Essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Breitbart; In my opinion Amnesty International have just blown up their credibility, by objecting to the prosecution of climate protestors who block ambulances.
PRESS RELEASE – 24 OCTOBER 2022 15:34
Amnesty comments on the verdict against the climate action on E4
The right to demonstrate is a central building block in every democratic society. Even peaceful civil disobedience, such as the climate action on the E4, is covered by the right to demonstrate. Amnesty welcomes that the Solna district court did not follow the prosecutor’s line to sentence the activists to prison. This is the only real thing: peaceful activism should never lead to people being deprived of their freedom. On the other hand, it is worrying that the court accepts the prosecutor’s argument that a short-term blockade of the E4 can constitute sabotage in the sense of the criminal code.Amnesty sees with great concern that the court rules in violation of what international law requires of Sweden. There is a lack of practice in applying the sabotage crime in this way, and from a rule of law perspective, it is worrying that Sweden’s courts are beginning to assess the exercise of freedoms and rights as serious crimes, without discussion and changes in the law, contrary to practice and UN recommendations, says Anna Johansson, Secretary General of Amnesty Sweden.
In the very essence of civil disobedience is that the person who has carried out an illegal action stands for what he has done and takes responsibility for it, also legally. This is true as long as the laws applied are reasonable and the punishment is proportionate to the illegal act. Otherwise, there is no balance between the right to demonstrate and the criminal justice system.
Peaceful civil disobedience is nothing new in Sweden, but the sabotage charge for this form of peaceful action is new. Today’s judgment in the Solna district court, as well as judgments handed down this year in the Södertörn and Stockholm district courts, indicate that practice is about to change – this without further discussion and apparently without a solid legal analysis against the background of the constitutionally protected freedom of demonstration.
This shift in the judiciary’s assessments must come to an end. Law enforcement must be based on respect for the constitutionally protected freedom of demonstration and Sweden’s obligations under international law, says Anna Johansson
Climate change is a reality that requires states to act with determination. The UN has clearly underlined that a rapid and fair climate transition is an obligation for the states under international law. Both in Sweden and in other parts of the world, activists use civil disobedience to protest against states’ lack of action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The UN’s special rapporteur for freedom of assembly and demonstration has drawn particular attention to the importance of the right to demonstration being particularly protected in this climate emergency that we find ourselves in anyway – which also includes civil disobedience and road blockades.
The UN’s climate panel, IPCC, in a comment on states’ reluctance to take the climate disaster seriously, expressed that “civil society is to a large extent the only reliable force to get institutions to change at the pace required”. The Court should therefore have paid much more attention to these statements and recommendations under international law and analyzed the fact that Sweden has so far not done what is required to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and thus is not living up to its obligations under international law. It is this state of emergency and the state’s inaction that the activists reacted to, which should have been taken into account by the court and influenced its assessment of the road action. The principle of treaty-conform interpretation – that is, that Swedish law must be interpreted in the light of Sweden’s international obligations – is conspicuous by its absence in the decision. Thus, in its reasoning about permissible restrictions on the right to demonstrate, the court has completely failed to refer to the international legal framework and the statements of the UN experts, which is very unfortunate and has led to incorrect conclusions, according to Amnesty.
Not understanding these manifestations for the climate in the light of the right to demonstrate leads in a potentially dangerous and anti-democratic direction where constitutional rights are at stake. We assume that the judgment will be appealed, and that the higher court takes into account Sweden’s commitments under international law and defends both the fundamental freedom of demonstration and Sweden’s obligations regarding the climate emergency in its assessment. Amnesty will closely follow this case and continue to protect the right to peacefully demonstrate and protest, says Anna Johansson
Amnesty International is an independent international organization that works to ensure that human rights apply to everyone, now and in the future. By exposing violations and creating attention and public opinion, we put pressure on governments and those in power around the world.
Source: https://www.amnesty.se/press-och-media/#/pressreleases/amnesty-kommenterar-domen-mot-klimataktionen-paa-e4-an-3213103 (Translated from Swedish using Google Translate)
I think over the years Amnesty has done a lot of good. If you attend one of their letter signing events, as I have, they show attendees plenty examples of agents of tyranny who tired of receiving sacks full of letters, and ended up releasing whichever miserable wretch they were tormenting.
