Surely what is on trial here is the case for (non-violent) direct
action. The fact that the contentious issue is climate change and that
possibly the future of the human race might be in the balance because
of this, is to a considerable degree, irrelevant.
Isn't the essence of the case that there are many examples in history
where democracy has proved slow to address fundamental human rights
issues - women's emancipation, racial discrimination - and that it has
only been through direct action that the general populace has had its
attention drawn to the issue and the underlying offence against human
rights principles have been spelled out - and ultimately democracy has
responded?
Assuming 'democracy' doesn't set its face against (non-violent) direct
action, what might constitute the basic case for initiating direct
action?
It would seem to me that the case would rest on i) there was a fair
and reasonable case for believing that a significant injustice was
being perpetrated through inaction within an accepted democratic
framework, and ii) there was a reasonable number of individuals who
were prepared to show they took the injustice sufficiently seriously
to undertake moderately disruptive actions at some costs to themselves.
Testing the above, the 'significant injustice' is the jeopardising of
the lives of billions of people around the world in the decades to
come, and 'the reasonable number of individuals' is met 'self-
evidently' by the very large numbers of people who took part in the
attempted 'shutting down of UK polluting infrastructure'.
What has to be accepted within the logic of the above is that not all
those taking the direct action path will automatically be on the side
of the angels. One will have to rely on the fact that it will be
mainly people with good will who will be motivated against
'significant injustices' Basically, it is the Left that is more
concerned about human rights issues and the Right that is more
motivated to trample over them.
Brian Orr
On 26 Mar 2010, at 14:52, Cromwell D. wrote:
> Seeking expert witnesses for climate change trial
>
> Please get in touch with Lisa if interested (details below).
>
> A group of environmental protesters were arrested last year, and
> their trial is likely to be this autumn. Essentially they wanted to
> shut down a piece of polluting UK infrastructure in order to prevent
> greater damage and loss of life elsewhere in the world, due to
> climate change.
>
> They're looking for expert witnesses to speak at the trial. I was
> wondering whether any of you could suggest (or even put yourselves
> forward) as expert witnesses on any of the following topics:
>
>
> * the failure and flaws in EU-level democracy (to reinforce the
> point that direct action is necessary because the existing
> mainstream democratic channels won't get the EU policy changes we
> need to tackle climate change in time)
> * The failure and flaws in democracy at an international level (to
> make the same point as above)
> * Current and likely future impacts of climate change in the UK,
> especially in and around Nottinghamshire
>
> They already have experts on the science of climate change and
> international climate impacts, and on problems with UK democracy .
>
> The witnesses would need to know their stuff, and also be able to
> communicate it clearly to a jury. Academic credentials and/or a
> significant amount of relevant professional experience would be very
> helpful for lending the appropriate weight to their words! They'd be
> compensated for their time by the court.
>
> Please send any suggestions my way asap - huge thanks!
>
> Best wishes to all,
>
> Lisa
> ([log in to unmask])
|