webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

ACTIV SUPPRESS 4 indig

formerly indig

SEE FIVE 8 25

shd i include press that covers?

1219 sep category in recognition of high level risk KIA/jailed

see water protectors USA

see global witness

see indig ppl

see human rights

see brazil bolsonaro

see student suppression

see corp ctr-insurgency

---

---

an 8 25

In Washington, DC — where protesters are speaking out against President Donald Trump's federalizing of local law enforcement —

a man is being charged with felony assault for throwing a Subway sandwich at a police officer.

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi highlighted the arrest in a late Thursday morning, August 14 post on X, formerly Twitter.

"If you touch any law enforcement officer," Bondi tweeted, "we will come after you. I just learned that this defendant worked at the Department of Justice — NO LONGER. Not only is he FIRED, he has been charged with a felony. This is an example of the Deep State we have been up against for seven months as we work to refocus DOJ. You will NOT work in this administration while disrespecting our government and law enforcement."

READ MORE:'That's how this ends': George Conway reveals 'the only way' to stop Trump's 'gangsterism'

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

Bondi's post is drawing some scathing responses from X users, some of whom are attacking her as a hypocrite in light of the fact that Trump granted federal pardons to the January 6, 2021 rioters — including those who violently attacked police officers that day.

Reporter Sam Youngman tweeted, "When you know DOJ reporters are too chickens—— to call you on your obvious hypocrisy.'"

Attorney Tracey Gallagher posted, "You mean like the DOJ employing Jared Wise, a Jan. 6 defendant who called cops 'Nazis' and urged the crowd to 'kill em' as they stormed the Capitol? By the way Bondi hitting someone with a sandwich under state or federal law is not a felony.(18 U.S.C. § 111) you are missing an element here."

Gallagher, in a separate tweet, wrote, "You're missing the element of a deadly weapon OR GBI you have neither."

READ MORE:'Disgusting': MAGA erupts at Democratic governor over 'classless' remark about Trump 'bro'

Self-described "constitutional conservative" Kelly McCarty humorously posted, "Sandwich crime arrests should always be the top priority for the DOJ."

Attorney James Hess commented, "But you won't go after people on the Epstein list?"

X user Pat Greentree wrote, "But if you work for a foreign spy agency and traffic children to US leaders for blackmail purposes they will protect you. THIS is the deep state, not a guy throwing a sandwich."

READ MORE:'Severe pushback': House Republicans fear constituent revolt over divisive new proposal

---

an 8 25

---

an ah 8 25

As the Trump administration continues to push the boundaries of centuries-old constraints on domestic power, the Pentagon is reportedly developing a multi-million-dollar plan to create a “Domestic Civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Force”—armed with weapons and riot gear, ready to be deployed instantaneously to quell civil unrest anywhere in the nation.

An exclusive Washington Post report reveals that two National Guard teams of hundreds of troops, designed to be ready around the clock, would be stationed on opposite sides of the country, able to cross state lines on command.

“The plan calls for 600 troops to be on standby at all times so they can deploy in as little as one hour, the documents say. They would be split into two groups of 300 and stationed at military bases in Alabama and Arizona, with purview of regions east and west of the Mississippi River, respectively,” the Post reported on Tuesday.

READ MORE: Trump Melts Down Over Elizabeth Warren’s Accusations

The price tag? Potentially hundreds of millions of dollars.

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

The Post calls it “another potential expansion of President Donald Trump’s willingness to employ the armed forces on American soil,” and notes that once again, the Trump administration is on “shaky” legal ground.

Legal experts are warning against the plan.

“You don’t want to normalize routine military participation in law enforcement,” Joseph Nunn, an attorney at the Brennan Center for Justice, told the Post. “You don’t want to normalize routine domestic deployment.”

“When you have this tool waiting at your fingertips, you’re going to want to use it,” Nunn added. “It actually makes it more likely that you’re going to see domestic deployments — because why else have a task force?”

READ MORE: ‘All of Christ for All of Life’: Hegseth Under Fire for Endorsing Christian Nationalist

The news follows President Trump’s unprecedented decision on Monday to federalize the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police force to combat what he claims is out-of-control violence, despite the nation’s capital city having decreased violent crime by double digits in 2024 and again in the first half of 2025.

In response to the Post’s report on Tuesday, The Bulwark’s Bill Kristol noted, “So of course it’s not just D.C.”

Former constitutional law professor David Wemhoff, now the editor of The American Proposition, wrote that President Trump’s “purpose is to crush, fight Americans. He has no interest in fighting much less opposing China and Russia.”

“Ah, yes,” remarked former Trump national security official Miles Taylor, “nothing says ‘land of the free’ like a standing army ready to put down the people who disagree with you.”

Progressive researcher Derek Martin, formerly of the National Security Agency (NSA), commented: “President Trump is so afraid of protests he’s preparing to use the military to suppress them. Only tyrants think this way.”

---

gmail 8 25

This Weekend, We Saw the UK Descend Into Censorship, Brutality, and Authoritarianism

Keir Starmer and Yvette Cooper's government arrested elderly protesters, a blind man using a wheelchair, and others – all in the name of providing diplomatic cover for a genocidal regime.

---

SHERIFF said throw rock molotov will kill you graveyard dead

AN 6 25

Miami New Times reports a member of Miami-Dade County's GOP Executive Committee joked about running over protesters with his car as people took to the streets forthe "No Kings" protests.

In a June 13 tweet, District 22 committeeman Chris Barcenas reposted a video of a man dancing in his car and singing to Shaboozey's "A Bar Song (Tipsy)" with the caption, "Driving home from work knowing DeSantis gave permission to the good people of Florida to go car bowling this weekend."

Barcenas added, "Turn on off-road mode."

READ MORE: 'Mourning and shame': Sociologist explains the Trump ritual that his supporters — and critics — fall for

The post was still available on X on Monday, preceding later posts trying to imply right-wing assassin, Vance Boelter, was a Democrat.

Miami New Times reports Barcenas is a former member of the Proud Boys who protested at the Capitol on January 6 but did not enter the building and was not charged with any crimes related to January 6. He later testified before the U.S. House Select Committee on the January 6 riot, detailing the Proud Boys' involvement in the insurrection and his involvement with the organization and another local right-wing group, Floridians First. Barcenas claims he is no longer involved with the Proud Boys.

Last week, at the onset of anti-Trump protests, Gov. Ron DeSantis reminded Floridians that they do not have to worry about hitting protesters with their cars if they are surrounded and feel threatened.

"We also have a policy that if you are driving on one of their streets and a mob comes and surrounds your vehicle and threatens you, you have the right to flee for your safety," DeSantis said during an appearance onthe Rubin Report podcast. "And so if you drive off and you hit one of these people, that's their fault for impinging on you."

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

READ MORE:The Trump administration just accidentally made the case against the Big Beautiful Bill

Miami defense attorney Mark Eiglarsh told reporters he was concerned about DeSantis’ message.

“The right to use deadly force in Florida only occurs when you reasonably fear death or great bodily harm; you don’t get free rein to hit protesters just because they are around your vehicle," he said.

Read the full Miami New Times report at this link.

---

---

PRECURSOR? NJ MAYOR, MOC MCIVER, NADLER STAFFER, 2 JUDGE ARREST

ANY PROTESTER DC ARMY PARADE BIRTHDAY MET WITH BIG FORCE

AN 6 25

U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday threatened to respond with force to protesters who gather this coming weekend in opposition to his costly and authoritarian military parade in Washington, D.C., remarks that came amid growing fears that the administration is planning to mobilize troops across the country.

In his comments, Trump made no effort to distinguish between peaceful demonstrators and those who commit violence or property damage, telling reporters, "For those people that want to protest, they're going to be met with very big force."

"I haven't even heard about a protest, but you know, this is people that hate our country, but they will be met with very heavy force," the president continued.

Under the banner of "No Kings," roughly 2,000 rallies have been planned across the United States on June 14 to protest Trump's birthday military parade and grave abuses of power, including his deployment of National Guard troops and U.S. Marines to crush demonstrations in Los Angeles.

Organizers opted against holding a "No Kings" rally in the U.S., saying that "real power isn't staged in Washington."

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

"Instead of allowing this birthday parade to be the center of gravity," they said, "we will make action everywhere else the story of America that day: people coming together in communities across the country to reject strongman politics and corruption."

Leaders of the rallies have stressed their commitment to nonviolence, saying in a statement this past weekend that "organizers are trained in de-escalation and are working closely with local partners to ensure peaceful and powerful actions nationwide."

Public Citizen, a "No Kings" partner organization, was among those responding with alarm to Trump's remarks on Tuesday.

"That's a dictator," the group wrote on social media.

MSNBC host Chris Hayes wrote that it's "worth stressing that he's not threatening rioters or people who are violent or lawless but literally just 'protesters' with 'very big force.'"

"My strong instinct is that Trump's threats against Americans' First Amendment right to peaceably assemble are going to massively juice attendance at Saturday's protests," Hayes added.

A map of rallies planned across the U.S. can be found here.

---

an 5 25

'Let her stay!' New York voter forcibly removed from GOP rep’s rowdy town hall

omfg

an 4 25

A whistleblower at the National Labor Relations Board reported an unusual spike in potentially sensitive data flowing out of the agency’s network in early March 2025 when staffers from the Department of Government Efficiency, which goes by DOGE, were granted access to the agency’s databases. On April 7, the Department of Homeland Security gained access to Internal Revenue Service tax data.

These seemingly unrelated events are examples of recent developments in the transformation of the structure and purpose of federal government data repositories. I am a researcher who studies the intersection of migration, data governance and digital technologies. I’m tracking how data that people provide to U.S. government agencies for public services such as tax filing, health care enrollment, unemployment assistance and education support is increasingly being redirected toward surveillance and law enforcement.

Originally collected to facilitate health care, eligibility for services and the administration of public services, this information is now shared across government agencies and with private companies, reshaping the infrastructure of public services into a mechanism of control. Once confined to separate bureaucracies, data now flows freely through a network of interagency agreements, outsourcing contracts and commercial partnerships built up in recent decades.