But supporting people who block ambulances is just wrong.
Wake up Amnesty. Every decent person supports the right to protest, but that right to protest is a right to present your message, not a right to force your message down other people’s throats. That right to protest is not a right to imprison people with traffic blockades, so they can’t get away. And that right to protest most definitely should not protect people who sabotage care for the critically ill, or create life threatening traffic chaos which leads to deaths.
Sue them as individuals. Lawfare works both ways and it’s time Conservatives start exercising their rights and turn the tables back on the accusers.
Agreed on this idea – the families of the people who died on that bridge because of those protestors should do everything they can to hammer them for wrongful death, punitive damages and anything they get out of them. Even if they don’t get a cent it would be worth it to drag some of those clowns thru the courts and force them to defend themselves.
The Swedes should send the “protesters” off to herd reindeer in the low arctic.
And guards to protect the reindeer?
social workers
If by “low Arctic” you mean vast areas of low crochety very independent population occupied swampy tundra, I absolutely agree.
The statement referenced in the article from Amnesty International is a rambling almost incoherent mess, it lurches from one political lie to another without thought for where it is going. If this is what now passes for rational thought and logical discourse then the world has gone insane. The rights of society as a whole should be balanced against the rights of the individual.
Richard, these agencies like Amnesty International are very selective in which groups they seek to defend. If you are part of a group that does not share their political views but are brutally persecuted in your country you will not even receive a footnote in their annual reports. If you are are part of a LGBT plus group you are given much coverage. The same holds true for the mainstream media. Their hypocrisy is on full view.
The attack that put a Republican canvasser in the hospital has never been mentioned by any news organization but Fox news. In that attack, the people who assaulted him declared that Republicans were allowed in their neighborhood.
On the other hand the attack on Paul Pelosi has been the lead story on every newscast since it happened 3 days ago. The media is demanding that Republicans apologize for the attack, despite the fact the person who attacked Pelosi was clearly insane, and according to all who knew him, was far left politically.
I just read an interesting article on the subject over on the Daily Wire. www. dailywire. com/news/it-can-ruin-your-career-glenn-greenwald-explains-why-journalists-are-terrified-to-question-paul-pelosi-narrative
The one reporter who told the truth about Fetterman’s cognitive problems was attacked by other reporters for daring to question the narrative. Several came out and declared that without a doubt, Fetterman had no issues remaining from his stroke.
Then came the debate, and even the worst rumors fell short of reality.
Many reporters were revealed as being not only willing to lie to protect the Democrat party, but willing to savage any reporter who stepped out of line and tell the truth.
Before the debate the line was: ‘Disability? What disability’!
After the debate it was: ‘Those mean Republicans are making fun of a person with a disability,! and/or ‘Just because he can’t put together a whole sentence does not mean he is not qualified’!
On inflation first it was: ‘Inflation? What inflation?’
Then it was: ‘This inflation is transitory!’
Then it was: ‘It’s Trumps fault!’
Now it is: ‘Those mean Republican candidates are using the issue of inflation to get ahead in the election polls!’
All they do is slap one cow patty after another against the wall hoping that one will stick.
Several prominent Democrats have been declaring that there is no crime problem in their cities. It’s just Republicans trying to scare voters into voting for them.
No crime problem, but a gun crime yes….
Not a gun problem, a criminal problem.
Guns owned by law abiding citizens are not only not a problem, but are part of the solution.
70 years ago, there were no gun laws, and crime was not a problem. You could order guns through the mail, and many kids took guns to school because the schools hosted shooting clubs.
The areas in this country with the highest crime rates, also have the toughest gun laws, so obviously gun laws don’t impact crime rates.
No place in the world has the imposition of gun laws, caused a drop in crime. Places with low crime and tough gun laws, had low crime rates prior before the gun laws were passed.
Pelosi was entertaining a bum fumbler, clearly.
I find it analogous to Hilary Clinton enduring the blatant infidelity of Bill Clinton for her political opportunity.
