At what point does direct action harm the cause that activists are seeking to highlight? Who draws the line? Photograph: Pedro Ugarte/EPA
That thin dividing line between when direct action can be seen as a success and when it is a misjudged failure has always fascinated me. Benjamin Potts and Giles Lane, the two crewmen of the Sea Shepherd who were momentarily "held hostage" by the Japanese whaling ship Yushin Maru 2 this week after climbing aboard to "deliver a letter of protest", might now be dwelling on the same question.
Knowing that the world's media was following this dogfight on the high seas - it always helps to have television journalists along for the ride, as Greenpeace has ensured is the case on its boat - meant that Potts and Lane must have known full well that their stepping aboard the Yushin Maru 2 was going to generate headlines.
Mission accomplished, then, if that was their only objective. Coverage of their actions has, in general, been sympathetic or neutral, largely, I suspect, because most people think their cause is a noble one, regardless of their less-than-subtle tactics.
But what would those headlines have been if one of the Japanese crew had been injured, or knocked overboard, by the actions of Potts and Lane? Or if they themselves had been injured, or knocked overboard, by their actions? The pendulum of coverage would, no doubt, have swung between them being described as "eco terrorists" and "eco martyrs" even though it all might have rested on who slipped first on the wet decking during any mêlée as they boarded.
Campaigns can be won or lost over such tiny margins.
At the Heathrow Climate Camp last summer, the organisers were always keen to send out the message that they didn't want any protesters disrupting passengers or obstructing the airport's staff or aircraft. They were acutely aware that the balance of public opinion could dramatically tip to the wrong side if any protesters overstepped this line.
Animal-rights protesters, meanwhile, have now largely lost most of the public sympathy they ever had for their cause because of the public backlash the movement has received due to the violent actions of a small minority of protesters who chose to target and torment anyone even loosely connected to a company involved in animal testing.
As more and more people become increasingly concerned, frustrated and angry about the plight of the environment - and the continuing indifference and inaction to the problem by a still significant proportion of society - this line is clearly going to be tested more frequently and more vigorously by those wishing to protest.
So what is the best way to protest, both strategically and practically? What are the lines that must never be crossed? Can direct action always be justified as long as it remains non-violent? And what would you list as the most successful examples of environmental protest in history?