These data-sharing arrangements often take place outside public scrutiny, driven by national security justifications, fraud prevention initiatives and digital modernization efforts. The result is that the structure of government is quietly transforming into an integrated surveillance apparatus, capable of monitoring, predicting and flagging behavior at an unprecedented scale.

Executive orders signed by President Donald Trump aim to remove remaining institutional and legal barriers to completing this massive surveillance system.

DOGE and the private sector

Central to this transformation is DOGE, which is tasked via an executive order to “promote inter-operability between agency networks and systems, ensure data integrity, and facilitate responsible data collection and synchronization.” An additional executive order calls for the federal government to eliminate its information silos.

By building interoperable systems, DOGE can enable real-time, cross-agency access to sensitive information and create a centralized database on people within the U.S. These developments are framed as administrative streamlining but lay the groundwork for mass surveillance.

Key to this data repurposing are public-private partnerships. The DHS and other agencies have turned to third-party contractors and data brokers to bypass direct restrictions. These intermediaries also consolidate data from social media, utility companies, supermarkets and many other sources, enabling enforcement agencies to construct detailed digital profiles of people without explicit consent or judicial oversight.

Palantir, a private data firm and prominent federal contractor, supplies investigative platforms to agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Department of Defense, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Internal Revenue Service. These platforms aggregate data from various sources – driver’s license photos, social services, financial information, educational data – and present it in centralized dashboards designed for predictive policing and algorithmic profiling. These tools extend government reach in ways that challenge existing norms of privacy and consent.

The role of AI

Artificial intelligence has further accelerated this shift.

Predictive algorithms now scan vast amounts of data to generate risk scores, detect anomalies and flag potential threats.

These systems ingest data from school enrollment records, housing applications, utility usage and even social media, all made available through contracts with data brokers and tech companies. Because these systems rely on machine learning, their inner workings are often proprietary, unexplainable and beyond meaningful public accountability.IFrame ContentData privacy researcher Justin Sherman explains the astonishing amount of information data brokers have about you.

Sometimes the results are inaccurate, generated by AI hallucinations – responses AI systems produce that sound convincing but are incorrect, made up or irrelevant. Minor data discrepancies can lead to major consequences: job loss, denial of benefits and wrongful targeting in law enforcement operations. Once flagged, individuals rarely have a clear pathway to contest the system’s conclusions.

Digital profiling

Participation in civic life, applying for a loan, seeking disaster relief and requesting student aid now contribute to a person’s digital footprint. Government entities could later interpret that data in ways that allow them to deny access to assistance. Data collected under the banner of care could be mined for evidence to justify placing someone under surveillance. And with growing dependence on private contractors, the boundaries between public governance and corporate surveillance continue to erode.

Artificial intelligence, facial recognition systems and predictive profiling systems lack oversight. They also disproportionately affect low-income individuals, immigrants and people of color, who are more frequently flagged as risks.

Initially built for benefits verification or crisis response, these data systems now feed into broader surveillance networks. The implications are profound. What began as a system targeting noncitizens and fraud suspects could easily be generalized to everyone in the country.

Eyes on everyone

This is not merely a question of data privacy. It is a broader transformation in the logic of governance. Systems once designed for administration have become tools for tracking and predicting people’s behavior. In this new paradigm, oversight is sparse and accountability is minimal.

AI allows for the interpretation of behavioral patterns at scale without direct interrogation or verification. Inferences replace facts. Correlations replace testimony.

The risk extends to everyone. While these technologies are often first deployed at the margins of society – against migrants, welfare recipients or those deemed “high risk” – there’s little to limit their scope. As the infrastructure expands, so does its reach into the lives of all citizens.

With every form submitted, interaction logged and device used, a digital profile deepens, often out of sight. The infrastructure for pervasive surveillance is in place. What remains uncertain is how far it will be allowed to go.

Nicole M. Bennett, Ph.D. Candidate in Geography and Assistant Director at the Center for Refugee Studies, *Indiana University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

---

---

an 4 25

From the outset of his 2024 presidential campaign, Donald Trump signaled that a central focus of his presidency would be targeting and exacting retribution against his critics.

“In 2016, I declared, ‘I am your voice,’” Trump told attendees at CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference in March 2023. “Today, I add: I am your warrior. I am your justice. And for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution.”

In keeping his retribution vow, Trump in just three months—often with the use of the power of his executive orders—has targeted for retribution numerous top law firms, revoked the security clearances of dozens of top national security experts, former government officials, and former political opponents. He has targeted top universities, threaten to defund millions of dollars or more in critical research grants, and declared top news outlets CNN and MSNBC “corrupt” and “illegal.”

Just days after the 2024 election, NPR reported that during the campaign, “Trump made more than 100 threats to investigate, prosecute, imprison or otherwise punish his perceived enemies, including political opponents and private citizens.”

READ MORE: ‘Things Like This Take Place’: Trump Shrugs Off Mass Shooting Despite Once Being a Target

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

On Thursday, Trump threatened to go after one of his top legal critics: CREW, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonprofit legal and ethics watchdog that has been working for years to hold him (and others) to account, often by suing.

Asked by a reporter what group he would like to see have their tax exempt status removed, Trump replied, “Well, we’ll be making some statements, but it’s a big deal.”

“They’re so rich and so strong, and then they go so bad, they’ve earned so much by being a member of this country, you know, a member of this group, this beautiful group of people in this country, and then they go and they abuse their power like that,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office Thursday afternoon. “I think it’s, you know, I think it’s very sad.”

“I have a group named CREW,” he continued. “CREW. You ever hear of it? I think it’s CREW, and they have a guy that heads CREW. It’s supposed to be a charitable organization. The only charity they had is going after Donald Trump. So we’re looking at that.”

“We’re looking at a lot of things, but if you take a look at CREW, what they’ve done, and I think it was a very big abuse, but we’re going to be finding out pretty soon.”

During Trump’s first and second terms, CREW sued Trump or his administration for alleged emoluments clause violations, alleged Presidential Records Act noncompliance, and challenged some of his executive orders. It also represented voters in a lawsuit attempting to use the 14th Amendment to remove him from the ballot, claiming his role in the January 6, 2021 insurrection was constitutionally disqualifying.

READ MORE: ‘Full Time Babysitter’: Treasury Secretary Urges Caution After Trump Fed Chair Threat

In January, CREW was part of a lawsuit suing to “block Trump’s illegal plan to fire government workers,” and in February, CREW sued the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) “to compel transparency.”

CREW, in a statement to NCRM, vowed to continue its work.

“For more than 20 years, CREW has exposed government corruption from politicians of both parties who violate the public trust and has worked to promote an ethical, transparent government,” CREW Vice President of Communications Jordan Libowitz said. “Good governance groups are the heart of a healthy democracy. We will continue to do our work to ensure Americans have an ethical and accountable government.”

Legal experts are blasting Trump’s threat.

“It is literally a federal crime punishable by up to five years in prison for the President, VP, or any senior White House employee, to ‘request, directly or indirectly, any officer or employee of the IRS to conduct … an audit or other investigation of any particular taxpayer,'” wrote attorney Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council.

“The Trump administration has gone after law firms, they’ve gone after universities, and they’re now going after civil society, including groups like @CREWcrew. They want to silence any opposition to their extreme agenda,” added the National Women’s Law Center.

“President Trump is now threatening to weaponize the IRS against nonprofit organizations like @CREWcrew,” wrote Public Citizen. “He is attacking our most basic right: to say what we believe without fear of government prosecution. We proudly stand in solidarity with our friends at CREW.”

===

an 4 25 6 EJECTED, 3 AT LEAST ARRESTED, 2 TAZED

Greene gives 'word of warning' to constituents: 'Behave' or be 'thrown out' of town hall

---

no lnx

Jury Orders Greenpeace to Pay Pipeline Company More Than $660 Million

The environmental group had said the lawsuit, over its role in a protest movement, could mean an end to its operations in the United States.

A crowd of 100 or more people walk along a dirt road, some carrying flags.

Demonstrators against the Dakota Access Pipeline near Cannon Ball, N.D., in 2016.Credit...Andrew Cullen/Reuters

By Karen Zraick

Reporting from Mandan, N.D.

March 19, 2025

A North Dakota jury on Wednesday awarded damages totaling more than $660 million to the Texas-based pipeline company Energy Transfer, which had sued Greenpeace over its role in protests nearly a decade ago against the Dakota Access Pipeline.

The verdict was a major blow to the environmental organization. Greenpeace had said that Energy Transfer’s claimed damages, in the range of $300 million, would be enough to put the group out of business in the United States. The jury on Wednesday awarded far more than that.

Greenpeace said it would appeal. The group has maintained that it played only a minor part in demonstrations led by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. It has portrayed the lawsuit as an attempt to stifle oil-industry critics.

The nine-person jury in the Morton County courthouse in Mandan, N.D., about 45 minutes north of where the protests took place, returned the verdict after roughly two days of deliberations.

It took about a half-hour simply to read out the long list of questions posed to the jurors, such as whether they found that Greenpeace had committed trespass, defamation and conspiracy, among other violations, and how much money they would award for each offense.

Afterward, outside the courthouse in Mandan, both sides invoked the right to free speech, but in very different ways.

“We should all be concerned about the attacks on our First Amendment, and lawsuits like this that really threaten our rights to peaceful protest and free speech,” said Deepa Padmanabha, a senior legal adviser for Greenpeace USA.

Just moments before, Trey Cox of the firm Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, the lead lawyer for Energy Transfer, had called the verdict “a powerful affirmation" of the First Amendment. “Peaceful protest is an inherent American right,” he said. “However, violent and destructive protest is unlawful and unacceptable.”

Earlier in the week, during closing arguments on Monday, Energy Transfer’s co-founder and board chairman, Kelcy Warren, an ally and donor to President Trump, had the last word for the plaintiffs when his lawyers played a recording of comments he made in a video deposition for the jurors. “We’ve got to stand up for ourselves,” Mr. Warren said, arguing that protesters had created “a total false narrative” about his company. “It was time to fight back.”

