“The environmental emergency that we are collectively facing, and that scientists have been documenting for decades, cannot be addressed if those raising the alarm and demanding action are criminalized for it,” says Michel Forst, UN Special Rapporteur on Environmental Defenders under the Aarhus Convention.
The position paper concludes with five calls for action to States on how to make a profound change in how they respond to environmental protest:
-
First and foremost: States must address the root causes of environmental mobilization.
-
In terms of the media and political discourse: States must take immediate action to counter narratives that portray environmental defenders and their movements as criminals.
-
In terms of legislation and policy: States must not use the increase of environmental civil disobedience as a pretext to restrict the civic space and the exercise of fundamental freedoms.
-
In terms of law enforcement: States must comply with their international obligations related to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association in their response to environmental protest and civil disobedience and immediately cease the use of measures designed for counterterrorism and organized crime against environmental defenders.
-
And with respect to the courts: States must ensure that the courts’ approach to disruptive protest, including any sentences imposed, does not contribute to the restriction of the civic space.
The paper can be downloaded on English (pdf) and French (pdf).
just sad that the people protesting are fucking crazy and then make climate change look like a fucking joke. these people are the perfect example of the worst kind of people fighting for your cause and in doing so make the cause look stupid or not as serious. one would almost think these people are funded by big oil companies to make climate change get a bad image or associate it with crazy people.
Maybe it’s cause those people that have the strong will and drive to protest have been doing it for 20 years and are getting sick of being ignored so they up the ante.
then these people would not really be doing a very good job. upping the ante will only backfire.
And what do you suggest instead if previous tactics clearly are not working?
leave Greta Thunberg at home and just go from there. and then make serious business serious business again.
ok. Lets say Greta Thunberg stays at home. What now? What are we supposed to do?
not talk about Greta Thunberg anymore and act like that never happened. why would you ask me maybe ask some groups who are actually serious about what they do. yes maybe do that.
What are these „serious“ groups and what are they doing, that makes them „serious“ in your opinion?
is that not up to you to figure that out if you want to know. if you need Greta Thunberg for this your not serious.
I like how not the folks who ignore or even facilitate climate catastrophe are the crazy one.
nothing in reality works like that.
Not sure what you are trying to express.
problems never just solve themselves like that. and definitely big ones like the climate.
I’m really curious how you interpret my statement, care to share? I lack to see any connection between your statement and mine.
you said that people who ignore the climate or create climate change should be seen as the crazy people.
Ah, ok I get you now. That was more of a funny observation on the nature of our reality, where the definition of crazy are rather subjective and mostly used to discredit opponents. I think we saying very similar things, just in different ways.
ah ok yes the intention can get lost in only text.
Why should a couple crazy people EVER imply a cause is dumb or not worth it?
It sounds more like people suck at judging why things are a good idea. On both sides in this case. Being careful of the climate was and is ALWAYS a good idea regardless of how bad an idea any specific protest is. Humans are too stupid to see their own blind spots because they just assume what’s there instead of actually looking.
are you really asking why crazy people making headlines and becoming the face of a movent makes people not take that movement seriously? because that is exactly how you kill a movement. seems to me your just playing dumb.
Appealing to the actions of stupid people in no way what so ever justifies their stupidity.
Do I seriously have to explain the, “if all your friends were jumping off a bridge…” thing in the year 2024?! I am literally describing to you how people are reactionary, and you go, “yea but people are reactionary!”
Thanks for failing to understand the point: Reactionary thought is stupid. I am calling that natural reaction stupid, because it is stupid. I don’t care if it’s natural. So is dying to a gunshot wound, but I’m still going to go to the hospital.
i’m not justifying anything i’m saying if your movement gets associated with crazy people nobody will take it seriously. im not talking about people being reactionary i’m talking about if you want environmental activism taken seriously you better disassociate from the crazy people like differentiate yourself make that very clear your not them or your movement is fucking dead. has nothing to do with what you find stupid. its about not repelling people if you want to get shit done.
I agree optics are extremely important, but my point still stands that humanity is fucking stupid for partaking in such judgement.
stupidity is eternal.