Guest essay by Eric Worrall
This judgement has implications for US border control, as unskilled illegal immigrants who attempt to enter the USA are starting to claim they are really climate refugees.
Climate refugees can’t be returned home, says landmark UN human rights ruling
Experts say judgment is ‘tipping point’ that opens the door to climate crisis claims for protection
Kate Lyons Pacific editor @MsKateLyons
Mon 20 Jan 2020 16.27 AEDT Last modified on Mon 20 Jan 2020 16.59 AEDTIt is unlawful for governments to return people to countries where their lives might be threatened by the climate crisis, a landmark ruling by the United Nations human rights committee has found.
The judgment – which is the first of its kind – represents a legal “tipping point” and a moment that “opens the doorway” to future protection claims for people whose lives and wellbeing have been threatened due to global heating, experts say.
Tens of millions of people are expected to be displaced by global heating in the next decade.
The judgment relates to the case of Ioane Teitiota, a man from the Pacific nation of Kiribati, which is considered one of the countries most threatened by rising sea levels. He applied for protection in New Zealand in 2013, claiming his and his family’s lives were at risk.
The committee heard evidence of overcrowding on the island of South Tarawa, where Teitiota lived, saying that the population there had increased from 1,641 in 1947 to 50,000 in 2010 due to sea level rising leading to other islands becoming uninhabitable, which had led to violence and social tensions.
…
While the judgment is not formally binding on countries, it points to legal obligations that countries have under international law.
“What’s really important here, and why it’s quite a landmark case, is that the committee recognised that without robust action on climate at some point in the future it could well be that governments will, under international human rights law, be prohibited from sending people to places where their life is at risk or where they would face inhuman or degrading treatment,” said Prof Jane McAdam, director of the Kaldor centre for international refugee law at the University of New South Wales.
“Even though in this particular case there was no violation found, it effectively put governments on notice.
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/20/climate-refugees-cant-be-returned-home-says-landmark-un-human-rights-ruling
I’m a bit puzzled why New Zealand climate zealots have fixated so hard on Ioane Teitiota. He was fired from a job in New Zealand after allegedly sexually assaulting a co-worker and attacking others. If the allegations are true, not someone you would want as a next door neighbour. Even New Zealand threw him out, and they normally accept pretty much anyone.
Immigrants who want special treatment should show a little respect for the culture and laws of their hosts.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What about the dangers of unicorn farts? Can you be set sent back to a country where your life could be threatened by unicorn farts? What about alien body snatchers? These threats are every bit as real as man made’climate change’. Is it against international law to disregard the rantings of the delusional? If so, Good help us all!
The UNHCR rules were already usable by clever refugees, find some religious or sexual group that has legal problems in the country you want to flee and claim you are that. Many Arab countries for example have draconian laws against homosexuality so just claim you are and you immediately qualify for refugee status as LGBQIT was ruled on years ago. Even the US has taken refugees on that basis along with many other countries. Yes if there was severe descrimination against mental illness in a country that has also been ruled as a reason to be granted asylum.
You can see what UN via the UNHCR is trying to do make it impossible for countries to have sovereignty.
You’ve got some really ugly medieval thinking here. Homosexuality is most assuredly not a mental illness, and I have no idea what leaps of logic are required to believe that accepting refugees is somehow an attack on your sovereignty.
Trevor,
There is a big difference between accepting refugees, and being forced to accept refugees.
If you can’t see that, then you are not seeing the issue.
I don’t recall electing the UN to tell me whom I “have” to accept into my neighborhood.
I suspect I have a lot of company.
Simple solution…
If their chosen country of intended migration would pose a greater health risk due to climate change then disallowing emigration would be doing them a favor as allowing them to emigrate would increase their climate related health risks
Some having been warning us that this has been the U.N. plan for a very long time.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/10/the_un_wants_to_be_our_world_government_by_2030.html
Trevor try reading what I said again .. I have not offered any opinion of what I think about homosexuality.
For Sovereignty Rod is correct … try the definition
So if you are forced to do anything you don’t want to do in your own country by definition it curtails your Sovereignty.
