This paper uses Australian case studies to demonstrate the use of humour in social justice and eco-pax ¹ movements. Drawing from the literature and from personal experience in activist street-theatre over more than twenty years, the author discusses the rationale and motivations behind humorous activism, and notes audience reactions and impacts on participants. Using non-violence theory within the multidisciplinary paradigm of Peace Studies, he describes how activists use humour to enliven popular education, and to create liminal atmospheres conducive to non-violent conversion. Humorous activism creates common ground and complements other modes of activism. It is inclusive, drawing in audiences and adherents and attracting media attention. It simplifies and enhances communication, and allows activists to release emotions such as rage and frustration, while at the same time providing positive, enjoyable experiences for audiences. It can empower and inspire audiences, and bring a healthy balance and diversity to activism.

This paper begins with a brief historical overview of the Australian movement against uranium mining, before focussing on two major campaigns: Roxby and Jabiluka. It describes the reasons the activists gave at the time for their blockades of the Roxby Downs uranium mine in South Australia in 1983 and 1984. These reasons – such as perceptions that the industry is unsafe - have changed little over time and were the basis for the campaign against the proposed Jabiluka mine in the Northern Territory in 1998. They continue to be cited by environmental groups and Aboriginal Traditional Owners to this day as new situations arise, such as the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident. The paper then describes how the movement evolved between the Roxby and Jabiluka blockades, with changes to the movement’s philosophy, strategy, tactics and internal dynamics. This analysis includes a comparison between two anti-nuclear bike rides, one a year after the 1984 Roxby blockade and involving some of the same activists, and another at the time of the Jabiluka blockade. This author was present at all these events, and provides an emic (insider) perspective within a longitudinal participant-observation methodology. Although this perspective obviously has a subjective element, the paper fills a gap in that there is little written history of these blockades (particularly Roxby) and more generally of Australian resistance to uranium mining, let alone the aspects of nonviolence and movement evolution. It is an introductory history of these campaigns, examining the direct action components, the practicalities of nonviolent campaigning, and the evolution of Australian anti-uranium activism.

Nonviolence is an important element of sustainability for three main reasons. One is that nonviolent actions, including Australia’s Franklin River campaign, anti-nuclear blockades at Roxby Downs and Jabiluka, northern NSW old-growth forest blockades, and climate actions against coal seam gas and coal extraction, have long been effectively used by environmentalists, conservationists, and preservationists to protect environments from damage and to advocate for more sustainable societies, institutions, systems, and processes. Nonviolent environmental action has also opposed militarism for a range of reasons, one of which is concern about the large environmental footprint of militarism. The third reason why nonviolence is important for sustainability is because it offers an alternative to militarism as a means of national and regional self-defence and the removal of dictatorships, genocidal regimes, and military juntas. This alternative has much lower environmental, economic, and social costs. The article begins with the introduction and methods sections, introduces the 2030 Agenda of the United Nations and ‘sustainability’ and defines ‘nonviolence’ and introduces its connection to sustainability. This is followed by the case studies and a discussion of how these nonviolent actions contributed to environmental sustainability. Militarism and its impacts on the environment are described, and nonviolent defence and regime change are presented as viable and less environmentally-damaging alternatives.