Kit Knightly – Off-Guardian Apr 11, 2024
Yesterday, a group of senior women from Switzerland won what is being called a “landmark” human rights case concerning “Climate Change”.
At a hearing in Strasbourg, the European Court of Human Rights found the government of Switzerland had violated the women’s human rights by “failing to do enough” to combat the alleged effect of ‘man-made climate change’.
Calling it a “decision that will set a precedent for future climate lawsuits“, Reuters reports:
The European Court of Human Rights’ ruling, in favour of the more than 2,000 Swiss women who brought the case, is expected to resonate in court decisions across Europe and beyond […] The Swiss women, known as KlimaSeniorinnen and aged over 64, said their government’s climate inaction put them at risk of dying during heatwaves. They argued their age and gender made them particularly vulnerable to such climate change impacts.
The report goes on to add [emphasis mine]:
The verdict in the Swiss case, which cannot be appealed, will have international ripple effects, most directly by establishing a binding legal precedent for all 46 countries that are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights
This case is far from an isolated example. It’s part of an ongoing and widespread legal campaign to associate human rights with the spurious climate change agenda.
Famously, a group of Portuguese teens have been attempting to sue 32 countries for years (it used to be 33, but they dropped Ukraine from the list of defendants when it became expedient to do so).
EHRC “Youth Climate Case” could see courts forcing policy on nation-states
It seems likely neither the Portuguese teens nor the Swiss seniors represent genuine grassroots activism. They are heavily backed by corporate-supported NGOs like Avaaz, the Climate Litigation Network and others. And this tells its own story.
In Strasbourg, the ECHR is already hearing six further “climate change vs human rights” cases (not including the Portuguese teens case which was recently rejected on a technicality).
Other countries from Brazil to South Korea to Australia have similar cases in front of their national courts.
Just last week the Indian Supreme Court found that Indian citizens have a ‘right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change’, a truly bizarre finding that seems dangerously vague.
Those are just the current cases, with this decision in Strasbourg we can likely expect an avalanche of new ones, as Reuters observes, it will “embolden more communities to bring climate cases against governments.”
It’s not hard to see the purpose of this legal campaign.
Generally, supra-national courts handing down legal decisions impacting multiple countries is a way of creating quasi-global legislation in all but name.
For example, as Reuters notes, this single court case representing just 2000 people from one small country effectively forced the creation of a “binding legal precedent” in all 46 signatories of the ECHR, with a combined population of over 700 million people.
More specifically, by tying climate change to human rights governments can justify enforcing increasingly strict climate change policies, while simultaneously making it appear that the judiciary are forcing their hand.
Now they can effectively claim “You’ve got to switch to an electric car, or you’re infringing other people’s human rights”, but also, “don’t blame us our hands are tied by judges”.
It also enables a propaganda campaign of escalating divisive language, mirroring the vaccinated vs unvaccinated messaging during the “pandemic”.
Remember how we were told, “the unvaccinated are filling ICUs and making another lockdown more likely”? Well, in the future, that will become “climate change deniers are violating your human rights by refusing to use a smart meter”.
Perhaps the most concerning aspect of this case is this phrase, repeated everywhere [emphasis added]:
Human rights violated by Swiss inaction on climate
Previously, rights violations have been generally considered active rather than passive. The idea you can violate someone’s rights through “inaction” sets the precedent that courts can – and should – compel action to “protect” the rights of others.
A very slippery slope. After all, if states and governments can be compelled to act, so can individuals.
—
Support Off-Guardian
Climate the Movie
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/03/20/climate-the-movie-watch-here/
take note @25:30 in the last glacial maximum CO2 was the lowest in earth’s history, down to 180ppm – close to extinction of all life on earth
Unfortunately they did not mention that megafauna extinctions correlate with low CO2
Current CO2 levels at 420 ppm are at BARE MINIMUM RECOVERY LEVELS
our society has it completely wrong
at 27:13 listen carefully – CO2 follows temperatures
listen to what Tony Heller says, Ice Ages start at high CO2 and end at low CO2 – the exact opposite of the AGW claim
“We find you guilty of…not doing enough to…”–not actually committing a crime– the logic being from the Jews when they say a country and a people “did not do enough to stop the Holocaust”, one of their other convenient inventions and sins of omission
So the court makes a ruling base on fake science? Oh yes, the Sun will burn this rock to a crisp, and it’s got nothing to do with sheeple, or diesel.
The truth, the court wants climate change induced economic collapse, to cover for their economic failures. So much for democracy when a so say elected regime is held to account by a none elected court.
It goes without saying that these environmental groups are all either directly or indirectly funded by the JWO and their web of fake charitable foundations.and organizations. These are essentially show trials where Masonic stooge judges issue preordained rulings.
Long ago , we could have had limitless ,free , clean energy, but now the same cartels that squashed free energy tech, want to penalize and implement draconian controls on us for using energy sources they forced on humanity. If climate change was legit , it could have been resolved decades ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=staL1wr07Sg
Stanley Meyer’s water powered car. Electrolysis process separated H and O in water and injected into cylinders instead of gas/ air mix. We could
have converted existing car engines to run on this system .By-product of this combustion is water vapor. We wouldn’t even have to pay for the water, we could collect rainwater off the roof with rain barrels and pour it in the tank. Wouldn’t that be great for reducing carbon footprint ? BTW , Stanley Meyer died mysteriously like many other free energy scientists / innovators .
It’s interesting how fake climate change is a matter of human rights , but wealth disparity is not. Why aren’t the intl. bankers and corporate cartels — Rothschild and Co. forced to give up some of their hundreds of trillions in assets while half the world lives in squalor ? NO , this is never part of the equation. How about the human rights of Palestinians and millions of other Arabs who are being murdered and their countries destroyed.for Israeli hegemony in ME . What about the human rights of billions forced to take to Covid bio-weapon vax ? What about human rights that are being violated by Agra corps. like Monsanto and the GMO corruption of the food supply? No, none of these issues will be on the docket in the European Court of Human Rights anytime soon.
But this is just theatre isn’t it?… pushing narrative…it’s about as real as Greta Thuntburg… a group of dubious old bags have taken it upon themselves to challenge the Gnomes of Zurich…
a geriatric acting troupe…Big ‘News’…
because…Human Rights… which evidently don’t exist, as you all discovered during the microsoft coff farce…So fuck the courts of human rights it’s obviously a latrine for globalist policy…it has no value and never had..
Knightly is correct of course, in as much as this is just more legalese fudge to push the extermination agenda…which is the only human right…according to Davos..and the sort of learned helplessness rags like OG fart into the unterwebz…for their hunchbacked masters…
Which begs the question..”how is this in any way important to YOUR survival..if you intend to…and what will you do about it?”…
I suspect that might be contra-versial… if somewhat predictable..
With numerous homes, cars, jets and yachts each we could save the planet by killing the billionaires.