“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:

  1. First and foremost: States must address the root causes of environmental mobilization.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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).

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    What? Where did you get that it offended me? Is this one of those internet interactions where victory is making someone upset? That tells me a lot about you.

    It is weak writing because it acts as a stand-in for a word that is objective. Crazy is a subjective descriptor that relies on knowledge of the cultural context of the individual speaking.

    For example, if you lived in a majority gay society, wanting to have sex with women could be seen as ‘crazy’! Seems a bit lazy doesn’t it? Or at least irksome to have your (in your view) completely normal desires relegated to a dismissive word? Let’s change topics, judging by your previous replies I probably lost you here. I apologize.

    I am going to make a big jump and assume you know the definition of subjective and objective, though your writing shows no intelligible signs of understanding…

    Nonetheless, I’m glad you found some amusement in the explanation of your intellectual disability. Check the votes… you’re in the extreme minority here and seem to be missing something, the question is, are you missing it on purpose (via trolling) or are you a dunning-kruger? What is amusing, if you are a dunning-kruger then you’ll read this, silently assert your intelligence to yourself and continue with your day. It is a magical ability.

    Third option, you are a bot programmed to start conflict and say unpopular things, seems the most likely as I doubt a real person could be this unaware.

    Anyway, end of post. Every response you have written fails to engage with the topic of the post to which you are writing replies, but I assume you are doing your best. Carry on my ‘friend’, you’re doing a ‘good’ job.

    • beaxingu
      link
      fedilink
      -29 months ago

      i got that from you complaining about me using common words. you really like to sniff your own farts. thank you for being so funny i bet you used reddit a lot.