This behaviour is sick and perverse. I can’t understand the mentality behind their debase money and power hungry behaviour.
Would any of us endure our martial partners f**king others simply for political or financial means?
Western politics needs an enema with a Christmas tree, and whilst I know you despise Putin*, I suspect he’s about to deliver it.
*I despise both Putin and Zelensky.
The Democrats now have the hubris to demand the GOP halt their political
campaign 8 days before an election. Because a drug addicted un employed Canadian illegal alien who lives off and on in an abandoned bus in a hippy colony is obviously a MAGA insurrectionist.
Not a surprise. Lefties are in general crazy people. They admit to this themselves:
(PDF) Mental illness and the left
The humane thing to do is to car efor them in closed institutions. That also gives normal people the space to solve the real problems in society and get things going again.
One reporter has declared that the reason why so many left wing talk shows are having problems keeping an audience, is because right wing conservatives have so terrified the left wing audiences, that they are afraid to laugh.
Wonder what their reaction would be if peaceful protesters prevented climate activists from leaving their homes or having goods and services blocked from delivering to them
Since these activists insist that disruption to normal life is justified would they continue to hold that view if it were their lives being disrupted?
When harm is caused either directly or indirectly as a result of peaceful protest then it is no longer a peaceful protest and has potentially become a criminal offence.
It could become terrorism under our terrorism legislation.
Exactly, even as Amnesty sar
“(Protester)..and takes responsibility for it, also legally. This is true as long as the laws applied are reasonable and the punishment is proportionate to the illegal act.”
So, if stopping the ambulance results or contributes to a fatality, then charge them with homicide or criminally negligent manslaughter. An ambulance with emergency siren and lights leaves no doubt about the risk to the patient. What’s the law if a driver refuses to pull over for an emergency vehicle? Surely the patient or family can sue for loss or deliberate stress
Thereby hangs the tale of political favouritism. A complex issue.
e.g. The hippy Vietnam war protestors were believed to be subversive agitators of the day. Now most reasonable people recognise they had a point.
Our climate protestors are the flavour of the season. Where will they be a generation hence.
Humanity should learn from its historic mistakes, but our children are taught LGBT and climate change lessons rather than the history of our nations.
It may not be in our lifetime but our children’s children will eventually clamour for the answers to questions left unanswered by totalitarianism.
Just as now, most of the protesters wanted the communists to win.
While I’m not disputing the right to protest, quite frankly I am fed up with this constant protesting. I’m tired of seeing air-headed big mouths with lots of free time protesting just about every thing and everyone. I’m sick of the whole concept of self-appointed “community activists.”
They’re getting paid for it through the Climate Emergency Fund – they have created a class of professional protestors who are making a living doing this sort of thing.
What’s even better is they get a lot of their money from the US government blackmailing companies with law suites and then letting them “off the hook” if they make charitable contributions to a select group of organizations, all of which off course push left wing policies.
True?
If these people had to work a normal week to put food on the table and a roof over their heads, they would have little or no time to protest, except perhaps on a Sunday – when one usually does not find them protesting in green areas where there is no public disruption.
The protestors seem largely to be retired tweed wearing sandal trompers, grubby welfare scroungers and the occasional stupid academic.
They don’t need to work to put roofs over their heads. The teaching fraternity engage because they enjoy holidays the rest of us cant possibly achieve and they drag along children who cant possibly know better.
I would say our police need to be more robust but these days they are a political weapon.
Just let the damn public get on with removing these people from our lives. It’s going to happen anyway so just get on with it.
The protesters actually want martyrdom, HotScot. But they don’t want to die to become martyrs. (Say what?!?)
It’s just like they don’t want to give up any of the benefits of today’s hydrocarbon dependent society, but they want everyone else to give up those benefits.
Intellectual rigor is not one of their strong suits.
I think their actions are counterproductive; they are turning off more and more people. But they are too dumb to see that. They believe they have the high moral ground, and, unfortunately they did take this ground some time back when we weren’t paying attention. We must take it back.
