Climate Activists Charged with Sabotage After Airport Protest

Four climate activists from Extinction Rebellion face charges of sabotage after disrupting operations at Bromma Airport in Sweden. Their protest, aimed at highlighting the urgent climate crisis, led to flight delays and cancellations affecting over 1,600 passengers. The activists, who claim their actions were peaceful and necessary, are also facing a 400,000 kronor damages claim from airline BRA.

Climate Activists Charged with Sabotage After Airport Protest
Jonas Mehmeti
Jonas MehmetiAuthor
4 minute read
Share:

Climate Activists Charged with Sabotage After Airport Protest

Climate Activists Halt Flights at Bromma Airport

Two climate activists jumped over the fence at Bromma Airport and locked themselves near the runway. Another attempted to glue herself to a plane. Now, four activists are charged with sabotage.

– We haven't sabotaged anything. We've done what's necessary in an urgent climate emergency, says Peter Forsberg, one of the activists.

In October 2021, Esther Hauer Carvalho, 50, tried to glue herself to a plane. Activist and opera singer Samuel Jarrick, 50, assisted by pouring glue on her hands, according to the indictment. Both had purchased flight tickets and passed through security.

They then sat in front of the plane and refused to leave.

Meanwhile, Peter Forsberg, 54, and Jonas Ohlsson, 32, entered the airport by jumping over a fence. They sat near the runway and locked themselves together with padlocks.

The four activists, all active in the climate network Extinction Rebellion, were arrested and are now charged with sabotage.

“The defendants' actions led to delays in departures and landings, planes being redirected to other airports, and a flight being canceled,” the indictment states.

Impacted 1,622 Travelers

According to Swedavia, delays affected 1,622 travelers. An incoming flight from Brussels also had to be canceled.

On the same day, Extinction Rebellion organized actions at several airports in the country.

Peter Forsberg and Jonas Ohlsson are also charged with unauthorized entry into the airport, which is a protected site.

All admit to being at the scene but deny any wrongdoing.

“Given the climate emergency on our planet, my client believes he acted out of necessity and that his actions should not be punishable,” writes Jonas Ohlsson's lawyer Tomas Fridh in a statement.

Peter Forsberg says they conducted a peaceful action to highlight the acute climate crisis they believe exists.

– It's completely unreasonable. We haven't sabotaged anything at all. We've done what's necessary in an urgent climate emergency, says Peter Forsberg.

He claims Swedavia caused the delay themselves.

– We sat at a safe distance from the runway and other paths. The long delays are entirely Swedavia's fault; it took a very long time before they did anything about us sitting there. Neither flight personnel nor police arrived. Meanwhile, planes began landing, proving we didn't pose a safety threat, he says.

Samuel Jarrick also believes they committed no sabotage.

– We conducted a very calm and peaceful protest against the state's active support of aviation, which destroys the climate, he says.

Demanding 400,000 Kronor

The plaintiff is the airline BRA, which is claiming damages of 400,000 kronor, according to the preliminary investigation protocol.

– I'm just so provoked that it's possible to demand that. It's clearly unrealistic sums for ordinary parents worried about their children's future, says activist Esther Hauer Carvalho.

Samuel Jarrick's lawyer Pia Björstrand believes the indictment is incorrect.

– This is a demonstration without risk to any traveler. It's peaceful civil disobedience. I find it sad that people trying to defend our planet are prosecuted this way by police and prosecutors. It's very clear that those destroying the planet aren't prosecuted in the same way, she says.

She refers to the Supreme Court's decision from this summer where climate activists were acquitted of sabotage charges.

Activists who had blocked a road were not considered to have caused major disruptions when they blocked the road for a limited time, and the court emphasized the right to demonstrate.

– It was ruled that a minor disruption of public transport should be allowed under the right to demonstrate, she says.

Enjoyed this article? Share it with others!
Share: