3 ms·

This is a European re-run of the 2019 Dutch Urgenda trial on the same subject [1] and it is definitely not a good thing no matter whether you believe in a "clim

This is a European re-run of the 2019 Dutch Urgenda trial on the same subject [1] and it is definitely not a good thing no matter whether you believe in a "climate catastrophe" or not. These types of trials are used as a run-around for the - dare I use the term 'democratic' - political process to get policies enacted which are only supported by a fraction of the electorate. Thus far this tactic has been used by "progressives" for "progressive" causes so critics of the process tends to be labelled "right-wing" or some form of *-ist or *-denier so as to make them untouchable. Those who support this type of legal strong-arming of the political process would do well to contemplate how this same tactic can be used by their political opponents to force their governments to enact policies they oppose. [1] https://www.urgenda.nl/en/themas/climate-case/ https://www.urgenda.nl/en/themas/climate-case/

nehal3m 3y ago
The democratic process is what has established the human rights conventions. These people are just using what we've established in attempt to protect their rights.
- hagbard_c 3y ago
  The fact that statutes and courts are used for other purposes than originally envisioned does not justify those purposes or actions. It is quite likely that this tactic will eventually be used to push through policies which go against "progressive" doctrine, some of the more likely areas for this to happen are migration and criminal justice. Given your nick I assume you're from the USA (and/or work for Intel...) so there are already some examples of this happening in both directions, e.g. first the establishment of a federal 'right to abortion' in Roe vs. Wade which was then withdrawn when the supreme court decision on Roe vs Wade pushed abortion legislation back to the state level. The laws are in place - both on state as well as federate level - for forcing your state and federal government to restrict migration and clamp down on district attorneys who are unwilling to prosecute criminals, all it takes is for some entity to manage to get a case in a 'friendly' court. Will you see such decisions in the same light as you're portraying this decision?
  - nehal3m 3y ago
    I'm Western European so this kind of thing does not have the partisan colouring you seem to read into this, at least to me. I chose this nick because I've always liked the Intel codenames. :-) What I'm arguing here is that we've democratically elected leaders that have put the system in place that allows citizens to bring grievances when they have no other recourse to protect their rights. You can't then turn around and say that's an abuse of democracy, I feel it's the result. What I think you're really arguing against is the existence of 'friendly' courts. Lady Justice should be blind and so whether progressive or conservative, if a court does its job and applies the law as our democratically elected leaders have written them I honestly don't care. Even if that means it will sometimes rule in a way I disagree with.
ben_w 3y ago
I'm old enough to remember when people were protesting against international courts overriding national democracy, but that doesn't say much as it was last decade: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investment_Partnership#Criticism_and_opposition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Invest... Many of the same talking points came up again immediately in the form of Brexit and the various European Courts. Also, I get the impression (from up to 9 time zones away) that this kind of thing is also part of the power struggle in the US between states and DC.
ceejayoz 3y ago
Switzerland democratically decided to put the ECHR in place. Multiple times, including affirming it in 2018. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2018/11/switzerland-defends-human-rights-in-referendum/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2018/11/swit...
- hagbard_c 3y ago
  The problem here does not lie in the establishment or ratification of a court to handle human rights affairs but in the equation of 'climate policy' with ´human rights'. Seen in this light many other issues can be portrayed as 'human rights', some of them far more directly than 'climate policy'. The right to self-defence is one such issue which could be taken up by an activist group to allow people to keep and bear arms for that purpose, something which is alien to most European countries but could be argued to become a necessity due to the inability of the justice system to provide an adequate level of protection from harm. Is there a human right of self-defence? If so what is to keep such a decision from being made even though the majority of political parties would never run on such a platform? Also, if such a decision were made would you see it in the same light as this one given that ____land democratically decided to put the ECHR in place? I prefer to keep the courts out of the political discourse other than in cases where politicos violate the law of the land in which case I want them to deal with those cases swiftly and decisively. Especially in Europe where we do not elect our judges and prosecutors and as such have no means to reign in activists within the justice department (which do exist, see e.g. 'Hilda' and 'Ruben' in Sweden [1,2]) I want there to be a clear separation between the two. [1] https://mrrs.se/ordf_blog/hilda-ruben-stridet-mot-grundlagen-11-kap-6-%C2%A7/ https://mrrs.se/ordf_blog/hilda-ruben-stridet-mot-grundlagen... [2] https://www.advokatsamfundet.se/om-advokatsamfundet/tidigare-projekt/hilda/ https://www.advokatsamfundet.se/om-advokatsamfundet/tidigare...