How retrospectively would you take this? The Europeans who took over the Americas, Australia, New Zealand curtailed the Sovereignty of the people already living by forcing them to accept people they didn’t want. Should we all go home? Should we prevent others from doing what we did?
That sort “sovereignty intervention” goes by another name “invasion”, and is prosecuted usually at the point of a spear. It has also been refereed to as “diplomacy with extreme prejudice”. It sometimes happens when neighbors say “NO” to demands from each other.
The UN has no teeth, but plenty of bad breath.
WOKE ALERT!
It is unlawful for governments to return people to countries where their lives might be threatened by the climate crisis, a landmark ruling by the United Nations human rights committee has found. – article
Trevor, I think you missed that part. Since when does a nation lose its own sovereignty, and the right to deny entrance to aliens if it so chooses? China has astringent restrictions. South Korea is likewise – you can’t emigrate to South Korea.
And since when did the UN have any authority beyond disaster relief, at which it is completely inept? Should I bring up the boondoggle with Saddam Hussein’s refusal to let UN inspectors into his weapons factories while he was busy moving stuff elsewhere? The UN is the most useless, overpaid bunch of numbnuts on the planet. It’s time they were dismissed for incompetence.
“It is unlawful for governments to return people to countries where their lives might be threatened by the climate crisis,”
according to the UN, that’s every country on the planet….so what they are saying is there are no borders at all….anywhere
Hasn’t that been their goal all along
If the Climate Crisis IS a Global Situation then no country is safe and emigration is unnecessary. You wouldn’t want to be forced to relocate into an Unsafe Country would you?
Part of their One World Government agenda. This is another poke with a stick to see if this gets them anywhere.
Well, hell, we can’t have more people in the USA – my god, you are all so BAD for the environment, that each climate refugee you take in will create 3 more! So in the interests of keeping climate refugees to the minimum, they’ll have to go somewhere else – sorry.
And since when did the UN have any authority beyond disaster relief, at which it is completely inept?
They also have UNESCO, to ‘educate’ the world with.
Woketimonious achievement unlocked!
Note the word “also” in LdB’s post.
Hush Joe, the woke have no need to paying attention to the actual words used. Their righteous outrage (and their letting everyone know how righteously outraged they are) is enough.
Forcing a country to accept refugees, just because they claim some status that is uncorroborated, basically removes the country’s sovereignty and opens the borders, which is unsustainable for the country.
This is just another route for the UN to destroy the Western countries with floods of moochers and freeloaders, to overload their services and economy.
” … and I have no idea what leaps of logic are required to believe that accepting refugees is somehow an attack on your sovereignty. …’
—
What’s actually amazing is that you couldn’t figure that out in under 2 seconds. The people who pay the taxes have the say, “no taxation without representation”. Does that mean anything to you, or does your sense of entitlement trump all the “leaps of logic” you speak off?
It means the people who are citizens and pay the taxes, have the major say in Gov policy direction and development. And it is that representation which determines policy on things like immigration, and who can come to the country.
So the people either have the representation and policy regulation control, or we won’t be paying taxes or recognizing the government as representative of the people’s will and would revolt.
In fact the US Constitution encourages the population to do just that, if the Govt goes bad, or is taken over by an external enemy of the people.
___
” … It is unlawful for governments to return people to countries where their lives might be threatened by the climate crisis, a landmark ruling by the United Nations human rights committee has found. … ”
___
As I understand it the US doesn’t even recognize an International Court (gee, haven’t they gone quiet since then), but I’d like to see the UN try to usurp and exert sovereignty over the USA.
The useless UN parasites need to be kicked out of the Western world – entirely.
To go along with what you said, as a US citizen in the US the only law I recognize is US law and the treaties it has signed with other countries. I could care less what the UN says or another country unless I step inside their borders. For the UN to say it’s illegal to turn away a climate refugee I say “Show me the US statute that’s under, if you can’t it’s not illegal in the US.”
If a country insists on putting criminals in jail, would you be able to claim refugee status as a criminal?
The people pushing his case never have to have contact with him so they never suffer from his behaviour. Just like the liberals who live behind high walls, send their kids to private schools and support bussing.
So let him sleep on the floor of the general assembly, it’s the only place this ‘ruling’ has even a veneer of jurisdiction.
It’s time for the U.S. to exit the U.N. and stop wasting millions of dollars supporting g this corrupt to the core organization.,
It’s past time to leave, Dennis, especially now that former Chile President Michelle Bachelet is High Commissioner of the United Nations Human Rights Commission. Ms. Bachelet describes herself as an Ultra Socialist, and it was her policies that produced the demonstrations against current President Piñera. The specific policy she advanced was to allow Indigenous groups to burn more than 300 logging trucks, a hundred houses, and yes, kill several European settlers, all without any meaningful prosecution. This was apparently due to the view that they were just reclaiming their lands, you know, sort of hands-on reparations.
Kill the U.N.
New Zealand is keen to accept all the immigrants that it can attract as New Zealand has a continual population drain (about 7,000 per annum) as residents flee to Australia driven by lack of opportunity and boredom.
Careful there are a number of large groups looking for a new homeland at the moment, Kurds (1Million), Quarter of Syria(4Million), half of Lebanon (3Million) and disgruntled Iranians (prob 1Million) .. you could double you population overnight 🙂
“nicholas tesdorf January 21, 2020 at 10:18 pm”
7000 p/a? It’s more like 45,000. There is no work in NZ, none! Unless you work for Govn’t. It’s why I left.
NZ has mostly Green energy.
I was told that Green energy gives lots of Green jobs, or have the black sheep population taken most of the Green jobs? /SARC
The only green jobs I saw in NZ were ones like Dept. of Conservation and staff spent NZ$800,000 moving 1000 native worms from a road upgrade project site. That was about 20 years ago now. I wonder how long those worms lived.
Environmental idiocy!
Also, what NZer’s don’t expect upon arrival, is that NZ citizens are TEMPORARY residents under a special class visa 444, since 2001 thanks to Helen Clarke. To become a permanent resident you need to apply as any migrant under any category. Forget any support from the Govn’t, even if you are a tax payer. Children born in Australia to NZer’s are NZer’s, not Australians.
Patrick MJD
I love the Aussies and NZ’rs. Brilliant people, lots of fun, clever and adventurous. Well they were around 30 years ago when I used to know lots of them when they visited London.
What the hell happened?
The country seems to be run by more idiots than it’s fair share, most of the population seem to have gone WOKE, and the insane regulation you guys labour under seem worse than in Singapore. Bureaucracy heaven as far as I can gather.
My best mate moved to Aus 30 years ago and eventually owned the largest electric bicycle importing business in the country until the government basically banned them. That hurt his business badly, obviously, so on a much reduced scale he was importing petrol engine conversions, until the government banned them and reverted to electric bicycles.
That ruined him.
He and I were looking at buying and selling classic British and American cars in Aus (I’m in the UK) but draconian legislation meant that a modest classic like an MGB needed a mortgage to buy in Aus. and it was nothing to do with emissions.
The government there seems to suck the fun or profit out of everything.
Aus will suffer from the same complaint as all other developed countries, namely the growth of urban populations, which in their turn attract the sort of idiocy that dont get house room in smaller communities. As these urban concentrations grow, so does their representation in the halls of government, which in their turn are forced to pledge support for ever increasing levels of misadaptation.
All of the above happens at an increasing rate with the passage of time. For instance, in my lifetime California could be taken by a conservative candidate for the POTUS, something that would be so far out as to be regarded as fantasy today.
As far as Aussies go, it may well be in order to only associate with those who know who Chips Rafferty was 🙂
Aus is a great place for Bureaucrats and Govn’ts to set up rules telling you what you CANNOT do. They learnt from the best; The British.
Interesting about the bikes. 30 years ago electrically powered transport was for invalids and the elderly, not an up-and-coming manly, Croc Dundee like, population. How things have changed. Electrically powered bikes now litter the city streets.
