Daily Brief Audio Series
As our climate burns out of control, too many politicians are dithering – and worse.
I get it. Reality is hard. It requires difficult decisions. It’s so much easier for politicians to present a fantasy world, to deny or downplay the science of human-driven climate change. And when anyone rejects your fantasy thinking and demands climate action, you simply use state power to shut them up.
Governments are increasingly turning to repression against those calling on their leaders to take steps to address the climate crisis. They are threatening environmental defenders in many parts of the world, using intimidation, legal harassment, and, absurdly, counterterrorism laws against climate activists. Sometimes, they even resort to deadly violence.
In Australia’s state of New South Wales, for example, the government created a new law targeting protesters who block roads or ports. The bizarre result is that activists who temporarily inconvenienced some people have been sent to maximum security prisons for months – meanwhile, people committing violent crimes like assault can avoid being sent to jail altogether.
In the UK, there’s also an ongoing crackdown on climate protesters. Recently enacted laws severely restrict people’s right to peaceful protest. In December, a peaceful climate protester who took part in a slow march on a public road for about 30 minutes, was sentenced to six months in prison.
Europe is likewise failing, with newly introduced repressive laws and practices in several countries. Authorities are targeting environmental movements, which are now sometimes labelled “terrorist threats,” and attacked them with legal prosecutions and police brutality.
A clampdown on environmental activism is happening elsewhere, too – Uganda, India, the list goes on.
But here’s the thing: repression doesn’t change the reality of the climate crisis. Harassment, arrests, imprisonment, killings... none of that slows humanity’s release of carbon into the atmosphere, which is the actual problem here.
Governments should be taking steps to address the climate crisis rather than spending time and effort violating the human rights of those drawing attention to it.
Today, we’re going to start with a few basics.
Peaceful protest is a human right. Freedom of speech is a human right. Freedom of expression is a human right.
These are things you might learn in the first week of an introductory level “human rights 101” class at university. So, why is it that so many of those in charge of higher education in the US seem so unfamiliar with them?
The response of some university authorities to pro-Palestine protests on campuses has been shocking. These are the people who are supposed to be fostering learning and debate, encouraging the next generation to defend their beliefs in an atmosphere that respects fundamental freedoms.
Instead, they’ve responded with harsh crackdowns on students at institutions like Columbia University, the University of Texas, and Emory University. These include mass suspensions, evictions from university housing, and arrests of students, faculty, legal observers, and journalists covering the protests.
Student groups have been protesting Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, which has killed more than 34,000 people over the past six and a half months, the majority of them women and children. The military onslaught has displaced more than a million people, and the Israeli military is using starvation as a weapon of war.
Peaceful protest does not seem an unreasonable response to a situation as grave as this. Student protesters are demanding universities divest holdings in companies they believe are profiting from the assault on Gaza.
But even if you disagree – if you think the situation in Gaza is not worth protesting about, or if you think divestment is not the appropriate remedy – you have to agree these people have a right to speak their minds and peacefully protest. Because we all have that right.
And no one should be punished for exercising their rights.
Now, private universities are not the government, of course. They can impose speech codes that are more restrictive than, say, the First Amendment of the US Constitution. And they also don’t have to allow students to set up an encampment indefinitely in the middle of campus.
University authorities have been trying to justify their harsh crackdowns on protesters as a fight against antisemitism. There have, indeed, been reports of antisemitic incidents, for example, in and around Columbia University.
But allegations of antisemitic acts and speech by individuals, as well as Islamophobia by individuals, should be investigated individually, assessed on a case-by-case basis. You can’t just deny people en masse their right to peacefully protest because some individuals at or near the protest have said vile things.
University administrators also need to show they understand the difference between things like, criticism of Israeli government policies and calls for Palestinian rights, on the one hand, and antisemitism on the other. The former is legitimate, the latter is not.
Let’s get back to human rights 101. Peaceful protest is a human right. Freedom of speech is a human right. Freedom of expression is a human right.
There’s really no excuse for the higher-ups at these universities not to know these basics and respect them.
“We want justice. We want the perpetrators to be punished.”
“We want the truth to be established. We want to know why this was done to us...”
These are the words of those who survived terrible events that unfolded in two villages in Burkina Faso recently.
On the morning of February 25, eye-witnesses recount, a military convoy with more than 100 Burkinabè soldiers arrived in the village of Nondin. They came on motorbikes, in pickup trucks, and in armored cars. The soldiers went door-to-door, ordering people out of their homes.
They then rounded up villagers in groups and opened fire on them. Soldiers also shot at those trying to flee or hide.
About an hour later, the military unleashed a similar horror on the village of Soro, some five kilometers away.
By nightfall, the Burkina Faso military had summarily executed at least 223 civilians, including at least 56 children, in the two villages.
