The Fine Line of Direct Action

Over the past few months, a French climber known as 'spiderman' (Alian Roberts) has been climbing the tallest skyscrapers across the world in order to make a message about climate change. His dangerous stunts garner mixed messages from the public, some seeing it as a reckless and self-aggrandizing act, others inspired by his will to make his voice heard.You of course, can judge for yourself.

I personally am not so sure. I am a fan of nonviolent direct action and a recent short film of the Kingsnorth Six protesters (image below) provides, what I see, as a really moving and inspiring narrative. But I also think that protesters walk a fine line between making a good clear point and making a big mess. I can't help, for example, but be annoyed at transport strikes in the middle of a recession. Maybe that is self-centered of me but I am also a big believer in the imperfect political process.

The environmental movement has a rich history of non-violent direct action. In the UK particularly, groups like Earth First! have been taking action since the 70s, and garnering serious popular support. Speaking for the earth is something that has to be done, and since it can't vote, it faces an uphill battle through conventional democratic mechanisms. But is direct action the best alternative, and how do campaigners walk that fine line between acceptable and inspiring and unacceptable frustrating?