Leftists don’t believe that you have a right to ignore them.
state of emergency
This is their case. Since there is no evidence, not one piece of data, proving human CO2 emissions are causing an “emergency,” they lose.
Big article in The Sunday Telegraph today castigating Amnesty International for becoming a “woke joke”.
Proper headline: Amnesty International Infiltrated by World Banksters.
“World Banksters.”
For some reason, I read that last word as starting with a capital “W”
This seems to me a code phrase for Jews and un-called-for.
It is only a matter of time before someone dies due to ambulance delays caused deliberately by those that are imposing their views upon others. This imposition is without consent, without evidence and without adequate planning. They have assumed control over the lives of others without authority, consultation and consent. It is one thing to act beyond call of duty, but if those actions produce untoward outcomes (deaths of totally innocent people), total responsibility and culpability lies with those that acted without authority. Perhaps the aggrieved relatives can directly sue those that deliberately brought about the death of their loved ones. The charge lies between manslaughter and murder. Those that planned and executed the life threatening stunts are completely liable for all damages caused by actions done without consent. They alone must bear the full cost of the loss of their loved ones, from income, household chores, emotional stress (Alex Jones type judgements in the trillions) and more.
The right to peaceful protest is essential for freedom, but on the proviso it does NOT impact on the human rights of others. There are plenty of ways of protesting without compromising the lives of others.
As for the judicial system that blatantly allows certain groups to violate the basic rights of others without any redress, it should be raising a multitude of red flags and sounding the BS meters. It is clearly wrong and clearly we are being led by leaders that are NOT true leaders.
But who among us is truly innocent of destroying the Earth?
Me.
For one.
Don’t talk daft.
Retired Chartered Engineer Martin.
Is it destroyed? Seems to be working okay to me, what am I missing?
Frame the question as ‘would the earth have survived without us?’ and you have a debate.
At 280ppm atmospheric content in 1850 we were perilously close to extinction.
Mother Nature determined over billions of years that plant life should flourish at 1,000ppm+ atmo CO2.
Who are we to argue?
Your question is appreciated.
The earth has a use by date and will, in time, cease to exist. In the meantime, without sentient beings to steward spaceship earth, then what is the point?
You would rather a wild overgrown planet spin mindlessly in open space, A primal Hunger Games, survival of the fittest non-sentient animals preying on the less fit, until that glorious sun gives up its ghost and obliterates all?
I ask again R_E_J, without intelligence and reason, without Engineers such as yourself, to build, grow, groom, preserve, police and adjudicate then what is the point of existence? To be or not to be? That is a stupid question.
I think Jim was being sarcastic
Even a march would be OK – organise with police, proper traffic management, short duration, let the ambulances through. But climate protestors seem to be aiming for maximum disruption, utter disregard for the rights of others, frequently occupying streets for days on end.
DIdn’t a couple of people die during a “protest” in Britain after an accident caused by the stoppages, and the ambulances couldn’t get to the wreck in time.
Either that is an attempt at a funny or you haven’t been reading this article and at least 2 others.
Amnesty International should do something about the tyranny of the IPCC.
Amnesty International has gone woke, just like the American Civil Liberties Union which now supports censorship. AI has been suing the Canadian government over its safe third country agreement with the United States, claiming that America is a fascist police state and does too generate refugees. (The “refugees” in question aren’t actually fleeing the U.S. They are just using the U.S. as a convenient transit country to get around Canada’s airport border controls and slip in over the land border.)
Don’t give Amnesty International any money.
The ACLU went hard left decades ago.
Amnesty International has always been quite selective in which victims they will support.
I was confused by your heading
Amnesty International Condemns Prosecution of Ambulance Blocking Climate Protestors. It suggests the ambulance was prosecuted!
The Breitbart heading is
Amnesty Angered After Climate Activists Sentenced for Blocking Ambulance.
The stupidity of all this and the climate hoax it is supporting is getting us all down!
I think the heading makes sense, yours might have been more elegant. But hopefully the picture tells a thousand words.
Your wording was best, Eric. A suggestion for clarity, insert a “-” between Ambulance and blocking, i.e., “Ambulance-blocking.”
