmental issues are created by human action. A better way of protesting would be to round up large numbers of people and show them that we all agree changes need to be made. I don't think methods of aggressive protest will be necessary, people just need to realize the damage we are doing to our planet. As for the destruction caused by Reznicek and Montoya I do think they should serve some sort of punishment however prison seems too extreme.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that Reznicek and Montoya’s methods were too aggressive as they were damaging property of the government. Although this was a good strategy to grab attention to the issue, I think the best way to combat environmental issues is with more people. Majority if not all of the environmental issues are created by human action. A better way of protesting would be to round up large numbers of people and show them that we all agree changes need to be made. I don't think methods of aggressive protest will be necessary, people just need to realize the damage we are doing to our planet. As for the destruction caused by Reznicek and Montoya I do think they should serve some sort of punishment however prison seems too extreme.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I might not personally protest in such a manner, I do believe that Reznicek and Montoya's methods were justified and not overly aggressive, or deserving of prison time. They did not harm anyone, only equipment that would have been used to inflict vast damage on the environment, and likely cause many residents of that region to drink from contaminated water. I believe that the government is wrong in persecuting the two women, who were defending their homeland and the wellbeing of their community. Some might view this as casting a bad light on the environmentalist movement, but I find it very hypocritical that many will oppose the actions of Reznicek and Montoya, but applaud the words of Greta Thunberg, whom encourages drastic action herself. Any movement will have a more extreme side, just as the Civil Rights Movement had the Black Panthers, who many thought were "terrorists" or also too aggressive. However, these extremist sides are necessary for progress to occur, to show the government that people are capable of enacting change and taking action.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that their approach was aggressive. There are better and more effective ways in order to express your opinion to fix a problem. It is unlikely to achieve policy change through dramatic and unconventional tactics, especially when those tactics include breaking a law (vandalism). I agree with Audrey that these such tactics will ultimately affect environmental activism as a whole, not just Reznicek and Montoya as individuals. It stigmatized and diminished the lawful work other people are doing and makes this movement look like idle and trivial. In order for people to be convinced to follow a movement, a better approach would be using a large group of people to vote for a change, persuade the community, and educate people to push for a certain goal. In the end, while their approach wasn’t justified, I don’t think it is necessary for them to get prison time. I hope that violence doesn’t become a reality as this situation gets worse, and I have hope that it won’t. While there is a group of people that believe climate change is a hoax, there are a lot of people in the youth generation that are passionate and have creative ways to solve environmental problems.
ReplyDeleteWhile the way they protested the pipeline did get some media attention, I don’t think it was the best way to do so because the pipeline is still working and their damage only delayed the construction by a few weeks. However, I think that facing several decades in prison is a bit excessive, considering how little their damage did in the big picture. Because they used illegal ways to protest the pipeline though, it doesn’t make the environmentalist movement look very good, especially since they could have just exercised their first amendment right of freedom of speech and assembly (like the climate change marches did) by organizing an actual protest. This also seems like it would get more attention from the media. And even if there weren’t enough people to protest, they could have easily taken the issue to social media and get more attention that way.
ReplyDeleteI believe that these methods of protest are not only necessary now, but will only become more necessary in the future. If change doesn't happen soon, climate change will become irreversible and reach a more damaging extent to us and our environment than if we had achieved change. This is why it is necessary. However, the government has to enforce the law and I believe it was also necessary for the U.S. attorney's office of Iowa to press charges and sentence prison time for these protesters, as the government cannot condone violent protest or damaging of public property, especially at a construction site as it poses a risk for the construction workers and others involved. Because of these reasons, the public perception of these protests would likely become more and more negative as they became more frequently violent. However, it would also force lawmakers to address the issue and bring immense attention to the issue in an unavoidable way.
ReplyDeleteReznicek and Montoya had the right idea and the wrong approach. By legal standards, they have vandalized government property and misused fire in a way that could hurt somebody. These two women are criminals and the law states that what they are doing is illegal. But protesting is often illegal. The simple fact is that all people are stronger as a group. Peaceful protests with multiple hundreds of people will always outweigh two women violently protesting. If they wanted to do more than just march, they should have invited more people because at a certain number of protesters, a crime becomes a movement. If my stance is unclear, I not condone arson or vandalization, nor do I believe these women should face prison time. The reason these women were charged as criminals is that they didn't have the numbers with them as they fought. Reznicek and Montoya's spirit will be much needed in the future of protesting, whether violent or peaceful, and with a slightly different approach.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I don't think their methods were necessarily "evil" due to them being for a great cause, I do see why they should be somehow punished for what they did. While I do understand that people are adopting more aggressive protest methods for the environment because its the only way their voice will be heard, they still have to somehow pay the consequences for their actions. With this, the question arises: "Will more climate change protestor become more violent as time progresses? Yes, definitely. It's 2019 and people are tired of no change. Instead of moving forward in climate change action, we're somewhat moving backwards, exiting the Paris agreement being an example of this, and the desire for change will drive these people to violent methods. It shouldn't have to be this way, but as of now, it seems to be one of the only ways to make the government, and citizens too, understand that our planet needs immediate help and we're not doing anything to help it.
