The law does not provide defenses for justified civil disruption in the UK. So this isn’t a surprise sentence. Indigo here is a martyr and she deserves to be celebrated for her service, long may we see more nonviolent protests
It’s so stupid for the government to fail to provide for lawful dissent. “How do we deal with these disreputable little proles, eh? How about instead of letting them be slightly bored standing out in the weather, let’s make them into heroes and martyrs! Hmmyes, that’s the bunny.”
Seriously. The headwinds against protest are that it’s kind of an imposition and people worry it doesn’t have any impact. Do absolutely nothing and it’ll probably evaporate. Come down on them like a load of bricks and it signals to a lot more people that it’s important. The CBP doing Gestapo kidnappings in Portland during BLM spawned a whole new wave of protest participation.
Just protest in a more violent manner? You will get less punishment that way
The judge stated that “the stance taken by you [by pleading not guilty] distinguishes you all from others who have chosen to follow the long and honourable tradition of civil disobedience on conscientious grounds, that is accepting that you have broken the law and accepting the punishment that follows”.
This requirement alone–to have to plead (not) guilty–is characteristic of a perverted justice system. Why force the defendant to anticipate the verdict of their own trial? This is ridiculous. This is to be found out by the trial, not prejudged by one party. Pleading serves only to intimidate defendants and frustrate their defense strategy, and so it is an expression of a bias of the state, which is overrepresented in court by four parties (judge, jury, prosecutor, and author of the laws), towards ordinary (non-corporation) people. It has no place in a society with rule of law.