Energy Transfer is one of the largest pipeline companies in the country. The protests over its construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline drew national attention and thousands of people to months-long encampments in 2016 and 2017.

The demonstrators gathered on and around the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, arguing that the pipeline cut through sacred land and could endanger the local water supply. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe sued to stop the project, and members of other tribes, environmentalists and celebrities were among the many who flocked to the rural area, including two figures who are now members of Mr. Trump’s cabinet: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard.

But the protests erupted into acts of vandalism and violence at times, alienating people in the surrounding community in the Bismarck-Mandan area.

Greenpeace has long argued that the lawsuit was a threat to First Amendment rights, brought by a deep-pocketed plaintiff and carrying dangerous implications for organizations that speak out about a broad range of issues. Greenpeace has called the lawsuit a strategic lawsuit against public participation, or SLAPP suit, the term for cases meant to hinder free speech by raising the risk of expensive legal battles. Many states have laws that make it difficult to pursue such cases, though not North Dakota.

Mr. Cox laced into Greenpeace during closing arguments on Monday. The company accused Greenpeace of funding and supporting attacks and protests that delayed the pipeline’s construction, raised costs and harmed Energy Transfer’s reputation.

Image

A large, blue-and-brown section of pipe is lifted from a pile of about a dozen similar sections of pipe as a person in a fluorescent vest and hard hat looks on.

Sections of pipe destined to become part of the Dakota Access Pipeline in 2015.Credit...Nati Harnik/Associated Press

Jurors, Mr. Cox said, would have the “privilege” of telling the group that its actions were “unacceptable to the American way.” He laid out costs incurred that tallied up to about $340 million and asked for punitive damages on top of that.

“Greenpeace took a small, disorganized, local issue and exploited it to shut down the Dakota Access Pipeline and promote its own selfish agenda,” he said. “They thought they’d never get caught.”

The 1,172-mile underground pipeline has been operating since 2017 but is awaiting final permits for a small section where it crosses federal territory underneath Lake Oahe on the Missouri River, near Standing Rock. The tribe is still trying to shut down the pipeline in a different lawsuit.

Lawyers for Greenpeace called the case against the group a “ridiculous” attempt to pin blame on it for everything that happened during months of raucous protests, including federal-government delays in issuing permits.

Three Greenpeace entities were named in the lawsuit: Greenpeace Inc., Greenpeace Fund and Greenpeace International. Greenpeace Inc. is the arm of the group that organizes public campaigns and protests. It is based in Washington, as is Greenpeace Fund, which raises money and awards grants.

The third entity named in the lawsuit, Greenpeace International, based in Amsterdam, is the coordinating body for 25 independent Greenpeace groups around the world.

It was principally the actions of Greenpeace Inc. that were at the heart of the trial, which began Feb. 24. They included training people in protest tactics, dispatching its “rolling sunlight” solar-panel truck to provide power, and offering funds and other supplies. Greenpeace International maintained that its only involvement was signing a letter to banks expressing opposition to the pipeline, a document that was signed by hundreds and that had been drafted by a Dutch organization. Greenpeace Fund said it had no involvement.

Image

Three activists stand next to a river holding yellow signs with bold black writing that read, in part, "Energy Transfer: Leave Greenpeace Alone!" The Eiffel Tower is prominent in the background.

Greenpeace activists in Paris protested Energy Transfer and its lawsuit on Feb. 20.Credit...Thibaud Moritz/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

On Wednesday, the jurors found Greenpeace Inc. liable for the vast majority of the damages awarded, which came to more than $660 million, according to representatives for both Greenpeace and Energy Transfer. The damages cover dozens of figures that were read out in court for each defendant on each claim.

Separately, Greenpeace International this year had countersued Energy Transfer in the Netherlands, invoking a new European Union directive against SLAPP suits as well as Dutch law.

During closing arguments on Monday in North Dakota, Everett Jack Jr. of the firm Davis Wright Tremaine, the lead lawyer for the Greenpeace Inc., was a study in contrast with Mr. Cox. Both men wore dark suits and red ties to make their final arguments before the jury. But their demeanors were polar opposites.

Mr. Cox was energetic, indignant, even wheeling out a cart stacked with boxes of evidence during his rebuttal to argue that he had proved his case. Mr. Jack was calm and measured, recounting the chronology of how the protests developed to make the case that they had swelled well before Greenpeace got involved.

Given the months of disruptions caused locally by the protests, the jury pool in the area was widely expected to favor Energy Transfer.

Among the observers in the courtroom were a group of lawyers calling themselves the Trial Monitoring Committee who criticized the court for denying a Greenpeace petition to move the trial to the bigger city of Fargo, which was not as affected by the protests. The group included Martin Garbus, a prominent First Amendment lawyer, and Steven Donziger, who is well-known for his yearslong legal battle with Chevron over pollution in Ecuador.

After the verdict, Mr. Garbus called it “the worst First Amendment case decision I have ever seen” and expressed concern that an appeal that reached the Supreme Court could be used to overturn decades of precedent around free-speech protections.

The group also took issue with the number of jurors with ties to the oil industry or who had expressed negative views of protests during jury selection. But Suja A. Thomas, a law professor at the University of Illinois and an expert on juries, said the precedent in North Dakota courts was not to use “blanket disqualifications of jurors just because they might have some kind of interest,” whether it’s financial or based on experience or opinion.

Rather, the judge has to determine whether each individual juror can be impartial. “There can be interest; they have to determine whether the interest is significant enough such that the person cannot be fair,” Ms. Thomas said.

Natali Segovia is the executive director of Water Protector Legal Collective, an Indigenous-led legal and advocacy nonprofit group that grew out of the Standing Rock protests. Ms. Segovia, who is also a member of the trial monitoring group, said her organization was involved with about 800 criminal cases that resulted from the protests. The vast majority have been dismissed, she said.

What had gotten lost during the Greenpeace trial, she said, was the concern about water that had spurred so much protest. She said she saw a larger dynamic at play. “At its core, it’s a proxy war against Indigenous sovereignty using an international environmental organization,” she said.

Karen Zraick covers legal affairs for the Climate desk and the courtroom clashes playing out over climate and environmental policy. More about Karen Zraick

A version of this article appears in print on March 20, 2025, Section A, Page 21 of the New York edition with the headline: Protest Over Pipeline Will Cost Greenpeace Hundreds of Millions.

---

---

russel mok

greenpeace Goes to Trial in North Dakota to Defend Against Energy Transfer SLAPP Suit

:{By Editor Filed in Uncategorized February 13th, 2025

On February 24, 2025, Greenpeace USA is scheduled to go to trial in state court in Mandan, North Dakota. Greenpeace is being sued by Energy Transfer – the operator of the Dakota Access Pipeline – for nearly $300 million related to the 2016 protests at Standing Rock.

Deepa Padmanabha

The stakes are high, and not just for Greenpeace USA as an organization. This trial is testing out legal tactics that, if successful, could be widely applied against protesters, and indeed, anyone who speaks out or criticizes a deep-pocketed corporation.

The lawsuit filed against Greenpeace has been called a SLAPP suit – a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.

We rang up Deepa Padmanabha, a senior legal advisor to Greenpeace USA, to get some details on the lawsuit and upcoming trial.

What are the allegations of the lawsuit?

“Both sides have said this is likely the biggest case ever in the history of the North Dakota state courts,” Padmanabha toldCorporate Crime Reporterin an interview last week. “It’s three buckets of claims. The first bucket of claims are claims of defamation. Energy Transfer alleges that the Greenpeace entities made false statements. And those false statements caused damages. In the state case, we originally started out with over 80 statements that Energy Transfer alleged were defamatory. And now we are down to nine.”

“Those nine statements fall into three categories. The first category of statements are statements that we made that the Dakota Access Pipeline crosses Standing Rock Sioux tribal ancestral lands.”

“The second category are statements that Energy Transfer deliberately desecrated Standing Rock Sioux tribe cultural resources.”

“And the third category of statements are statements that we made that Energy Transfer and its contractors used excessive force against peaceful protestors.”

“The important thing to note here is that by the time Greenpeace entities made any of these statements that are at issue, these were statements that were already widely circulated in the public. Anybody familiar with the resistance at Standing Rock had heard these statements. These were not statements that Greenpeace invented.”

“Yet Energy Transfer is suing the Greenpeace entities for these statements.”

“That’s the first bucket of claims. The second bucket of claims are claims of tortious interference. They are related to defamation. Energy Transfer alleges that Greenpeace made these alleged false statements to financial institutions – institutions that were involved with financing the Dakota Access Pipeline. And the allegation is that based on those statements, the financial institutions took action that cost Energy Transfer hundreds of millions of dollars in damages – lost financing, financing costs from delays.”

“We know that many of these financial institutions had their own commitments. They did their own due diligence to understand what was happening with the Dakota Access Pipeline. In fact, no bank or financial institution made any decision based on a Greenpeace statement.”

“That’s the second bucket of claims. The third bucket of claims are on the ground claims such as trespass, conversion, and aiding and abetting. This is a bucket that is quite dangerous for the movement. These claims make it clear that Energy Transfer’s target is much bigger than Greenpeace. It really is an attack on our First Amendment rights.”

“What they are trying to do is create this idea of collective protest liability where if you have any involvement with, for example, training at a protest, you can be held accountable for anything that happens there by unknown people.”

“For example, if you are engaged in training in principles of non-violence, de-escalation, principles of safety, you can be held accountable for the actions of unknown protesters who, for example, destroy construction equipment. This idea is dangerous – that you can be held accountable for anything that happens by unknown people, especially at a time when we know that many protests are being infiltrated.”

“And you can imagine that this would have a serious chilling effect on anybody who wants to engage in protests. This idea that you can be held accountable for anything that happens is quite a dangerous one. It’s very clear that Energy Transfer – and the larger fossil fuel industry – is trying to send a message to everybody – watch out, you could be next.”

This lawsuit has been going on for eight years. Have there been any settlement talks?

“I can’t get into too much detail about that. But I will say that we are prepared to go to trial, and we are expecting to go to trial. It’s very important for us that no matter the outcome of this lawsuit, our decisions will be in line with our values and our principles and our commitments to our own indigenous peoples policies.”

There have been public reports about settlement talks in this lawsuit. And last year, Greenpeace settled with Shell Oil over another lawsuit. Did you work on that lawsuit?

“That was not Greenpeace USA. That was Greenpeace UK.”

Greenpeace UK agreed to pay something like $375,000 to settle that lawsuit. What are the odds this case will actually go to trial?

“As of now, we are fully prepared to go to trial. Trial is in three weeks. That’s where we are headed.”

Will you be in court at trial?

“Yes.”

You say this is a SLAPP suit. What is that?

“SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. At their core, they are attacking First Amendment protected behavior. You look at the parties. It’s often activists, non-profit organizations, journalists, even concerned citizens who are speaking out about a matter of public concern.”

“In this instance, the concerns about the Dakota Access Pipeline, its routing and risks were absolutely a matter of public concern.”

“What is the nature of the activity targeted? Often the activity is First Amendment protected activity, such as free speech or non-violent protest. These lawsuits are often disguised as defamation lawsuits. That is very much the case here where many of the claims at issue are defamation claims.”

“The other issue is peaceful protest. Any involvement we had on the ground was 100 percent in line with our 50 plus year history of nonviolent direct action, bearing witness, and no property damage.”

“Another tell-tale sign of a SLAPP lawsuit is the power imbalance between the parties. To Energy Transfer, this lawsuit is just a drop in the bucket for them. But for Greenpeace, it represents a significant financial investment to put on this kind of defense.”

“Another tell-tale sign – the amount of damages. Energy Transfer is seeking $300 million. SLAPP suits have these huge damage claims to send a message. Even if they lack the evidence to support such a damage claim, which is absolutely the case here, just by making the allegation, it can have a chilling effect on anyone watching the case.”

“These corporations use the litigation process as punishment. This has been eight years. The first case was thrown out of federal court. But they kept the fight going.”

“When they filed the federal court action, they already had the green light to construct the Dakota Access Pipeline. It was constructed. So why would you still use the litigation process?”

“Because they know these kinds of lawsuits take years and years and years. You put a stress and burden on the powerful voice they are trying to shut down.”

“Even though it’s only the Greenpeace entities that have been served in this case, there have been a number of third party subpoenas. There have been wild attempts to draw in smaller groups and individuals into this lawsuit – not as named defendants, but to instill a sense of fear that they too are being watched.”

“As someone who has been involved in SLAPP lawsuits for a long time, this case hits every single aspect.”

The Wall Street Journal published an article last year titled – The Texas Billionaire Who Has Greenpeace USA on the Verge of Bankruptcy. That billionaire is Kelcy Warren. What did you make of that article?

“One of the most interesting points of that article was toward the end. The journalist wrote this: ‘The lawsuit poses its own risks for Warren. Some oil-and-gas investors expressed concerns about the claim, saying it makes the industry look vindictive and could result in a reinvigorated protest movement.’”

“Basically, some investors are concerned about a backlash. That is the truth. This lawsuit has galvanized the movement in a powerful way. Greenpeace is getting support from so many allies, allies we have never worked with before. They are now watching this case because they realize the implications this case could have.”

“There is what happens in court, but there is what happens outside the court. And corporations need to take the possible backlash into account. You could reinvigorate a movement. People have really come together to fight back against this kind of abuse of power.”

Were you able over the years to depose Energy Transfer executives, including the CEO Kelcy Warren?

“There were over 100 depositions in this case – Greenpeace employees, third parties, Energy Transfer contractors and Energy Transfer employees, including Kelcy Warren.”

Is the Kelcy Warren deposition public?

“I don’t know if that deposition is publicly available. There is quite a bit in this case that is subject to a protective order.”

Greenpeace wasn’t at the forefront of these protests. The native Americans groups were at the forefront of these protests.

“That is accurate. Greenpeace entities had limited involvement and that was intentional. This was not a Greenpeace campaign. This was a grassroots indigenous resistance. Greenpeace supported it by being an ally. Greenpeace supported the indigenous resistance in a very, very limited way.”

“Energy Transfer is trying to rewrite history. The first question I always get from people involved was – did Greenpeace have any involvement at Standing Rock? I had never heard about Greenpeace being involved. Greenpeace was really not involved.”

“Greenpeace was known for its big, bold campaigns. And that was not the case here.”

There were other major public interest groups who supported the resistance at Standing Rock. Why did Greenpeace get sued by Energy Transfer and not the other groups?

“Let’s go back to the first case that was dismissed, the RICO case. That was the second RICO case brought by the same law firm in back to back years. One of the lawyers made public statements and he was basically shopping this tactic around. There was this idea that civil RICO would be the new tactic used to go against advocacy groups.”

“Why Greenpeace? We are known for bearing witness, taking big, bold actions and not being intimidated. The idea was – if we can knock out Greenpeace, if we can scare them, then who else is going to step into their shoes? Who else will take on this level of risk?”

“We recognize that intention. And that also speaks to why we have been fighting the case the way we have been. We have been fighting this case for the movement. We know that the intent is to reach beyond the Greenpeace entities. And we take that fight seriously.”

*For the complete Interview with Deepa Padmanabha, 39 Corporate Crime Reporter 7(12), Monday February 10, 2025,[print edition only.

---

---

mma

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has repeatedly supported using the National Guard to crack down on protests

Hegseth has demonized protesters in the past, claiming they “hate America,” and suggested that police be “allowed to take the actions necessary” to quell demonstrations

Written by Jack Winstanley & Payton Armstrong

Published 04/04/25 mma

When major protests swept the country in 2020, then-Fox host Pete Hegseth cheered President Donald Trump’s use of the National Guard as a “show of force” and praised Trump’s threat to send “federal reinforcements” to quell demonstrations. Hegseth has also specifically criticized peaceful protesters and suggested police should be “allowed to take the actions necessary to take on antifa, domestic terrorist groups like that.”

As demonstrations against Trump’s actions in his second term continue to ramp up, here’s a look at what the new secretary of defense said about protests in 2020 and beyond.

Trump almost deployed U.S. troops to suppress protests in 2020 and has already started cracking down on protesters in his second term

//

  1. ### Trump’s pick for secretary of defense has a history of defending war crimes, torture, and more

11/20/24 3:30 PM EST

  1. ### Trump picked Fox & Friends Weekend co-host Pete Hegseth to be secretary of defense. Here's some of what he's said on the air.

11/13/24 12:22 PM EST

  1. ### Pete Hegseth's book includes complaints about “Muslims’ birth rates,” praise for “crusaders who pushed back the Muslim hordes”

11/12/24

---

---

an 3 25

although the vast majority of anti-Elon Musk demonstrations in the United States and other countries have been peaceful, some critics of the Tesla/SpaceX/X.com leader and Donald Trump ally are resorting to destroying Teslas or committing acts of vandalism. U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi is describing these incidents as acts of "domestic terrorism," but some civil libertarians fear that her approach could create problems for Musk opponents who are protesting in a nonviolent way.

In a U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) press release published on Thursday, March 20, Bondi declared, "Let this be a warning: if you join this wave of domestic terrorism against Tesla properties, the Department of Justice will put you behind bars."

The U.S. attorney general and Trump loyalist discussed federal charges against three people accused of throwing Molotov cocktails at Tesla vehicles

READ MORE: Republicans have no moral authority to decide what 'domestic terrorism' is

Wired's Caroline Haskins, in an article published on March 22, reports, "Civil liberties experts claim treating alleged attacks against Tesla cars and infrastructure as terrorist activity could give federal and local law enforcement broad authority to surveil people protesting Elon Musk’s role in the government. The terrorism designation could also allow Musk and other Tesla executives to access information authorities uncover in their investigations."

Haskins notes that Bondi's statement "comes ahead of hundreds of grassroots 'Tesla Takedown' events protesting Musk and his influence in Washington that are scheduled to take place at Tesla facilities across the U.S. this weekend. The demonstrations have multiplied since they began in mid-February, with some attracting hundreds of people each."

President Trump put Musk in charge of an advisory group called the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which is helping the Trump Administration with mass layoffs of federal government workers. And many Musk critics are arguing that Musk has way too much power for someone who was never elected to office.

"Most of the protests have been peaceful, and the organizers of some of them have said that they don't endorse property damage," Haskins explains. "But they are happening amid a string of alleged arson and vandalism cases targeting Tesla dealerships and charging stations, including one in Las Vegas Tuesday morning, (March 18), as well as others in Colorado and Boston. By labeling these and other incidents involving Tesla domestic terrorism, the FBI can file broader search warrants than in other types of cases."

READ MORE:'Clear and present danger': Experts alarmed at 'insanity' of Musk getting secret war plans

Haskins continues, "Under the Patriot Act, law enforcement gets 'special authorities' while investigating terrorism, including 'single-jurisdiction search warrants' from magistrate judges that apply anywhere in the U.S. instead of a single geographic area, according to a 2023 report from the Government Accountability Office. With a court order, law enforcement can additionally get 'confidential education records' from any school or agency in the course of a terrorism investigation, the report notes."

Michael German, a former FBI special agent who is now with the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University Law School, fears that instead of focusing on extremists who are actually committing acts of violence, a DOJ/FBI probe could end up targeting anyone peacefully expressing "anger or animosity towards Tesla or Elon Musk."

German told Wired, "We've seen a lot of abuse of FBI investigative authorities, particularly around domestic advocacy groups."

READ MORE:'Are you prepared for violence?' Angry voters confront Dems over being 'too nice' to GOP*

*Read the full Wired article at this link.

---

ymail donz 3 14 25

The First Amendment is under a shocking level of attack right now in the United States.

From the illegal arrest of a Columbia University student leader to the $300 million harassment lawsuit filed by the Energy Transfer pipeline company against Greenpeace, our right to free speech is under greater threat than ever before.

