Judge trying climate defenders questions existence and severity of climate crisis as UN urges courts “to listen to what environmental defenders have to say” - Extinction Rebellion UK
extinctionrebellion.uk
In his directions to the jury in the JPMorgan window breakers case yesterday, Judge Reid cast doubt on the existence and severity of the climate crisis. Judge Reid expressed his doubts about the reality and severity of the climate and ecological crisis, which is already seeing millions displaced, starving, injured and dead, on the same day as the United Nations Special Rapporteur, Michel Forst, released his latest report, State repression of environmental protest and civil disobedience: a major threat to human rights and democracy.

Cross-posted from: https://feddit.de/post/9678117

Judge Silas Reid’s climate change scepticism came during an ongoing trial at Inner London Crown Court that began on Monday 19th February, regarding five women from Extinction Rebellion in the UK. Giving directions to the jury ahead of their deliberations, Reid said: “It is important to note that the circumstances which are relevant are those of the damage and not other circumstances… The circumstances of the damage do not include any climate crisis which may or may not exist in the world at the moment nor does it include whether nonviolent direct action can prompt change."

Judge Reid famously imprisoned one of the defendants currently on trial, Amy Pritchard, along with others, for mentioning the words ‘climate change’ whilst on trial last year. The report references UK courts’ attitudes to climate and environmental activists:: “They have forbidden protesters from mentioning climate change, thereby preventing them from explaining the reasons for their protest. Courts have held convicted environmental defenders who disregarded this prohibition in ‘contempt of court’ and imprisoned them for up to eight weeks.”

Judge Reid’s newly expressed doubts about the reality came on the same day as the United Nations Special Rapporteur, Michel Forst, released his latest report claiming that “state repression of environmental protest and civil disobedience” would pose “a major threat to human rights and democracy.”

  • Womble@lemmy.worldEnglish
    24·
    4 months ago

    The problem with this isn’t the legal language of “climate crisis which may or may not exist in the world at the moment”, that’s just standard legal speak. The problem is the judge asserting that that whether it exists or not is irrelevant to the case and by doing so attempting to deny the protestors of their defence. Its a fairly open secret that the government has been leaning on the judiciary to crack down on climate protests and be as harsh as possible on them.

  • Spike@feddit.deEnglish
    191·
    4 months ago

    AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

  • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.worldEnglish
    16·
    4 months ago

    Who gives a fuck what they do. This is a crisis, and we should treat it as such. Just bcz morons don’t understand the urgency doesn’t mean we should tiptoe around them.

    The fact that we don’t have world wide protests yet speaks volumes of how this crisis is going to unfold in the future.

    • tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺@feddit.deEnglish
      14·
      4 months ago

      Well, their repression by jailing people for stating the fact that there is a climate crisis in court, is absolutely relevant. The consequence here in a state of law would be to remove these judges from these trials and deligate them to rule on topics, where they are not biased, e.g. parking tickets or something. If they continue to accumulate biased topics, where they cannot be considered impartial judges, then they need to be removed from that office.