ANOTHER fine article, Mr. Worrall 🙂
I disagree, “ambulance blocking climate” is clearly modifying the word “protesters”. In English the modifiers always precede the noun.
as in ‘people of colour’
“People of color” is a noun phrase. That is, the entire group of words is the noun.
“People of colour” is nonsensical. Why would anyone even utter it?
Kindly describe to me “a person of colour”, anyone?
Jeez…..I’ll dispense with the English lesson on a climate blog.
It’s fairly obvious what Eric meant.
Spanish puts the modifier after the noun instead of before, so such confusion might be less possible. I’m willing to entertain the possibility that someone with the name “layor nala” might not be a native english speaker.
I used to be a subscriber to Amnesty. That is I gave them money by installment.
But they lost the plot many years ago. Even before they espoused the climate twaddle. Another organisation founded on good intentions, taken over by idiots.
Me too. That was when Amnesty used my contributions for a golden parachute for a progressive VP.
Perhaps lock international amnesty in a room and block access to food/water, then describe to them that it’s only peaceful demonstration.
Neither Amnesty International nor Human Rights Watch will report on protests of people who have been harmed by insane climate alarmist policies. I would not be surprised the same goes for any of the top 25 human rights agencies in the world.
Neither do they seem unduly concerned by the violence perpetrated by Antifa or BLM.
Amnesty International used to do good work back in the 1970s, but they became politically selective in who they support or condemn. I no longer support them.
Same with Greenpeace & Friends of The Earth; I was an early member of both, but left when they went to the dark side.
The UN once did good work, way back in the 50’s and 60’s before they had ambitions of a ‘peace and love’ global government.
F**ed agency that now needs to be defunded of every penny it receives.
Actually, in the mid-sixties Amnesty refused to take up the case of 70+ year old lawyer who had been arrested and was imprisoned for around a year for no other reason than that he was the President of what was left of a Jewish community in an Arab country.
He was finally extracted (by another organisation) on condition that he and his wife immediately left the country in which they and their parents had been born, leaving behind all their belongings, except for a suitcase each and a nominal sum of money.
Amnesty’s excuse was that they did not take up cases involving that particular country.
And to think that Amnesty had been founded by Jews!
Blocking roadways? Just asking to become speed bumps. At some point the citizens are going to tire of their antics, paid by the airhead elites, and grant a few of them their wish to be granted permanent relief from their misery.
Just sayin’.
WUWT doesn’t advocate violence, so I recommend everyone please express your anger at the ballot box. But yes, there have already been cases of road rage.
There is a difference between advocating violence, and acknowledging that the actions of idiots will inevitably trigger it.
I would note that WUWT, and every poster/commenter on the platform, not only advocate violence, but commit it several times a day – by the definition of the Left.
You don’t need to take responsibility for the opinions of others Eric. That way WOKE beckons.
Blocking a roadway with no regard for others IS violence, using their bodies as weapons. It is a testament to most of the public that none of these scumbags have been seriously injured or killed. Every video I have seen of the public taking actions in response to these lawbreakers have shown great restraint, especially in cases where police have stood aside, paralyzed by fear of repercussions.
What credibility?
All instutions are targeted by the left in oreder to promote political propaganda
Propaganda promotes a political agenda. not the other way around.
In American English, promote can also be used as a synonym for distribute.
It gets worse . . . .
GB News
https://www.gbnews.uk/news/just-stop-oil-activists-spray-london-rolex-shop-with-orange-paint-as-daily-protests-continue/381574
“Just Stop Oil activists have sprayed a Rolex shop in London with orange paint [from a fire extinguisher] in the latest of a string of protests.”
Pray tell me, what man-made propellant is used in fire extinguishers?
They are simply returning to their socialist roots. After spraying a couple of luxury car dealerships last weekend, they declared that it was evil that people could spend so much money on cars while people were having trouble affording food and heat.
As if one person buying a Rolex would keep others from buying food. Unless you take the standard socialist line that if someone has the money to buy a Rolex, this proves that taxes aren’t high enough.