As you know, Steven has joined a group of prominent civil rights attorneys and citizens who traveled to North Dakota to monitor Energy Transfer’s SLAPP harassment lawsuit against the environmental group Greenpeace. The lawsuit is being funded by Trump ally and right-wing billionaire Kelcy Warren, who once said all activists “should be removed from the gene pool.”

*Warren’s lawsuit is actually a direct assault on Indigenous peoples, the climate movement, and free speech. Steven is out there helping to resist this unconstitutional weaponization of the law to silence activists.

We wanted to make sure you saw this firsthand update from Steven on the trial against Greenpeace in North Dakota:

*To be clear: the lawsuit against Greenpeace is rigged.

The lawsuit is not only an intimidation play to target the entire climate movement, it’s also a slap in the face to the Standing Rock Sioux and dozens of other Indigenous nations who led the historic protests against the company’s Dakota Access Pipeline in 2016.

Energy Transfer and Warren are attacking Greenpeace on the preposterous theory that the group is responsible for all “damages” related to construction delays of pipeline caused by the Indigenous-led protests, even though Greenpeace had virtually nothing to do with the protests.

Energy Transfer recently admitted to dozens of criminal violations of environmental laws in Pennsylvania. Credible reports in the North Dakota trial suggest up to 1 million gallons of drilling fluids have been discharged into waterways that millions of people rely on for their drinking water.

Evidence from Greenpeace also indicates the pipeline traverses Sioux ancestral lands and has desecrated sacred cultural sites, both in violation of the law. Yet the pipeline is operating anyway, while Greenpeace faces bankruptcy.

This trial is being structured so Greenpeace loses; the jury clearly is not impartial, with the majority having ties to the fossil fuel industry and no Native American or person of color seated on the panel. This is part of the “dark art” of a corporate SLAPP s...

email 3 25

Please join us TONIGHT (March 13) at 7 ET for an important update on the latest major SLAPP legal attack on free speech and the climate movement – and how it connects to the government’s shocking abduction of Columbia grad student Mahmoud Khalil.

This is open to the public and will consist of a short presentation by members of our independent trial monitoring team – including legendary lawyer Marty Garbus and Indigenous rights attorney Natali Segovia

---

mma

Right-wing media cheer Trump administration’s arrest of Mahmoud Khalil

The Trump team is trying to deport a permanent resident of the United States and revoke his green card, and right-wing media are celebrating the effort

Written by Gideon Taaffe & Jack Winstanley

Published 03/13/25

Legal resident Mahmoud Khalil was arrested and detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement following his activism for Gaza at Columbia University, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio shared a story about him online, writing, “We will be revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported."

Such arrests are a policy goal of the Heritage Foundation and Khalil's arrest reportedly followed some online targeting of him. Right-wing media have responded to his arrest by calling for more arrests and deportations, arguing that the administration needs to “send a message” and that students are “going to lose."

ICE arrested Khalil after the Trump administration cracked down on college protests

//

  1. ### Pro-Palestinian student protests have been largely peaceful. Right-wing media want to call in the National Guard.

04/25/24

  1. ### Far-right media figures with extreme ties are planning a “United for Israel” march at Columbia to counter peaceful pro-Palestinian student protests

04/24/24

  1. ### Right-wing media equate Palestinian flag with Nazism and support for Hamas

12/14/23

---

---

an 3 25

Hours before delivering his first address to a joint session of Congress in his second term, President Donald Trump issued what some legal experts quickly condemned as an attack on the First Amendment—a statement threatening imprisonment or deportation for certain forms of campus protest. The order, seen by some as authoritarian, targets students and faculty and raises questions about whether he anticipates resistance to the announced theme of his speech, “The Renewal of the American Dream.”

“All Federal Funding will STOP for any College, School, or University that allows illegal protests,” Trump declared at 7:30 Tuesday morning. “Agitators will be imprisoned/or permanently sent back to the country from which they came. American students will be permanently expelled or, depending on on the crime, arrested. NO MASKS! Thank you for your attention to this matter.”

Legal experts and historians swiftly condemned Trump’s threats, arguing they were intended to suppress free speech and, if enforced, could constitute a violation of the First Amendment.

READ MORE: ‘Will Be Big’: Trump Faces Dangerous Warning Signs Ahead of Address to Congress

Larry Sabato, the well-known University of Virginia professor of politics and founder and director of the Center for Politics, had already written remarks about Trump’s theme for his address to Congress.

“You must admit, #Trump 2.0 has exceeded expectations. In both foreign and domestic policy, it’s far worse than most critics had predicted. You might call it the Renewal of the American Nightmare,” Professor Sabato observed.

NCRM asked him to weigh in on the President’s latest statement.

“My response is the First Amendment,” Professor Sabato replied.

READ MORE: White House Is Demanding ‘Explicit’ On-Camera ‘Public Apology’ From Zelenskyy: Report

Former U.S. Attorney Barb McQuade, a professor of law and NBC News/MSNBC legal analyst, said, “Peaceful protests, of course, are not ‘illegal.’ A government ban on peaceful protests would violate the First Amendment. The goal here seems to be intimidation and fear to chill free speech.”

Journalist and historian Paul Brandus, author of books on the presidency and the White House, asked: “The president – who swore to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the Constitution – is accelerating his attack on the First Amendment. Protests are ‘illegal?'”

Immigration attorney Eric Lee offered this response: “Only in a dictatorship can the president deem protests against his government and its policies ‘illegal.’ Thank you for your attention to this matter.”

Constitutional attorney Casey Mattox, vice president for legal and judicial strategy at the conservative Americans for Prosperity, served up this detailed response:

“1. ‘illegal’ would have to do a whole lot of work here for this not to violate the 1st A. Enough that it would have been better to not even bother using the ‘protest’ word. So let’s assume that.

  1. The President can’t expel students from their colleges.
  2. Good morning.”

Joe Walsh, the former Tea Party Republican congressman turned independent talk show host blasted Trump, who just last week declared himself a “king.”

“‘Illegal protests?’ He’s not a king,” Walsh exclaimed. “He doesn’t have the authority to stop protests. Or expel students. Or tell protestors not to wear masks. He’s not a king.”

Attorney and editor-in-chief of MediasTouch, Ron Filipkowski, slammed Trump: “Presumably, this government by Truth Social posts will define exactly what an ‘illegal protest’ is, and that definition will not be so broad that it encroaches on free speech guarantees we’ve enjoyed for two centuries.”

---

---

ymail 6 24

exxonknews

big Oil wants to increase federal criminal penalties for pipeline protests}:

https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=20607&post_id=145728083&utm_source=post-email-title&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=7ymjw&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxMzM3Mjg0NCwicG9zdF9pZCI6MTQ1NzI4MDgzLCJpYXQiOjE3MTg2NDM3MDksImV4cCI6MTcyMTIzNTcwOSwiaXNzIjoicHViLTIwNjA3Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.C6F6cpGna7T-ycibrfO161934vAmtCaOa22mHk4zGDo)

Fossil fuel companies and trade groups are using essential pipeline safety legislation to further criminalize pipeline protests.

Emily Sanders is senior reporter for ExxonKnews.

*This story is being co-published with The Lever.

At the urging of their fossil fuel donors, lawmakers are quietly working to massively expand criminal penalties against people who protest pipelines as part of negotiations over essential new federal pipeline safety regulations.

Congress is negotiating the pipeline safety legislation, a reauthorization of the Pipeline Hazardous Materials and Safety Administration program, in the wake of disastrous carbon dioxide pipeline leaks that have endangered nearby communities, stumped emergency responders, and left residents with health issues for years to come. In total, 124 new oil, gas, hydrogen, and carbon dioxide pipelines have been announced or are in the preconstruction or construction phase in the U.S., according to data from fossil fuel infrastructure tracker Oil and Gas Watch.

The federal penalty for damaging or destroying interstate pipelines is already a felony charge mandating up to 20 years in prison. But the industry’s proposed additions, described in executives’ congressional testimony and policy briefs posted online, would widen the definition of and punishment for “attacks” on pipelines using vague language that could implicate a far broader set of activities used to protest fossil fuel infrastructure. Such language has already begun to make its way into the legislative effort to reauthorize the pipeline safety administration as Congress decides the agency’s funding and legislative mandates for the next few years.

According to a policy brief on “2023 Pipeline Safety Reauthorization Legislative Priorities” published last year by the American Petroleum Institute — a major trade group representing oil and gas companies — new pipeline safety legislation should “fill gaps in current law” with “additional measures covering disruption of service and attacks on construction sites.”

The House Energy and Commerce Committee’s draft reauthorization bill, approved in March, would add “impairing the operation of” interstate pipelines, “damaging or destroying such a facility under construction,” and even “attempting or conspiring” to do so as felony activities punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

It’s unclear what “impairing the operation of” a pipeline could entail. If interpreted broadly, climate advocates say such provisions could send activists to prison for exercising their free speech rights.

The Energy and Commerce Committee’s chair, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash..), has received nearly $289,000 from the oil and gas industry for the 2024 election cycle and is currently number 12 on a list of the top 20 recipients from the industry this year. Rep. August Pfluger (R-Texas), who is also on the committee, is the top recipient on that list, having received more than $579,000.

The expanded criminal-penalty language in the pipeline safety agency’s reauthorization bill comes on the heels of another committee’s version of the legislation, which would also increase penalties for pipeline disruptions.

The pipeline safety agency’s reauthorization accompanies new safety rules now being considered as a long-awaited federal agency response to a devastating carbon dioxide pipeline rupture in the village of Satartia, Mississippi, which sent nearly 50 people to the hospital with “zombie-like” conditions in 2020. That disaster, along with a leak at an Exxon-owned carbon dioxide pipeline in Sulphur, Louisiana, this April, has rekindled concerns over the risks that pipelines can pose to public health and safety.

As The Lever and ExxonKnews reported in April, Big Oil is lobbying to limit the scope of those rules in order to expedite the construction of carbon capture and storage infrastructure, since it stands to benefit from the work thanks to incentives passed under the Biden administration.