There are some beautifully restored classic British and America cars here. Just a few weeks ago saw a mint Mk1 Mini Cooper S. That would have cost at least AU$50,000 to do the restore. Probably another $50,000 to source and import the base vehicle if needed. Not quite mortgage levels these days but still lots of money.
” It is unlawful for governments to return people to countries where their lives might be threatened by the climate crisis… ”
Might sure is a weasel word. Nothing needs to be proven?
Shouldn’t it also be Unlawful to allow CLIMATE REFUGEES into countries where their lives might be threatened by the (global) Climate Crisis?
Global Crisis = Nowhere is safe
Apparently not. So send the people back to their countries because their lives also might not be threatened by the climate crisis.
Virtue signalling, Eric – nothing more.
BoyfromTottenham
Dangerous is what it is.
The UN forces countries to take unlimited ‘refugees’ and immigrants which has an effect directly on the host country. Witness the ch!ld abvse cover up going on in the UK right now. (Not misspellings, moderation forces me to improvise).
But more than that. Instead of staying and f!ghting for their own country, they bail out and leave the despots to it. Then we end up with yet another rogue state the world has to deal with.
HotScot – You are absolutely right. The broad sweep of recorded history tells the stories of peoples who lost control of their boarders. The new info from paleogenetics indicates cultural changes, which antropologists had said were due to ‘cultural tranfer’ turn out to be a new set of genes over-writing the those of the previous inhabitants.
“… director of the Kaldor centre for international refugee law at the University of New South Wales.”
The WHAT?!
I repeat my claim that the main role in society of Tertiary Education is to help keep the unemployable from cluttering up the all ready crowded job market.
Import students…is what you are saying…that PAY 3 times what a local student will pay.
So +0,8°C in 150 years leaving the Little Ice Age is a climate crisis ?
Thus the Roman and the Medieval climate optima where climate crisis ?
UN : it’s high time to eradicate this bunch of psychopathic clowns.
Safest places for climate refugees…
Siberia & Mongolia
High enough in altitude that sea level rise poses no threat…
Cool enough year round that +0.8c temperature increase has little effect…
Almost every developed country is therefore in breach of the UNHCR ruling. It’s not binding but they have put countries on notice that one day in a far far away universe the UN will enforce the law 🙂
The human rights act has now expanded to 37 articles and it has never been used for anything other than public shaming. If you think the UN is useless and meaningless the UNHCR takes that to a whole new level.
So be prepared to be shamed, you won’t take climate refugees … HOW DARE YOU.
Actually, since all industrialized countries which use fossil fuel are “poisoning the planet”, those counties should turn back all “climate refugees’ because of humanitarian reasons. The UN is engaging in subjecting refugees to even more threats to their lives- how dare they!
Most developed countries have laws that permit immigration. Most of the countries that are potential sources for ‘climate refugees’ have laws that prohibit immigration. For example, a relative lived in Indonesia for 40-odd years, ran a profitable business, married a local and raised a family. He had to leave the country and reapply for a visa every couple of years throughout.
Maybe the UN should require all countries to accept anyone who presents at their boarders, and not just the developed countries.
It’s simple. They hate the descendants of the founders. They are also trying to provoke them.
Another specious statement, without evidence in fact: “It is unlawful for governments to return people to countries where their lives might be threatened by the climate crisis.”
Lord, I am weary of these equivocating, weasel words “might be threatened by the climate crisis” proffered as evidence to commit absolutes such as “It is unlawful for governments to return people”. By this non-standard, any divergence from nominal weather, any mud slide, river bank erosion, dust storm, or bad case of sunburn can be claimed to be a ‘climate crisis’. Extraordinary claims require extraordinarily rigorous proofs. ‘Might, maybe, could be, possibly’, etc., just don’t cut it! The UN has gone stark raving mad….
A reasonable response for any nation state faced with such a UN declaration would be “No. We will not comply. This is nuts. If you attempt to impose sanctions, we will withdraw all funding support to the UN until this injustice… no, this insanity is corrected. How copy, over?”
heres an idea
maybe all us Aussies andkiwis that have had fires/floods whatever should aply to Kiribas for climate reffo status..
see how that plays;-)))
ozspeaksup,
Turn about is fair play, eh? Hmmmm… It’s cool, gloomy, and rainy here in the Great NorthWet winter (Washington state, USA) and depression is a real problem for many. ‘Climate change’ might be making it worse! Given that, all such afflicted must be afforded refugee status on the sunny tropical isle of their choice!