These were not the first mass killings of civilians by the military in their counterinsurgency operations, but they were the worst in nearly a decade. What we’re talking about here now looks like crimes against humanity, that is, offenses knowingly committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against the civilian population.
Survivors of the attacks in Nondin and Soro want to know who’s responsible for these massacres – who gave the orders? They want military commanders held to account.
But they also know what’s happened after other atrocities in the past: nothing. The Burkinabè authorities have repeatedly failed to investigate such abuses and repeatedly failed to prevent them from happening again.
The only real hope for survivors is that the outside world gets involved to help justice along. International assistance is critical for a credible investigation. Burkinabè authorities can not – or will not – do it alone. They should get support from the African Union and the United Nations.
“We no longer know who to confide in,” says another survivor from Soro, “when even our own soldiers massacre us.”
All they’re asking for is justice. And they deserve it.
North Korea has one of the worst human rights situations in the world, and it’s about to come under a new global spotlight.
I say, “one of the worst,” because Human Rights Watch doesn’t rank countries. We don’t say, West Ruritania has the seventeenth worst human rights record in the world, and East Ruritania is somehow better in eighteenth position.
Such comparisons are unhelpful, because every government should work to improve its respect for human rights, regardless of what other countries are doing. More importantly, ranking would demand thousands of impossible judgements about relative suffering.
What’s worse, for example, authorities that systematically torture people or authorities that deliberately block life-saving aid from reaching starving people? There’s no comparing them – they’re both awful.
So, we don’t rank countries; however, if we did make a list of the worst, North Korea would clearly be up near the top.
Third-generation dictator Kim Jong Un runs the country with totalitarian ferocity. The government forces extreme obedience through torture, executions, brutal imprisonment, forced disappearances, and forced labor. All basic liberties – like freedoms of expression, association, and religion – are denied. Independent media, civil society groups, trade unions: all banned.
North Korea has been so horrific for so long, in fact, it sometimes gets forgotten in international news. Media don’t consider the horror newsy, because it’s not new.
But the situation will hopefully get more global attention in the coming months, after the UN Human Rights Council adopted a resolution that strengthens investigation of North Korea’s abuses, both past and present, and boosts resources for accountability efforts.
Importantly, the new resolution also stresses the link between North Korea’s weapons program and human rights. For decades, the government has diverted billions to the development of nuclear weapons and missile programs, ignoring people’s basic rights, like the right to food and the right to health, and making North Korea one of the poorest countries in the world.
Not only is it critical to recognize the connection between the development of weapons systems and human rights in North Korea, but this focus will also help keep the appalling rights situation in the international eye.
Some may be skeptical about the impact a resolution like this can have, but it is the most ambitious such resolution in many years. It carries immense importance for victims who’ve been suffering repression in isolation, in what is, by any objective ranking, one of the worst human rights situations in the world.
Today will see a key step in a long-running effort by the UK government to be cruel. The appalling Rwanda deportation bill finally passed through Parliament last night and will soon be given the royal nod to become law.
The government has wasted no time in promising that the first flights of UK asylum seekers to Rwanda would happen soon. Expect a lot of legal challenges along the way, as well as more hate-mongering headlines against foreigners and demonization of human rights defenders in the coming months.
Over the past few years, the government has been pushing this Rwanda deportation idea hard. It’s been a kind of obsession for them. One former UK Home Secretary in the Conservative government even called it that: sending asylum seekers to Rwanda, she said was her “dream” and her “obsession.”
Never mind Rwanda is not a safe place to send people to – it’s well-known for things like extrajudicial killings, deaths in custody, enforced disappearances, and torture. Never mind the UK’s highest court confirmed Rwanda is not safe to send asylum seekers to.
Nope, the UK government has been plowing ahead regardless, trying to circumvent the Supreme Court ruling with this new bill. It’s a move that undermines rule of law and sets a dangerous, undemocratic precedent.
It also adds to their years of undermining evidence, ignoring human rights organizations’ reports, and even ignoring the government’s own assessments of the situation in Rwanda.
Just how far the UK government is willing to go in its obsession can also be put in numbers. According to the National Audit Office – that’s the official spending watchdog in the UK – the plan will cost taxpayers £1.8 million per expelled asylum seeker. That’s US$ 2.2 million each.
Cruelty doesn’t come cheap, apparently.
Has the UK government really not stopped for a second to consider the costs here? Have they not realized they could treat these people humanely in the UK for a fraction of that price?
But the government clearly doesn’t care about the cost of the scheme to taxpayers any more than it cares about the cruelty it will inflict on asylum seekers. What matters to them appears to be signaling that they’re “tough” on asylum seekers, no matter who pays in blood or money.
This obscene obsession has motivated them for so long, they can’t seem to think rationally about the consequences at all. And as with many unchecked obsessions, it has led to madness – financial and moral madness.