The fact that some people can afford to buy Rolex (or any similarly high price item) means that there is more money in the system, and the storekeepers, the shop assistants, cleaners etc etc can all get paid.
That is how an economy works. !
I agree with you, However these numbnuts see the world as a zero sum game. If someone else has more, it means someone else has less.
Making the economy larger so that everyone can have more is not something their minds are able to comprehend.
Irony. They advocate policies that will impoverish most people, then complain about the result of their own stupidity…
What “credibility”?
“In my opinion Amnesty International have just blown up their credibility, by objecting to the prosecution of climate protestors who block ambulances.”
In my opinion Amnesty International blew up their credibility years ago.
My rights do not end where their rights begin. If they deny me my rights that is no longer peaceful protest. Toss them in jail and throw away the key. I don’t give a damn about those people.
The article starts with that misconception
“The right to demonstrate is a central building block in every democratic society”
When you start violating others freedoms it’s a slippery slope. Could you imagine if people started massing outside these protestors residence and gluing to their doors and fences … they would be howling that their rights are being trampled.
Let’s remember the Greenham Common protesters.
They were a bit of a pain in the bum but they believed in what they were protesting about ( blocking the entrance to a military base, but only causing minor irritation to either the denizens of the base or to the public at large. If arrested and fined I presume they paid up, but possibly not.
A fair number of people were at least somewhat sympathetic.
The present toff-twat protests have little or no connection with any conceivable stopping of oil. Spraying orange paint over a Rolex shop. Gluing themselves to art gallery walls or picture frames. Get a grip!
China produces at least 20 times as much CO2 that we do (although part of that is them manufacturing stuff for us, because they don’t pay much and aren’t useless at managing.
If they are such heroes, go spray paint over the Chinese Embassy (or Cambridge University, perhaps). Stick themselves to the Ambassador’s car.
Should make interesting telly. And perhaps a little sympathy.
Better yet, air srop them over China with their glue and their spray paint and let them “protest” and see how that works out…
Yet, none of these agencies will defend the rights of climate sceptics to be given as much platform as the alarmists. As far as they are concerned, climate sceptics should not be heard and no doubt, if prison was suggested for the dissenters, they would probably approve.
TBH, I never gave Amnesty International, much credibility.
Sweden is as far as I know of no international obligation to implement measures to reduce CO2 emissions. The Paris Accord is not binding.
It is part of the US constitution that national policy cannot be subjected to the decisions of foreign agents. Laws and regulations flow from decisions made in the US Congress.
Which is why CO2 emissions continue to climb to new records
https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/10/1129887
I have been telling Griff, Loydo etc for years that would be the case and nothing said or done at COP meetings will change that.
I support a person’s right to protest; but I do not tolerate them disrupting my life. And this includes everyone, not just these irrational anti-liberty eco-idiots. For instance, I supported the right of the truckers to protest in Canada, I did not support them when they blocked roads. A protest like that does not become right just because I agree with the cause.
For some reason, I can’t find a single statement from Amnesty International about the J6 protestors – those held in solitary confinement, denied medical treatment, denied bail, etc. – for “parading.”
I have supported Amnesty in the past, but, this blocking of emergency vehicles is nuts.
Comes after the condemnation of Ukraine for defending there towns and villages, while Russia was shooting tied up Civilians in the back, in the same towns and villages.
It’s sad, Amnesty International has passed it’s use by date. I will have nothing to do with them in the future.
I stopped going to letter writing meetings because I disagreed with them about whether the death penalty was justified in some cases. But I still supported them for a long time, until they went completely nuts.
Credible evidence for that please. Then perhaps credible evidence for Ukraine dong the same.
I guess bodies with bullet holes in skulls and hands tied behind backs don’t count as we don’t know who did the the tieing up and who did the shooting or when. I think the Katyn Massacre is one famous case of “It wasn’t us it was them”.
It’s a sad fact that there are always these events in every war and always commited by both/all sides.
There is no credible evidence – in one town the Ukraines shelled it as the Russians pulled out with a massive, if brief, artillery barrage. Those intact civilian bodies conveniently left lying in the open to be filmed would have been shredded by shrapnel from Ukraine shells. I’m sorry to burst your bubble but many of these events have been staged to get public opinion firmly behind Ukraine. Some others may well be true, but once you start muddying the waters with staged fake atrocities, it becomes difficult to tell which are real.