While I like the ironic justice of your idea, Oz, I’d prefer the USA to just tell the UN to ‘P!ss Off’.
You can bet there will be a rush of these immigrants now that a new hole has been smashed in the legal fence. Just watch. I bet none of these poor immigrants will want to try to get in to China or India or Saudi Arabia. They will only want to get in to America, Australia, The U.K. and Western Europe. There will be a whole new market for the people smugglers and NGO’s and other groups that support them.
Agree with you Pete, but have to laugh at “The U.K. and Western Europe”. The U.K. is part of Western Europe. My former English colleague used to fall for the same unique upheaval of UK 🙂
I don’t think so anymore. After Brexit it is just one separate island… 🙂
The UK is only part of western Europe as a political convenience, for the moment.
We are an island off the west coast of Europe delineated by the English Channel and the North sea. We may geographically share the same continental land mass, but that’s like saying Russia is part of western Europe because it occupies a common land mass.
Europe extents to the Ural Mountains:
https://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/europe/pl.htm
Western Europe commonly is regarded as the European countries west of a dividing line approximately in line with the former Iron Curtain.
Politically seen UK and Ireland is also commonly regarded as belonging to “the Western World”.
Brexit has nothing to do with geography.
Carl, you are mixing apples and oranges. the United states is commonly considered part of “the Western world”, it is not in any way part of “western Europe”. Those are two distinct terms, you can’t use the interchangeable.
That said, the UK is generally lumped in to the term “western Europe” what with it being an island off the western coast of the European continent. Though, with Brexit, there’s an argument to make that the UK is no longer part of Europe (and thus no longer part of “western Europe” which is basically a subset of Europe) at least in a political sense.
The UK is in the far east, off the coast of Maine, I thought.
I am a climate refugee.
I grew up in Northern Ireland in the 1960s and 70s…the average July (summer) temp in Belfast is 19˚C.
I have since settled in Northern NSW Australia…where the average Dec (summer) temp is 28˚C.
Maybe if the world warms enough I will be able to return to the my homeland? (chortle)
Actually NZ accepts very few refugees, for the size of their population. Far less than Australia or the US
Correct! No matter what Ardern says.
The US has taken in more refugees than the rest of the world combined. It needs to stop
Haven’t heard from Willis yet?
He used to live there
And help the islanders with novel ideas and technological innovations
As I recall , he was also breaking the law, he over-stayed his visa conditions (IIRC temporary worker visa. Had kids in NZ. Lived on benefits). He was deported.
yeah and bitching cos his kids dont like the island and want to go back to un zud
his case was booted out some time ago so how theyre still flogging him as even slightly deserving beats me.
the NON legallly binding bit is the important thing like parisite agreement
maybe getting some birth control clinics on the island would be a smarter idea?
The UN is consistently giving itself authority and power it does not posses. It assumes authority to judge, on matters it has not been given judicial powers to do. It hands down decisions affecting national matters, where it has no power or means to implement or to enforce.
Perhaps someone in a position to do so, can inform the UN its role is to harmonise relations between nations not to establish frictions between those same nations, by usurping national authorities that have the inherent right, to manage their own national affairs.
If this unenforceable UN edict runs its course, then every resident in every nation affected by a hurricane or typhoon will be claiming right of residence, anywhere they choose, simple by invoking “climate change” blew down my house.
The UN asylum has been taken over by the inmates.
The UN: They continue to pretend they are important. Everyone else continues to pretend to pay attention to them.
But the money there is good. So, long as the money is there, the charade will continue.
What real power does the UN have to actually enforce this?
Nylo
UN is worlds politicians playground. And in politics there is this magic word “consensus”, and that´s all they need. IPCC is just their toy to achieve that.
There´s only one leader on this planet who have said something against this consensus, and he is Donald Trump.
