The UK has led the way in the crackdown, experts say, with judges recently refusing an appeal against multi-year sentences for climate activists who blocked a motorway bridge in east London. The three-year jail terms for Marcus Decker and Morgan Trowland earlier this year are thought to be the longest handed out by a British judge for non-violent protest.
Michel Forst, the UN rapporteur on environmental defenders since June last year, described the situation in the UK as “terrifying”. He added that other countries were “looking at the UK examples with a view to passing similar laws in their own countries, which will have a devastating effect for Europe”.
He added: “I’m sure that there is European cooperation among the police forces against these kinds of activities. My concern is that when [governments] are calling these people eco-terrorists, or are using new forms of vilifications and defamation … it has a huge impact on how the population may perceive them and the cause for which these people are fighting. It is a huge concern for me.”
Travel is a human right. Impeding travel is a human rights violation. Get the hell out of the road.
please point me to where this is stated in the human rights declarations. Also please point me further to where it is specified that this goes for travel by car specifically. I want to sue the government to give me my human right of traveling by car, so they first need to buy me a car.
please point me to where this is stated in the human rights declaration
Article 9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Impeding travel constitutes an arbitrary detention.
Article 12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence.
Impeding travel constitutes interference in correspondence.
Article 13. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
Impeding travel denies freedom of movement.
Also please point me further to where it is specified that this goes for travel by car specifically.
Article 17. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Impeding travel by car constitutes a deprivation of property.
Articles 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 protect the rights to engage in work, rest, health, education, and cultural activities.
Impeding travel infringes on any or all of these five, depending on the purpose of travel.
Article 29. Everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others
Impeding travel imposed unnecessary limitations, and ignores and disrespects the rights and freedoms of others.
I want to sue the government to give me my human right of traveling by car,
The government does not “give” human rights. You have that right, by virtue of being human. The government is not stopping you from owning a car or traveling by car: these orange-jacketed terrorists are the ones doing that.
Everyone has the right to freedom of movement
You are always free to move, you can get out of the car and walk to another place.
Nobody is taking away your freedom. They are just producing traffic, as does an accident. You can still travel. Having a car and a road to drive by car definitely not a human right.
Travel is a human right. Having the use of your own car and the use of the public thoroughfare to drive it in is a civil right. (Edit: I misspoke. The right to own property is considered a human right under Article 17. Denying the use of a car except by legal fiat is considered a human rights violation, not a civil rights violation.)
Impeding traffic is a violation of civil and human rights.
I am willing to argue this here. I am not willing to argue it on the street. On the street, I will respond to such a violation with any necessary level of force to end that violation.
Get the hell out of the road.
Threats to Germany’s climate campaigners fuelled by politicians’ rhetoric, says activist
Senior politicians in Germany have compared Last Generation, a nonviolent protest group that has blockaded motorways and thrown paint on glass-covered artworks, to terrorist organisations such as the Red Army Faction, a far-left group that killed dozens of people in the 1970s and 80s. Earlier this year, in tweets that have since been deleted, politicians from the centre-left and centre-right parties drew links between Last Generation and the Taliban.
The chancellor, Olaf Scholz, who has described the protests as “completely idiotic”, appeared to compare climate activists to Nazis last year after two people disrupted a panel at which he was speaking in Stuttgart. “Let me say frankly, these black-clad spectacles at different events, always by the same people, remind me of a time that lies long in the past – and thank God for that,” he said, to loud applause.
the German center left and center right parties are both proto fascist. The center left party SPD of chancellor Scholz is spearheading autocratic policies like total surveillance. The former minister of justice from the SPD wanted to pass a law that forces websites to save passwords in clear text, so police could access any accounts quickly and without notice to the surveilled person. Of course this would also allow police to stage entire crimes and blame it on the people whose accounts theyd take over.
The center right party CDU is trying to help the fascist AfD into power, by taking over their talking points, fabricating a migration crisis and spread disinformation such as the refugees getting new teeth while Germans wouldnt get dentist appointments. They also target scientists in particular climate scientist and try to undermine the trust in research and evidence, as it contradicts their shortsighted economic and social demands.
Add that to the far left party in large parts having similar positions as the far right, no wonder Fascists are on the rise. They get support from almost everyone except the Greens and the Pirate Party.
Mind giving us an example of this, or should we just assume this is the classic centrist horseshoe bullshit?
Very concerning. But it shows that governments are triggered and hit at a vulnerable spot by these protests. They know that it is very hard for them to please the activists and pass sufficient climate legislation in the short term, so it is apparent that protests will continue and even increase. Also they don’t want to appear “weak” by giving in (which is completely stupid of course). So with these harsh sentences, they show us that they are afraid and want to stop these protests before they get too large
The glueing on streets, throwing stuff on glass covered paintings and so forth are mainly meant as recruitment tools. The media loves to cover that, as they can be displayed as annoying protestors, but they also do not seriously disrupt the status quo. The terrorist comparisons then turn some more moderate activists more radical, which these organizations then can recruite.
However they then target fossil fuel infrastructure. Just Stop Oil did shut down oil refineries, there have been protests shuting down German lignite plants, in Australia they managed to disrupt a coal port for week and there are many other examples. This hurts fossil fuel companies in the bank account, which is their weak point. So they absolutly hate them.
these are hardly recruitment tools. Nonviolent protests have been targeting lignite mines long before and had more supporters than people glueing themselves to the street.
It is the other way around in terms of “radicalization” although thos term is hardly fitting as demanding the government to uphold its own laws and international commitments can hardly be radical. Meanwhile the governments radicalized extremely, both in their language and now in their often criminal infringement of the protestors rights.
