This hour we are joined by Herve Courtois who is a prolific Anti-Nuclear Activist and blogger to discuss what is appropriate and what is not, when it comes to dealing with men and women who work for corporations. We are asking the question ” Is it reasonable to speak aggressively and in a threatening way to these individuals or is it more appropriate to attack the subject with room for the odd satirical snipe at individuals”.
A lot has been happening over the last few weeks. I have been called a troll. have you been called a troll too?
“Oh yes” he says in a rather cool tone as one who is well used to the term.
Should we support our Scientists even if we dont always agree with them?
Those Scientist that are qualified to bring us the data especially in the field of Marine Biology where there are maybe only 5 qualified scientists. So they need our support as much as we need them to bring out the facts. To attack these scientists is not constructive or productive. Herve sees it as our duty to reach out to these Scientists and work hand in hand with them.
Do you see it as our role as bloggers to act as a lobby?
We have to act on their individual conscionsciousness. they are human beings like us and one can wake them up. It has happened many time in the past.
How do you think the scientists could have responded in relation to Dana Durnford?
When you threaten them with violence and one may expect something coming back. Some of these bloggers have been threatening them and their families for a long time. they probably could no longer ignore it.
Herve continues with a list of names of Scientists who have been insulted by Dana Durnford and Kevin Blanch. Names like Dr Helen Caldicott, Arnie Gunderson, Chris Busby, Ken Buesseler and Tim Mousseau. Herve continues;
How can one insult Tim Mousseau? He works for us! He is bringing us the proof of the contamination!
Herve explains that Kevin Blanch is smarter because he doesn’t name names, where Dana is very pointed with his threats.
Jimmy joins in stating that we need to careful about attacking a race or individual. He states there is a lesson also to be learned from the Dana case, in that it can be used as an example of why one should be careful with our language to others. Jimmy and Shaun make some comparisons with the Chris Spivey case where Chris found himself in a similar situation concerning the Lee Rigby case.
Herve then says Dana’s work is not entirely non-constructive. Herve says Dana has awoken an interest in people concerning the Fukushima disaster, but that he didn’t like his sensationalist and threatening behaviour. Herve explains; that being the father of a potential Fukushima victim he doesn’t like the pro-nuclear shills (some names mentioned) but he also doesn’t like the sensationalist! The truth he believes is the only way to help the people affected by these disasters and help the anti-nuclear cause.
Herve says one has to view this both ways. First thing a person does when they have loved ones in a disaster zone after hearing sensationalist videos or articles is the panic involved, ringing contacts to see if there are any radiation spikes and ringing family to check with family if they are ok, so sensationalist posts can actually be heartbreaking.
Herve explains how YouTube is the worst culprit because lots of sensationalist posts are popping up all the time but that any comment dis-proving the posted video are removed and he thinks this is dangerous.
Herve also says not everybody on Facebook or such places is a critical thinker and some may be unstable and some of these sensationalist posts could be dangerous for some people.
Shaun follows on by saying Dana is not really part, or head of the Anti-Nuclear movement and has insulted most the the Anti-Nuclear movement at times..
Herve then explains that Kevin and Dana are making money out of their blogging. That they get funding through donation. Herve believes they are milking the people.
Shaun surmises Dana shouldn’t go to prison for 10 years but will probably be told not to mention 3 people with some basic restrictions.
Herve explains some folk are into this from an Anti-Nuclear view. Some are into it as a pastime, but some people are into it to make money and sensationalist posts brings in high traffic. The problem is how can these people keep impartiality when the money is affecting their impartiality to do the news.
Herve rounds up with the following;
“When it comes to the Nuclear stick to the facts. We have a responsibility to stick to the fact to stick to the truth for the victims and the future victims. There is no place for imagination or ego’s. Facts are being hidden from us and we need to work hard to bring those facts out.”