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.”

  • zazo@lemmy.worldEnglish
    19·
    10 months ago

    I guess we’ll have to start calling it the environmental calamity? or how about we’re-all-going-to-boil-to-death-because-of-dumb-fucks-that-are-too-stupid-to-be-allowed-anywhere-near-positions-of-power or is that a tad too long?

  • HumanPenguin@feddit.ukEnglish
    4·
    10 months ago

    While it clearly points him as an idiot. Who likely is unqualified mentally to evaluate evidence.

    I do not see that the existence of the climate crisis or not. Has any relevance on the case.

    The case is entirly about if the right to protest allows for intentional property damage.

    The right to protest is not in anyway effected by the truth of your argument. Climate change disbelievers have the same right to object to government actions as do believers. Truth has no effect on the right to show disagreement. Just hopefully the willingness for other to listen.

    The only point the judge should care about is dose that right allow a protester to damage another person’s / organisations property.