Now, advocates fear, the industry is trying to capitalize on the effort to increase pipeline safety protections in order to criminalize the actions of those who speak out against its plans to build more pipeline infrastructure.

“What rights do these corporations have to come through our communities and wreak havoc and not be held accountable for anything they do?” said Anne White Hat, a member of the Sicangu Lakota tribe who helped lead Indigenous resistance to the Bayou Bridge oil pipeline in Louisiana. By criminalizing protest, she said, “they are able to work with impunity.”

In written testimony from a January hearing by the committee overseeing the pipeline safety program reauthorization, American Petroleum Institute lobbyists commended the reauthorization bill for “strengthen[ing] protections for pipeline infrastructure by criminalizing activities that impair the operation or construction of facilities, or cause damage that could result in harm to people, the environment and the pipeline itself.”

The American Petroleum Institute donated $7,500 to Rodgers, and thousands more to other Energy and Commerce Committee members including Reps Pfluger, Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.), Marc Veasey (D-Texas), and Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), this year. The lawmakers' offices and the American Petroleum Institute did not respond to requests for comment.

Tim Donaghy, senior research specialist at the environmental activist group Greenpeace, said his organization is concerned that “vague and flawed language that increases criminal penalties could be abused to crack down on peaceful, constitutionally-protected protest,” which has “long been instrumental to climate, environmental justice, and civil rights victories in the United States and globally.”

Pipeline protests can look like sit-ins, banner drops, marches, a Willie Nelson concert, or planting sacred corn in the path of construction.

“Are they talking about people in a region where they don’t want the pipeline coming through their property doing a sit-in or something like that?” Donaghy asked. “Would that be considered an attack on a construction site by a prosecutor who wanted to stretch the definition a little bit?”

“A Game Of Safety Theater”

Advocates say the move is meant to cut off any remaining avenues for dissent. In recent years, fossil fuel companies have pushed for bills to criminalize pipeline protests at the state level; worked with police, private security firms, and the FBI to surveil and crack down on activists; and even filed multimillion-dollar lawsuits against protesters accusing them of defamation and conspiracy.

Mark Hefflinger, communications and digital director at Bold Nebraska, an advocacy group that works with Tribal Nations, farmers, and ranchers to protect land and water rights, said the industry’s response to public outcry about the real safety concerns caused by fossil fuel infrastructure has been to play “a game of safety theater.” That means using “fear tactics” to paint protesters as dangerous criminals, making it easier for them to rush their projects through construction without community consent.

“I think these companies are looking to stack the deck as much as they can,” he said. “Having seen these projects first hand, it’s very distressing and alarming.”

It’s not the first time the fossil fuel industry has tried to pass anti-protest policies through Pipeline Hazardous Materials and Safety Administration reauthorization bills. In 2019, the Association of Oil Pipelines — a lobbying group now known as the Liquid Energy Pipeline Association — provided similar proposed language to legislators that was reportedly considered by members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Those provisions didn’t pass, but the effort has reemerged. Since 2020, oil, gas, and utility trade associations and companies, including the American Gas Association, Black Hills, CMS Energy, and Puget Sound Energy, have disclosed lobbying on both “Attacks and Physical Threats to Pipeline Infrastructure” and the Pipeline Hazardous Materials and Safety Administration reauthorization bills.

In a March 2023 hearing of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the CEO of the Liquid Energy Pipeline Association, Andrew Black, testified that “Congress should close [the] loophole in criminal penalties for pipeline attacks that are dangerous but do not result in damage.” The group gave $2,500 to the committee’s chairman, Rep. Sam Graves (R-Mo.), this year. Graves’ office did not respond to a request for comment.

That committee’s draft bill, approved in December, would add a prison sentence of up to 10 years for “causing a defect in or disrupting operation of pipeline infrastructure” by manipulating valves or otherwise physically damaging the pipeline. The bill would also add “carbon dioxide facilit[ies]” to infrastructure whose damage or destruction could result in a 20-year prison sentence.

“Current federal pipeline safety law does not penalize violent attacks on pipeline construction sites or dangerous but not damaging tampering with operating pipeline equipment, such as valve turning,” said John Stoody, vice president of government and public relations at the Liquid Energy Pipeline Association, in an email. “LEPA supports 1st amendment rights to protest, but opposes dangerous or violent activities that can harm protesters and the surrounding public.”

The House is now working to reconcile reauthorization bills from the two committees before passing draft legislation to the Senate.

“It’s a little frustrating to see the industry focus on this particular issue as a cause of failures when nearly all failures on pipelines are preventable failures under the operators’ control,” said Bill Caram, executive director of advocacy group Pipeline Safety Trust. While he emphasized that his organization does not support any activity that could compromise the integrity of a pipeline and endanger communities, including valve turning, Caram noted that “damaging equipment is already illegal, so I’m not sure what the need is.”

A Larger Strategy To Silence Critics

The industry has backed a legislative push to punish and silence its critics since major resistance to the Keystone XL pipeline from 2011 through 2014 and to the Dakota Access pipeline in 2016 and 2017 united communities across political and cultural divides and spurred an indigenous-led movement of water protectors.

“They moved to pass these bills to basically prevent it from happening again,” Donaghy said.

Since 2017, oil and gas companies including ExxonMobil, Marathon Petroleum Corporation, Koch Industries, and Enbridge have spent millions of dollars on lobbying and campaign donations to state legislators to push laws criminalizing protest of fossil fuel infrastructure. Those laws now apply to about 60 percent of all U.S. oil and gas operations, a report from Greenpeace found. Much of the legislation, primarily based on a model bill crafted by the oil- and gas-funded American Legislative Exchange Council, made it a felony to trespass on the industry’s so-called “critical infrastructure.”

Anne White Hat found herself facing up to 10 years in prison after she was arrested for two counts of felony trespassing in September 2018 under one such law, which had just taken effect in Louisiana following pressure from oil and gas lobbyists.

She was one of four Native women who founded a resistance camp called L’eau Est La Vie, which was organizing nonviolent direct actions in protest of the Bayou Bridge Pipeline — a now-operating 163-mile pipeline owned by Energy Transfer that transports crude oil throughout the state. The protests ranged from a rendition of “Crawfish the Musical” on the construction site to protesters locking themselves to pipeline equipment to tree sits in the centuries-old cypresses the company planned to tear down.

The Bayou Bridge pipeline is the tail end of the Dakota Access route — White Hat had already joined her relatives to participate in the resistance camp at Standing Rock in North Dakota. “I felt like it was a righteous cause, not to let them comfortably continue to threaten the waters of Indigenous First Nations,” she said. “I was inspired from the work up North and just couldn’t let them continue down here unanswered and unchecked.”

White Hat had just finished leading a prayer ceremony when she was arrested at a boat ramp miles from the pipeline construction site. She was hauled into a sheriff deputy’s car with two other women and driven through tall sugar cane fields on the way to jail.

“It was terrifying,” said White Hat. “We’re way out in the middle of nowhere. I was like, ‘Is this the point where I actually disappear?’”

Investigative journalist Karen Savage was arrested that day, too — her second arrest under felony trespass charges as she reported on the Bayou Bridge protests. She was one of the only reporters to travel to the Atchafalaya Basin swamp, where the pipeline was being constructed.

By the time the water protectors got to the swamp, Savage said, they “had done everything — they went to public meetings, they had petitions, they wrote letters, they tried to meet with the governor — they did everything they tell you in school, to participate and use your civil obligation in your community.” Despite their best efforts in one of the most oil- and gas-friendly states in the country, said Savage, “nobody was listening.”

As Savage’s reporting revealed, the off-duty Louisiana law enforcement who began violently arresting protesters after the new law was enforced were working side jobs for the pipeline company.

“I would’ve similarly documented whatever the sheriff’s deputies and Energy Transfer had planned that day — had I not been handcuffed in the back of a deputy’s squad car,” Savage wrote about her arrest.

While Energy Transfer paid local officials to arrest protesters, it was quietly breaking the law itself. Energy Transfer was later found guilty of trespassing on private property by working on land it didn’t have permission to build on, but it was allowed to continue construction with only a $450 fine. The sixteen water protectors who were arrested and charged with felonies under the state’s new law had permission from some landowners to protest — and were even asked to help them defend their land.

In 2021, a local district attorney dropped the water protectors’ charges, along with Savage’s.

Like the proposed measures oil companies are now pushing at the federal level, Louisiana’s state law was “so vaguely written that [officials] have no idea when they should arrest somebody or when someone is trespassing,” Savage said. “With everything so loosely open to individual interpretation, it just really really opens people up to abuses of their First Amendment rights.”

In 2019, Savage, White Hat, other water protectors, and two advocacy groups filed a lawsuit against the sheriff, district attorney, and state attorney general, arguing Louisiana’s critical infrastructure law violates their First Amendment rights. That lawsuit was dismissed by a U.S. district judge in March; litigants who were directly affected by the law, including Savage and White Hat, have appealed the district court’s decision.

White Hat said she never intended to get arrested, and essentially stopped protesting after it happened.

“I have children to take care of,” she said. “I couldn’t risk it.”

“The Writing On the Wall”

According to the International Center for Not-For-Profit Law, more than 300 anti-protest bills have been introduced in 45 states since 2017, and 21 states have passed such bills into law.

Since then, pipeline protests have seen massive waves of arrests; during the construction of Enbridge’s Line 3 pipeline between December 2020 and September 2021, more than a thousand people in Minnesota were arrested for protest. Some were charged with felonies — like a 54-year-old protesterwho blockaded an Enbridge pump station and was convicted with felony obstruction in 2023. Like Energy Transfer, Enbridge paid Minnesota police millions of dollars to respond to the protests.

The resistance to pipeline infrastructure continues nonetheless. Just last week, Indigenous campaigners led a rally outside the White House calling on the President and Army Corps of Engineers to shut down the Dakota Access pipeline, which carries 600,000 barrels of oil per day and still lacks a permit to cross land beneath Lake Oahe, where the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe gets its drinking water.