ReplyDeleteBoth Reznicek and Montoya acted out far too aggressively. I understand that they intended for their actions to draw attention to the issues they're fighting for, however, they ended up causing serious and harmful damage that could’ve been avoided in the first place. There are many alternative ways of protesting, but I think that their chosen approach had been far more dangerous and extreme than it could have been. I don’t exactly think that protesting to these extremes are really necessary or the only way to actually enforce and make change. However, I think they could be eye-opening in some ways that a simple peaceful protest could not do. Although I do think that these forms of protests should me more thought out and be done where it isn’t putting the lives of others in danger just to prove a point.
ReplyDeleteAlthough violent protests often lead to more opposing groups that don’t condone it popping up, I do not believe that Reznicek and Montoya’s methods were too aggressive. American leaders have ignored the climate crisis for too long. The gravity of our world’s global warming effects are approaching the point of irreversible detriment. Acting against a local project in violence must have been the only way they thought tangible and effective to bring attention to, and therefore increase action against climate change catalysts. American government, and specifically Trump’s refusal to implement solutions like The Green New Deal have practically forced activists to turn to violent methods because it’s a fast way to amass large amounts of public attention while also demonstrating the absolute danger the entire world is in. The more publicity this issue gets, which is what will increase combative action, the better. Furthermore, violent protests have been used for far more malicious reasons and what they were doing didn’t hurt anyone. It just delayed the project a few weeks and sent a message to corporations about the ethicacy of their production.
ReplyDeleteAlthough climate change is urgent and bad, a violent demonstration as such can put people's jobs and lives in danger in case of explosion, and lack of work when equipment is damaged assuming people work there. I personally believe the only extent to which a protest should go is a mass protest, but leaders wont change their minds if a piece of machinery is broken by 2 people. Despite the urgency and horrible nature of the lack of repsonse to cliamte change, violence in my opinion isn't the way, as you may be putting people's lives in danger who may even share the same intentions as you.
ReplyDeleteI think that the women did take this protest to the next level because they were using violent methods of protest and this is not the best way to express their views. The women's violent method of protest could have led to dangerous outcomes, and that is why I do believe that there should be a consequence. There should be a limit as to what extent protestors can act when trying to be heard. I hope that in the future there aren’t any violent protests like the one the women led, simply because I believe that violence is never the answer. When trying to protest against climate change, or anything really, it is best to organize and join a peaceful protest so that the government can see that the problem is something that the public wants to peacefully fix.
ReplyDeleteThe women were definitely too extreme in their protest; their intentions were good, but their execution involved too much illegal activity, which invalidates all their arguments. I personally do not like extreme acts like this because it is often what the people who don't agree use as an argument to villainize your argument. In this way, it is bad for the environmentalist movement because people against it will generalize their actions and use it as an example of why the environmentalist movement is dangerous, or simply use it to turn it into a joke. Although it does bring attention to the issue they are protesting, it is the bad kind of attention and make people less interested in joining the movement. Ultimately, as people said, peaceful protest is a better way to go, and violence or vandalism is never a good answer to fight a big issue.
ReplyDeleteI think that yes, their approach is very aggressive given that it involves violence and illegal actions. I could understand their actions but I don't think it is necessary to take it to this extreme level. It is not right to act extreme and break laws due to an disagreement with government decisions or conditions. Recently, there had been protests on climate change, and I don't think Reznicek and Montoya's actions will help in any way. In fact, they could bring negative impact on environment protests as they bring extreme actions and dangerous thoughts.
ReplyDeleteReznicek and Montoya’s approach was too aggressive, and despite the attention it caused on the media and their intentions, it ended up doing more harm than good as they caused serious and harmful damage to government property. Technically, these women should be facing some time in prison since what they did was illegal; however, I think, for what they did, facing several decades in prison is a bit excessive. There could’ve been a much better way to prove their point like protesting as a group which would include more people and make a larger statement. Additionally, these women could’ve done a peaceful protest instead of going to vandalism or violence.
ReplyDelete