“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).

  • taladar@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    7 months ago

    If that was true the farmer protests which are using a tone much rougher than any of the environmental ones would be treated even worse but they are not.

    • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      7 months ago

      Farmers already have people on their side and their trying to create more pressure on politics so their political representatives can achieve better deals for them. That’s rather different situation from where we still need to convince large portions of population that we should have acted like 50 years ago, but now would also be not bad.

      I don’t really understand how people could argue that it’s not important how you package your message.

      • Killing_Spark@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 months ago

        I don’t really understand how people could argue that it’s not important how you package your message.

        I think most people are done packaging the message because many ways of packaging this message have been tried and been ignored.

        • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Sure, but being frustrated does not change the nature of humans. You need to have/gain power or you need to change peoples minds if you want to change something.

          • Killing_Spark@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            7 months ago

            I guess, but you have to acknowledge that the protesters are also just humans. And what happens when humans get frustrated without the believable prospect of change through civil means?

            • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              I absolutely do. The problem is - it’s up to us to make any change happen, since the powers that be seem to be rather content with the whole situation.