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.”
The right is to travel, not to “walk”. Your power to limit my freedom of movement is strictly limited under Article 29: you can only do so by enacting law. Without a specific law creating the limitation (such as “don’t drive on a sidewalk”) you may not arbitrarily decide what modes and methods of travel are acceptable, nor what modes and methods may be infringed upon.
Further, your arbitrary assumption that I am capable of walking specifically violates Article 2, Article 7, and Article 25. Your insinuation that I am only entitled to travel within a reasonable “walking” distance violates one or more of Articles 23 through 27.
You must be fun at parties. If you even get to them when the streets are blocked…
Parties? You mean peaceful assemblies and associations, protected under Article 20? Or cultural life, protected under Article 27? Yes, impeding travel to a party is also a human rights violation.
FYI: Your knowledge about U.S. law is really not the flex you think it is.
Where do you get the idea I was speaking of US law?
All the numbered articles I have cited in this thread are from the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I wouldn’t be able to make most of these arguments under US law. In the US, most of these would be considered civil rights, not human rights.
Not gonna lie, you got me there - could’ve looked those articles up easily. I still wonder what’s even the point of this ridiculous discussion, so I’ll just…leave here.