Protestors are also still fighting construction of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, which is being built from northwest West Virginia to southern Virginia and was greenlit through the passage of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. But one of the states it runs through, West Virginia — home base of coal baron Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who has long championed the pipeline — is considering a bill that would classify trespassing on fossil fuel infrastructure as an act of terrorism.

“Over the last several years, a historic level of protest and demonstration has taken place across the country, including protests against pipeline construction,” said Vera Eidelman, Staff Attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, in an email. “Rather than add tools to the government’s tool kit for silencing dissent” that would “only make it harder, costlier, and more dangerous to protest,” she wrote, “legislators should be making an effort to listen to protester’s voices, even if, and perhaps especially when, they disagree with them.”

Now, as the oil and gas industry plans a new influx of carbon dioxide pipelines for carbon capture and storage, a controversial experiment that would allow it to continue burning fossil fuels under the guise of climate solutions, advocates could be silenced when the stakes are at their highest.

“We are scraping together pennies to be able to hold a public meeting, get people to the legislature, or get people into the offices of our elected Congress people,” said Jane Patton, a Louisiana-based campaign manager at nonprofit advocacy group the Center for International Environmental Law who is fighting carbon capture plans in the state. “Yet these industries that have a ton of money are able to get this access and have their questions answered and their request fulfilled.”

Hefflinger, of Bold Nebraska, said the industry is “doing their best to try and make the standards as low as possible for operation and safety — and because of regulatory capture, it becomes a foregone conclusion.”

“You start to lose opportunities to make your voice heard in the ‘proper’ channels,” he said.

In April, the Supreme Court effectively abolished the right to organize a mass protest in Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi — three states facing a massive influx of new oil and gas infrastructure, including carbon dioxide pipelines. More than 900 miles of Exxon’s newly acquired network of Denbury carbon dioxide pipelines runs through those three states.

Still, the industry will have a steep road to climb as the projects face major resistance in states nationwide — even before construction begins. In October, Texas-based Navigator CO2 Ventures canceled its plans for a 1,300-mile carbon dioxide pipeline that would have run across five midwestern states after coordinated opposition from landowners and environmentalists. The cancellation, said Hefflinger, was a “gigantic wake-up call” for the industry.

Now, said Hefflinger, they’re doubling down to silence dissent because “they’re seeing the writing on the wall.”

---

---

On March 14, 2024, Pope Francis on Thursday encouraged a closer collaboration between Indigenous and scientific knowledge to address climate change, the loss of biodiversity, and threats to food and health security facing the world today.

The National Indian Health Board on Tuesday said the Pope’s acknowledgement is a step forward.

The Pope’s recognition of the value of Indigenous knowledge resonates deeply with the National Indian Health Board’s International work that has focused on defining and improving Indigenous Determinants of Health to improve the health and well-being of all American Indian, Alaska Natives, and Indigenous Peoples globally, the National Indian Health Board said in a press release.

Indian Country

“The National Indian Health Board has worked towards, and supports the Pope’s focus on a world view that incorporates Indigenous knowledge and determinants of health in the broader global efforts to mitigate climate change,” Stacy Bohlen, Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, NIHB CEO said. “This is another acknowledgement that follows others on the international stage, that indigenous peoples hold game changing solutions to many modern problems through both longstanding knowledge and their experiences.”

The National Indian Health Boards has long recognized that Indigenous cultures hold valuable insights into sustainable living and environmental stewardship. Through millennia of living in harmony with nature, Indigenous communities have developed a profound understanding of ecological systems and the interconnectedness of all living beings.

“The culture of Indigenous people can heal the earth and its people,” William Smith, a citizen of the EYAK Tribe in the Alaska Village of Valdez and Chairman of NIHB said. “It is imperative that we elevate indigenous voices and incorporate their knowledge into global efforts to address the climate crisis.”

---

:{===:{}:

---}:

Fox News' Tyrus suggests running over protesters with a monster truck | Media Matters for America

mma 12 23

:{:{In 2023, as climate-driven disasters plagued countries around the world and the COP28 climate change conference saw the adoption of a historic (though reportedly “loophole”-ridden) agreement referencing a transition away from fossil fuels for the first time, right-wing media remained committed to hindering progress}:

. Three concerning trends emerged in their strategies, which included facilitating comebacks for long-discredited climate deniers, cheering on violence against climate activists, and attributing deadly climate-driven events to conspiracies or religious calamity.}:

Right-wing media facilitated comebacks for long-discredited climate deniers.

Discredited climate deniers like Judith Curry, Patrick Moore, Anthony Watts, and Gregory Wrightstone, who have been vocal for decades, received renewed attention in 2023 from right-wing media figures, who seemed to be turning to views that stray further and further from established science.

Judith Curry, former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, consulted for oil and gas companies during her time in academia. She resigned from Georgia Tech in 2017 citing climate “craziness” and has been called out by other climate scientists for taking public positions reliant on debunked climate change denialarguments.

Patrick Moore is a former nuclear energy consultant and climate change denier who falsely claims he is a co-founder of Greenpeace. Anthony Watts runs a junk science climate denier blog and is a senior fellow at the fossil fuel-funded Heartland Institute. Gregory Wrightstone is a geologist who worked for the natural gas industry for 20 years, started a consulting firm for energy companies, and is now the executive director of a climate change denial non-profit.

Right-wing media attempted to justify violence against climate activists engaging in non-violent direct action.

In 2023, activist groups doubled down on demands for a global transition away from fossil fuels. Their tactics included throwing paint or food on famous works of art and property, infiltrating cultural events, and obstructing busy roads, provoking outrage from right-wing media.

...

==

an 8 22

in Brazil, far-right President Jair Bolsonaro has been a scathing critic of environmentalism — not unlike his American ally, former U.S. President Donald Trump, and other MAGA Republicans — while encouraging the use of fossil fuels, including coal, over green energy. Bolsonaro has made no secret of the fact that he believes climate change is a myth, and he doesn’t view deforestation in the Amazon as a problem.

But journalist Terrence McCoy, in an in-depth article published by the Washington Post on August 30, lays out some reasons why the destruction of the Amazon is an environmental disaster that Bolsonaro’s policies have encouraged.

“The violent and lawless erasure of the Amazon is perhaps the world’s greatest environmental crime story,” McCoy explains. “Scientists warn that the forest, seen as vital to averting catastrophic global warming, is at a tipping point. But in Brazil, home to about 60 percent of the Amazon, nearly one-fifth has already been destroyed. And virtually no one, law enforcement officials say, has been held accountable.”

READ MORE: Record deforestation pushing Amazon Rainforest toward 'the tipping point of no return': report

Bolsonaro, McCoy stresses, has treated deforesters in the Amazon “not as criminals, but as honest workers oppressed by authoritarian environmentalists.” And environmental inspector Ivan de Jesus Pereira de Araújo e Silva told the Post that under Bolsonaro, Brazil’s environmental agencies “have been shrunk so much.”

Bolsonaro is up for reelection in 2022, and his critics fear that his environmental policies will grow even worse if he wins a second term.

One of Bolsonaro’s left-wing critics in the United States is Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. In a column published on August 23, liberal Washington Post opinion writers Greg Sargent and Paul Waldman reported that Sanders had met with Brazilian activists who fear that even if he loses the 2022 presidential election in Brazil, Bolsonaro won’t accept defeat and will try to stage a coup d’état.

“Such fears have prompted Sanders and his staff to draft a resolution that would seek to get ahead of any such eventuality,” Sargent and Waldman reported. “It would express the view of the Senate that if Bolsonaro loses and refuses to step down, the United States will view it as an unacceptable outcome. The resolution — which we have viewed in draft form — declares that the United States will immediately recognize the election outcome that international monitors deem free and fair. And it warns that the United States will reevaluate its relationship with any government that assumes power through undemocratic means, including a military coup. It says this could imperil future U.S. aid.”

READ MORE:How Brazil’s military has played a role in the destruction of the Amazon

During an interview, Sanders told Sargent and Waldman, “It is absolutely imperative that the U.S. Senate make it clear, through a resolution, that we support democracy in Brazil. We look forward to a free and fair election.”

In mid-August, Brazilian pollster Datafolha found that Bolsonaro’s left-wing rival, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, had a 15 percent lead over him — and Sanders believes that Bolsonaro, like Trump and his MAGA allies in the U.S., is quite capable of trying to steal a presidential election.

Sanders told Sargent and Waldman, “What we are seeing all across the world are massive attacks and rollbacks to democracy…. where people are giving up on democracy and moving toward authoritarianism. We have groups that have done that right here in the United States.”

READ MORE:'The genocide of his people is complete': Last member of remote Brazilian tribe found dead

Activists and conservationists worldwide mourned Monday following news that a man believed to be the last of a remote Brazilian tribe was found dead after years of resisting all efforts by the outside world to contact or interfere with him.

Known by defenders of Indigenous rights as "Indian of the Hole" or "The Man of the Hole" (Índio do Buraco)—a name given due to pits he dug for shelter, concealment, and possibly hunting—he was the only inhabitant of Tanaru Indigenous Territory in Rondônia state, in the western Brazilian Amazon. First encountered 26 years ago, the man—believed to be approximately 60 years old at the time of his death—lived reclusively in the remote region after other members of his tribe were thought to have been poisoned by ranchers who wanted to develop the land where they lived.

OPI, the Observatory for the Human Rights of Uncontacted and Recently-Contacted Peoples, issued a statement (translated here into English) bemoaning that "another Indigenous person, the last representative of his people, has died."

"In the recent past," the group continued, "he was the victim of an atrocious extermination process, as a result of the installation of large state-sponsored farms. He witnessed the death of his people, lost his territory to pastures and was sentenced to spend the rest of his life in a small portion of forest interdicted by justice, surrounded by large farms in the region of the Corumbiara River in Rondônia."

"For resisting with extreme determination to any endeavors of contact," OPI added, the man "died without letting know which ethnicity he belonged to, nor the motivations of the holes he dug inside his house."

