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.
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 carand 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.
Right? What a violent jackass.
deleted by creator
You don’t stop owning your car if someone is sitting in front of it, therefore your property rights aren’t violated.
You don’t stop owning your house if someone stops you from entering it, but you are still deprived of the functional use of your property. Your property rights are absolutely violated when someone stops you from using your property. Until “driving a car” is made illegal, impeding a driver violates the driver’s property rights.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You are always free to move, you can get out of the car and walk to another place.
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.
Clown says what?
Clown says whatever the hell he wants (Article 19) so long as in exercising that freedom, he does not infringe on the rights and freedoms of others. (Articles 29 and 30).
Rheeeeee