I said the same in the early days of the war when pictures of a street littered with people in body bags was released. Who puts victims in body bags and just leaves them lying in the street?
AI blew up their credibility long ago. This is nothing new.
“In the very essence of civil disobedience is that the person who has carried out an illegal action stands for what he has done and takes responsibility for it, also legally.”
They got this right. Peaceful protesting in keeping with applicable laws is certainly to be protected, but that is not civil disobedience. Protesting illegally is civil disobedience. Those who do so must be prepared to be prosecuted and pay the price for their lawbreaking.
Blocking roads and endangering others is, I am sure, illegal in most jurisdictions, and should be prosecuted under applicable statutes. If others are injured, killed or financially burdened by such lawbreaking, protestors should also be open to criminal prosecution as well as civil actions for damages.
Amnesty International (AI) is trying here to suggest that “climate emergency” somehow justifies the “protestors’” lawbreaking. It does not. It really matters not the cause. If you break the law, you must be ready to pay the price. Even AI just said so in the above quote.
Blind hypocrites.
Simple solution really. Just pass laws that any citizen can request a disruptive citizen on any thoroughfare 3 times repeatedly to move and if they don’t they can be dragged out of the way with no right of recourse for damage or injury. Includes those glued.
If you deliberately block an ambulance knowing that it is travelling to an emergency situation and if the patient dies because of the delay you caused how is that not murder? You have taken deliberate and premeditated action which resulted in the death of a person in the full knowledge that your action could cause death. They have a right to demonstrate, the public has a right and indeed a duty to charge such people with first degree murder.
The protesters are infringing the public’s freedom of movement. This is seen as a fundamental human right and is article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Just Stop Oil should be prosecuted.
From the article: “Climate change is a reality that requires states to act with determination.”
Nope. There is no evidence than human-derived CO2 is causing the Earth’s climate to change.
Amnesty International is operating on a false premise, along with all the other climate alarmists in the world.
Amnesty International, instead of condemning the punishment of people who block essential services, should promote the idea that protests should be held in places that do not put the general public in jeopardy. It’s possible to protest and allow people access to the hospital at the same time. But some protestors seem to think they have to make others unhappy in order to get what they want and apparently Amnesty International is backing them up.
If you block a highway in protest, you should be put in jail. Do that a couple of times and there won’t be any people out blocking the highways.
Eric,
They haven’t had much of a reputation for a couple of decades at least. Amnesty International hasn’t had a whole lot of common sense in its entire existence.
Emergency vehicles have the right of way. personally, I think the drivers of said emergency vehicles should take the right of way, and if it means running over a few idiots, too bad. Wouldn’t take but one or two incidents for the protesters to get the idea, and to stop their nonsense.
It was just because a person died in the ambulance that they wefe lrosecuted. Otherwise nothing would have happened
I gave Amnesty up three years ago when they gave Greta a special award for her “climate activism”, its stupidity is not new.
The right to protest, to speak your mind and to freely assemble is not a free pass to inflict pain and suffering on others. Every right comes with responsibility. The useless idiots blocking roads, vandalizing valuable works of art and throwing paint around like unholy water deserve whatever punishment the courts can dish out. To date the law has been far too friendly and accommodating to these fools who would tear down modern society given sufficient leave.
People on the left have completely lost their minds.
They just want more leisure time, so they won’t have to sue for amnesty.
Wow. I first read the headline as ‘Ambulances blocking protestors’. It did sound more interesting that way.
If we’ve come to this, we should seriously consider changing the traffic laws to give an ambulance driver on a lifesaving mission the legal right to run down road-blockers. Enough is enough, and the lives of people who would block them are the lesser moral priority.
As for Amnesty International, it joined several years ago a growing list of once worthy charities that have abandoned noble missions to pursue wokism. The SPLC, ADL, and ACLU are just as bad. Someone ought to create replacements for what all four used to stand for.