nehal3m 3y ago

The democratic process is what has established the human rights conventions. These people are just using what we've established in attempt to protect their rights.

hagbard_c 3y ago
The fact that statutes and courts are used for other purposes than originally envisioned does not justify those purposes or actions. It is quite likely that this tactic will eventually be used to push through policies which go against "progressive" doctrine, some of the more likely areas for this to happen are migration and criminal justice. Given your nick I assume you're from the USA (and/or work for Intel...) so there are already some examples of this happening in both directions, e.g. first the establishment of a federal 'right to abortion' in Roe vs. Wade which was then withdrawn when the supreme court decision on Roe vs Wade pushed abortion legislation back to the state level. The laws are in place - both on state as well as federate level - for forcing your state and federal government to restrict migration and clamp down on district attorneys who are unwilling to prosecute criminals, all it takes is for some entity to manage to get a case in a 'friendly' court. Will you see such decisions in the same light as you're portraying this decision?
- nehal3m 3y ago
  I'm Western European so this kind of thing does not have the partisan colouring you seem to read into this, at least to me. I chose this nick because I've always liked the Intel codenames. :-) What I'm arguing here is that we've democratically elected leaders that have put the system in place that allows citizens to bring grievances when they have no other recourse to protect their rights. You can't then turn around and say that's an abuse of democracy, I feel it's the result. What I think you're really arguing against is the existence of 'friendly' courts. Lady Justice should be blind and so whether progressive or conservative, if a court does its job and applies the law as our democratically elected leaders have written them I honestly don't care. Even if that means it will sometimes rule in a way I disagree with.

ben_w 3y ago

I'm old enough to remember when people were protesting against international courts overriding national democracy, but that doesn't say much as it was last decade: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investment_Partnership#Criticism_and_opposition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Invest... Many of the same talking points came up again immediately in the form of Brexit and the various European Courts. Also, I get the impression (from up to 9 time zones away) that this kind of thing is also part of the power struggle in the US between states and DC.

ceejayoz 3y ago

Switzerland democratically decided to put the ECHR in place. Multiple times, including affirming it in 2018. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2018/11/switzerland-defends-human-rights-in-referendum/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2018/11/swit...

hagbard_c 3y ago
The problem here does not lie in the establishment or ratification of a court to handle human rights affairs but in the equation of 'climate policy' with ´human rights'. Seen in this light many other issues can be portrayed as 'human rights', some of them far more directly than 'climate policy'. The right to self-defence is one such issue which could be taken up by an activist group to allow people to keep and bear arms for that purpose, something which is alien to most European countries but could be argued to become a necessity due to the inability of the justice system to provide an adequate level of protection from harm. Is there a human right of self-defence? If so what is to keep such a decision from being made even though the majority of political parties would never run on such a platform? Also, if such a decision were made would you see it in the same light as this one given that ____land democratically decided to put the ECHR in place? I prefer to keep the courts out of the political discourse other than in cases where politicos violate the law of the land in which case I want them to deal with those cases swiftly and decisively. Especially in Europe where we do not elect our judges and prosecutors and as such have no means to reign in activists within the justice department (which do exist, see e.g. 'Hilda' and 'Ruben' in Sweden [1,2]) I want there to be a clear separation between the two. [1] https://mrrs.se/ordf_blog/hilda-ruben-stridet-mot-grundlagen-11-kap-6-%C2%A7/ https://mrrs.se/ordf_blog/hilda-ruben-stridet-mot-grundlagen... [2] https://www.advokatsamfundet.se/om-advokatsamfundet/tidigare-projekt/hilda/ https://www.advokatsamfundet.se/om-advokatsamfundet/tidigare...