What's incompatible with a fair trial is making a mockery of procedures to determine if you blocked a road or not by doing a PowerPoint on climate change. It's incredible you are dancing around the fact that no level of "I think I'm right" allows you to block a road and act like an asshole in court.

Like I said, if you ask others, they will tell you the impending doom is coming due to other reasons. AI will destroy the world, nuclear weapon proliferation, religion going out the window and the collapse of the family unit, climate change, these are all pet subjects from different people. Living in society means understanding you might be wrong. The way you feel about climate change, that the other subjects I mentioned are stupid or meaningless in comparison, that's how others might feel about your topic.

All of those might be correct to different extents, but the fact you think you're right doesn't mean an ambulance doesn't need to drive through the road you're cutting, for example. If I start cutting roads to protest the US doing drone strikes on children I'm right but I still will go to jail.

Motive can be inculpatory, exculpatory or meaningless depending on the case. I'm not sure how to repeat the same thing in different words. Maybe you'd like motive to always be considered, but that isn't how most countries practice law. This is particularly relevant for menial cases, most traffic offenses, etc. You cannot start going through red lights because you want to minimize your driving time to stop climate change for example.

They literally typed "in a case like this". Motivation is important in some cases but not in all. It doesn't matter what your motivation is for example if you stop paying your taxes.

Everyone thinks they are right. These two blocked a road for everyone else and ignored judge orders. If everyone that has something they care strongly about started cutting roads we wouldn't have a society for long.