Court ruling could rule out Climate Skepticism – Are you opposed to that?

Essay by Eric Worrall

Vanuatu has called on Australia to join the push for the UN’s International Court of Justice to rule that countries “have an obligation to use all means at their disposal to avoid activities” that lead to emissions. more CO2.

Vanuatu urges Australia to support UN efforts to recognize the harmful effects of climate change

Pacific islands call on new Labor government to help push international court of justice to issue climate advisory opinion

Kate Lyons
@MsKateLyons
Monday, June 20, 2022 06:00 AEST

Australia’s new Labor Government has been called on to demonstrate its commitment to climate action and support Pacific countries by backing a campaign led by the Australian Government. Vanuatu to see how international law has changed to acknowledge the harmful effects of climate change.

In a letter to the prime minister sent by leading Australian and Pacific NGOs, shared exclusively with Guardian Australia, the groups called on Anthony Albanese to support Vanuatu’s campaign to public court International management to give an advisory opinion on the issue of climate change.

“These requests provide an excellent opportunity for your government to demonstrate its willingness to listen to the voices of Pacific island nations and demonstrate that you are prepared to act in the face of the existential threat of life.” climate crisis in a way that gives hope to future generations of Australian and Pacific Islanders,” the letter was sent on behalf of groups including 350 Pacific, Amnesty International Australia, Oxfam Pacific and the Pacific Islands Climate Action Network.

…

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/20/vanuatu-calls-on-australia-to-back-its-un-bid-to-recognise-climate-change-harm

Why should I be concerned about the United Nations push to recognize climate harm under the no-harm rule? Words of the law.

“[a] The State is therefore obliged to use all means at its disposal to avoid activities taking place on its territory, or in any area under its jurisdiction, which cause substantial damage. for the environment of another State. “

The “Do No Harm” rule was originally developed after Trail furnace shellan Incorporated smelter in Canada whose toxic sulfur fumes were blown into the United States.

If the ICJ recognized climate change under its no-harm rule, then countries would be obligated to “use all means at their disposal” to prevent activities that lead to more CO2 emissions. .

Could this “use it all” principle extend to silencing skeptics?

I want to be clear on this point, I am not a lawyer. So my interpretation may be wrong.

To my limited understanding, at least to US skeptics, the First Amendment offers some protection. But there is a limit. U.S. citizens are not permitted to speak publicly in support of unlawful violence against other citizens. People can be sued or criminally prosecuted for the harms caused by public speaking, such as shouting “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire or for defamation or lying. public places that damage the victim’s reputation and income.

My concern is that, if climate change is seen on the principle of no harm, then telling people there is no problem, once the ICJ has realized there is a problem, can be interpreted as spreading. spreading misrepresentation to intentionally put people in harm’s way. Just as shouting “there’s fire” in a crowded theater puts people in harm’s way if there’s no fire, so telling people there’s no fire when the court has confirmed the fire is real, so can be understood as putting people in the position of harm.

It is clear that the UN has no direct authority at present over the lives of its citizens. But can someone like President Biden defend the rights of US citizens against a United Nations International Arrest Order, due to one party claiming that a WUWT article is internationally damaging, by How to encourage burning more coal? Will dark green Prime Ministers like Boris Johnson, Justin Trudeau or Anthony Albanese (Australia) stand up for the rights of a climate skeptic?

In the United States, there is a strong push to moderate climate skepticism. In April this year, President Obama declares First Amendment does not apply to online censorship of climate skeptics. In Australia, doctor loses freedom to criticize government policyafter some doctors expressed warnings about Covid vaccine side effects – a particularly cruel attack on freedom, alleging China’s repression of doctors and liberties Medical discourse was the cause of the initial Covid outbreak that escaped from Wuhan.

We are free to speak now, thanks to laws enacted by people who mostly lived long ago, people who value freedom, who are much wiser than politicians today. But that freedom is under attack. At any time, a new interpretation of the law, or a lack of respect for human rights, could stifle the freedom to madly criticize climate policy or other government policies.

Those who want to crush dissent are constantly looking for loopholes, a way to silence their opponents, applied within the existing legal frameworks of laws that protect our liberties. – like Obama’s April speech proved in my opinion. The recognition of climate harm legislation is a potential route to regulating and preventing climate statements. Abuse of the ICJ’s No Harm Rule might be what they’re looking for.