Zero.
“saying that the population there had increased from 1,641 in 1947 to 50,000 in 2010 due to sea level rising leading to other islands becoming uninhabitable,”
Show me the evidence. On balance, atolls are in rough equilibrium with sea level . Why else should their mean elevations fall within quite a confined range right throughout the Pacific?
According to data I find the absolute maximum current SLR is 3 mm/yr. We are told that it has been accelerating. So what is the mean over the last century?
Lets say it was 3 mm/year to be conservative. Coral growth and detritus sediment deposition cannot result in a net elevation increase of 300 mm over a century? Date the inland elevated coral sands. I’ll bet that they are commonly less than a century old. Take your spade and tell me how thick these sediments are. You’ll be digging a long time.
Of course there will be variation but the basic principle of equilibrium is clearly demonstrated in the real world.
Cheers
M
MC
Magic words “where their lives might be threatened by the climate crisis” are more than enough evidence.
Data is irrelevant when something -might- happen. UN is promoting one world government, and this climate propaganda is the weapon to do it. All they need is to make people to believe. And this climate movement is very strong religion now. Fear is the key, and UN is the fear machine, which it has always been.
Doesn’t anyone actually have evidence as to what is happening on these islands. Did the plaintiff produce evidence? It would be helpful to know. There is a difference between overcrowding and your homeland sinking beneath the waves.
all four islands exhibited an increase in island area. Notably the three urbanized islands of Betio, Bairiki and Nanikai increased in area by 30, 16.3 and 12.5% respectively. Buariki in the north of the atoll exhibited an increase of 2%. https://stream.org/nation-kiribati-growing-not-sinking/
“saying that the population there had increased from 1,641 in 1947 to 50,000 in 2010”
Ut oh, they better watch out or soon they’ll tip over. Just as Rep. Hank Johnson.
Surely, people aren’t so green. The [catastrophic] [anthropogenic] cooling… warming… change prophecy is a sociopolitical, and economic, construct to defend the the advocacy for PP (e.g. planned parenthood, planned population) schemes, redistributive change, and anti-nativist solutions. Wicked solutions.
I understood that the problem is not sea level rise but the natural sinking of these islands. How does this relate to climate change (which is part of the normal climate cycle)?
“A new geological study has shown that many low-lying Pacific islands are growing, not sinking.
The islands of Tuvalu, Kiribati and the Federated States of Micronesia are among those which have grown, because of coral debris and sediment. ”
https://www.bbc.com/news/10222679
From 2010
Help facts keep getting in the way of our dreams. Utopia Now.
A statement that might very well be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.
A) It is sufficiently tyrannical that the USA vetoes the claim; or refuses to comply.
B) Immigrants claiming climate refugee status might become the driving force for the USA to cleanse the shysters from government and to refuse funding any support of the international climate cabal.
You can’t veto the claim you have no standing, you and your courts would have to just refuse to comply. Meanwhile the UNHCR would whine on.
To me there is a deeper issues when most countries signed on to the human rights convention it was very specific. Now the UNHCR is unilaterally changing it you would think countries should have to ratify it as a new treaty. That however is not how it works so here is how it works
You can’t veto the claim you have no standing,
In other words we have as much standing to veto the claim as the UNHCR had in making it.
Interesting that they should use the word unlawful
Semantically, there is a slight difference. It seems that something illegal is expressly proscribed by statute, and something unlawful is just not expressly authorized
Eugene – very interesting comment. After 40 years in Quebec under the Civil Code for all non-criminal law, I became very aware of the differences between Common Law and the Civil Code. Essentially, in Common Law, everything that has not been declared to be illegal is by definition legal. Under the Civil Code (based on Napoleonic principles), EVERYTHING not declared legal is by definition illegal. Anyone grown up with Common Law finds this top down regulation of all societal interactions an anathema.
The question is which legal system the UN is operating under – the difference will change the interpretation.
Security: Yes, Health: Yes, Disaster Relief: Yes.
Nothing else, the UN should be disbanded, split into those 3 bureaucracies, with anonymous leaders, no more strutting and posing from progressive fascists.