Violent anti-vaxxers are wrong. But can their tactics hold any lessons for climate activists?

Last month a freakish mix of rusted-on anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists and neo-Nazis — and at least some regular people — led protests against Melbourne’s COVID-19 restrictions that ended in violent confrontations with the CFMMEU and police.

It was a scene that didn’t seem to fit our rich and comfortable country. But now the dust has settled, it’s safe to ask: what can be learnt from those protesters?

Anti-vaccine protesters are wrong. They should not be opposing COVID restrictions put there to save lives. But the protesters seem to intuitively understand something that most politically engaged people have long forgotten: you can become ungovernable to force change. Political violence against corporate property and the state can be justifiable when the threat is existential and other avenues have been extinguished. Slavery was not overturned with polite conversations. It was the same for apartheid and civil rights.

Resistance exceeding holding signs and chanting can be legitimate and necessary. There is a case for stronger action if you feel you face an existential threat and can avert it by putting your body on the line. 

There is merit in the concept of “intelligent sabotage” of fossil-fuel infrastructure put forward by Andreas Malm. The climate activist and senior lecturer at Lund University in Sweden contends that the climate movement’s uniform commitment to non-violence robs it of the radical flank history shows is required to move the dial on deeply divisive social and economic issues. 

An effective social movement needs a radical flank, the true idealists willing to go to jail or even die to end apartheid, deliver safe abortions or save the climate by going beyond the law and accepting the consequences. That’s called civil disobedience and it is a radical, courageous and highly moral response.

We are sleepwalking into oblivion. The 2021 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report once again came with a dire warning. This time UN Secretary-General António Guterres said earth is at “code red”.

The circumstances which conspiracy theorists cite as why they are being forced from livelihoods or must accept intrusions into their “medical freedom” — unchecked corporate power and governments that care little for the well-being of their citizens — are the real reasons why climate action is hamstrung and why we will probably have to live in a hostile world for the rest of our lives.

The blame for climate change can be placed at the feet of politicians who are unable to rein in big business and the rich, who in turn act to protect themselves above all else. If you go to an anti-vax rally, you will hear the same language but directed in entirely the wrong direction.

So why haven’t climate change activists picked up on this latent sense of disaffection? Some committed activists who take part in mutual aid or assertive protests that directly target fossil-fuel companies are worthy of admiration. But as the climate threat worsens, it is time to step up our support for such tactics. 

If these movements are not recruiting grounds for groups of people willing to destroy property to slow the accumulation of fossil-fuel profits, they are at least a model for how to cover combative tactics with vocal approval from punters or members of polite society. This pattern should be replicated for other causes which claim moral high ground over the oppression which allows injustice to flourish.

Even as anti-lockdown protesters rioted, members of the political establishment covered their tracks for them by refusing to condemn their actions or attempting to humanise their concerns.

The case is settled for climate change. Two-thirds of Australians including a majority in every seat support action to halt its continued destruction of our way of life. And yet politicians refuse to act. Political action to disrupt the functioning of the companies responsible should be the bare minimum.

Climate change is violence. It might not be at the barrel of a gun, but it is still the promise of death and destruction for millions. Why shouldn’t its victims meet its perpetrators in kind, in an act of self-defence?