“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).

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

    I’m really curious how you interpret my statement, care to share? I lack to see any connection between your statement and mine.

    • beaxingu@kbin.run
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      you said that people who ignore the climate or create climate change should be seen as the crazy people.

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

        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.