As The Guardian reports, "Officials know very little about the man, but his determined independence and evident solace helped create a mystique around him that captured the attention of activists and media across Brazil and around the world."

Survival International, which advocates for Indigenous rights and autonomy in Brazil and elsewhere around the world, called the death of the man—whose remains were recently found in a state of decomposition in the Tanaru territory—a symbol of genocide against the Amazon's Indigenous peoples. The group called the region where he lived as "a small island of forest in a sea of vast cattle ranches, in one of the most violent regions in Brazil."

Fiona Watson, research and advocacy director for Survival International who visited the man's territory in 2004 with a government monitoring team, commented on the man's passing.

"No outsider knew this man's name, or even very much about his tribe—and with his death the genocide of his people is complete," said Watson. "For this was indeed a genocide—the deliberate wiping out of an entire people by cattle ranchers hungry for land and wealth."

[twt]

what the man symbolized, said Watson, was "both the appalling violence and cruelty inflicted on Indigenous peoples worldwide in the name of colonization and profit, but also their resistance. We can only imagine what horrors he had witnessed in his life, and the loneliness of his existence after the rest of his tribe were killed, but he determinedly resisted all attempts at contact, and made clear he just wanted to be left alone."

Watson also invoked the policies of Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro who is notorious for his antagonism toward the Indigenous people of Brazil and his wanton destruction of the Amazon rainforest by backing the logging, cattle, and mining interests who have sought massive profits from the region's land and natural resources.

"If President Bolsonaro and his agribusiness allies get their way," warned Watson, "this story will be repeated over and over again until all the country's Indigenous peoples are wiped out. The Indigenous movement in Brazil, and Survival, will do everything possible to ensure that doesn't happen."

According to government officials with Funai, which monitored the man from a distance, it appeared the man had prepared for his death and that neither foul play nor a violent end was suggested. A forensic doctor with the nation's federal police is expected to carry out an autopsy and anthropologists and other researchers are expected to try to learn more about how he lived.

Following the man's death, OPI renewed its called for the Tanaru reserve where he lived his final years to be permanently protected as a memorial to Indigenous genocide.

---

---

Rio Tinto Blows Up 46,000 Year Old Sacred Aboriginal Site in Quest for Iron Ore

Industries: Energy, Mining & Utilities

Published by CorpWatch | By Michelle Lee | Friday, July 3, 2020

The Juukan Gorge, a 46,000 year-old sacred Aboriginal site in the Pilbara region of Western Australia was blown up by Rio Tinto, the world’s second largest mining company, in a quest for iron ore, despite the fact that company exec

Read More

---

---

https://theintercept.com/2021/08/28/brazil-amazon-indigenous-protest/

big

---

---

torres-sp

Chapter 9 · Death and Chocolate 171

Doe v Unocal (Burma Total France; rape extrajudical killing, military  burn villages; Alien Tort Statue;

Kiobel v Royal Dutch/Shell Nigeria Ken Saro Wiwa jrnlist and others hanged; [2012 Mohammed v Palestinan Authority Torture Victims  Protection ACT APPLIED ONLY TO NATURAL PERSONS]; NONVIOLeNT PROTESTORS; wIWA SETTLE 15M$

next year Daimler hu rights violations Argentina CA case; during dirty war vs union ppl? only 2.4% of sales, thus no (but still billions of $, Sotomayor; 9th circuit Nestle case slavery not OK and not off hook b/c corp; en banc denied and scotus denied cert? 190

---

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58508001

no lnx pix

Record number of environmental activists murdered

By Claire Marshall

BBC Environment & Rural Affairs Correspondent

Published 13 September

image captionSouth African environmental activist Fikile Ntshangase was shot dead in her own home

A record number of activists working to protect the environment and land rights were murdered last year, according to a report by a campaign group.

227 people were killed around the world in 2020, the highest number recorded for a second consecutive year, the report from Global Witness said.

Almost a third of the murders were reportedly linked to resource exploitation - logging, mining, large-scale agribusiness, hydroelectric dams and other infrastructure.

The report called the victims "environmental defenders" killed for protecting natural resources that need to be preserved, including forests, water supplies and oceans.

Since the Paris Agreement on climate change was signed in 2015, the organisation says on average four activists have been killed each week.

It said this "shocking figure" was likely to be an underestimate because of growing restrictions on journalists and other civic freedoms.

Logging was the industry linked to the most murders with 23 cases - with attacks in Brazil, Nicaragua, Peru and the Philippines.

Indigenous peoples, most often on the frontline of climate change, accounted for a further one third of cases. Colombia had the highest recorded attacks, with 65 people killed last year.

'Unbearably heavy burden'

A senior campaigner for Global Witness, Chris Madden, called on governments to "get serious about protecting defenders." He said companies must start "putting people and planet before profit' or he warned that "both climate breakdown and the killings" would continue.

"This dataset is another stark reminder that fighting the climate crisis carries an unbearably heavy burden for some, who risk their lives to save the forests, rivers and biospheres that are essential to counteract unsustainable global warming. This must stop''.

The organisation called on governments to formally recognise the human right to a safe, healthy and sustainable environment, and ensure commitments made at November's UN climate change conference, COP26, integrate human rights protections.

In response, COP26 president Alok Sharma told the BBC he had "prioritised meeting people on the front line of climate change," to ensure the voices of all are heard."

'Shot dead in her living room'

Those murdered includedSouth African Fikile Ntshangase, 65, who was involved in a legal dispute over the extension of an opencast mine operated by Tendele Coal near Somkhele in KwaZulu-Natal province. She was shot dead in her own living room.

Her daughter, Malungelo Xhakaza, 31, said her "mother's struggle lives on." She said: "To this day no arrests have been made in the investigation into my mother's murder. There has been no accountability. It seems to me that someone wants this mine expansion and the extraction to go ahead, no matter the cost."

Petmin Limited, which owns the Somkhele mine through its subsidiary Tendele Coal Mining, told Global Witness that it "acknowledges community tensions may have been a factor in Fikile's death." The company said it "strongly condemns any form of violence or intimidation" and has offered full co-operation with the police.

Óscar Eyraud Adams

image captionÓscar Eyraud was killed in his home in Mexico in 2020

The killings also included Óscar Eyraud Adams, who was murdered in Mexico in September 2020. He was working to help the indigenous Kumiai community in Baja California have better access to water.

Global Witness said activists still under threat included communities in Guapinol in Honduras, where dozens of people have been protesting against an iron oxide mining concession that was granted by the central government in a protected area. Campaigners believe the Guapinol river, a vital water source, is threatened. The organisation says "many community members remain incarcerated."

---

===https://www.alternet.org/2020/12/trump-coup-2649595275/IMIIn recent weeks, Donald Trump has been ridiculed, slathered with contempt, and repeatedly branded a "liar," as well as an existential threat to democracy in the United States, by the biggest media outlets in the country. This is in response to his attempts to reverse the results of the U.S. presidential election, and claiming—without evidence—that it was stolen. He still clings to these allegations, but he will be leaving the White House on January 20.

But just over a year ago, a similar effort was launched in Bolivia, and it actually prevailed. The country's democratically elected president, Evo Morales, was toppled three weeks after the October 20 vote, before his term was finished. He left the country after the military "asked" him to resign.

The similarities are remarkable. Leaders of the Bolivian opposition indicated before the votes were counted, as Trump did, that they would not accept the result if they lost. Like Trump, they had no evidence for their allegations of fraud when the votes were counted. And as with Trump, the falseness of their charges was obvious from day one.

Some readers may question the relevance of the comparison with a developing country whose democratic institutions have a shorter history, and are in important ways weaker than those in the U.S. government. But the Bolivian right would not have succeeded, where Trump has failed, if not for another important difference: the Bolivian right had powerful help from outside the country in pulling off their coup.

Not surprisingly some of this help came from the Trump administration, which stated the day after the coup that "Morales's departure preserves democracy and paves the way for the Bolivian people to have their voices heard."

Even more important help came from the Organization of American States (OAS), which, not coincidentally, gets 60 percent of its funding from the United States. The OAS also currently has a leader, Luis Almagro, who at the time of Bolivia's election needed the support of Trump and his allied right-wing governments in the Americas in order to be reelected as the head of the organization. The OAS issued a statement the day after the election, expressing "deep concern and surprise at the drastic and hard-to-explain change in the trend of the preliminary results."

This allegation turned out to be "false," as the New York Times would later report; but as the Times noted, this false allegation "changed the South American nation's history." It changed history because it served as the political foundation for the military coup on November 10, 2019.

Another similarity: remember when Trump and his Republican allies were saying that the Democrats were "stealing" the election here because the later, mostly mail-in votes were coming in overwhelmingly from Democrats? Of course this was false; the truth was simply that more Democrats than Republicans were voting by mail.

The OAS allegation in Bolivia was the same: for various reasons—including geography—votes in the pro-Morales areas came in later than those for the opposing candidates. This was obvious from the day after the election by simply looking at the areas where the earlier and later votes were coming from; the data was all on the web. That's why 133 economists and statisticians from various countries—the majority from the United States—signed a letter demanding that the OAS retract its false statements.

That's why four members of the U.S. Congress asked the OAS if they ever considered the possibility—which amazingly was not mentioned in three more OAS reports—that the later-reporting precincts were politically different from the earlier ones.

It's been a year, and the OAS still hasn't answered.

In October, the de facto government, which took power after last year's coup, held elections, after postponing them twice. Luis Arce, Evo Morales's economy minister for 13 years, won by a margin of more than 26 percentage points.

But the people killed by the post-coup government, including at least 22 people killed in two massacres committed by security forces, cannot be brought back to life. The victims were all Indigenous.

Like the effort of Trump in the United States—as seen in the recent Republican attempt to throw out hundreds of thousands of votes from Detroit, Michigan, where nearly 80 percent of residents are Black—the assault on democracy in Bolivia is also tied to systemic racism.

Evo Morales is the first Indigenous president in a country with the largest percent of Indigenous population in the Americas, who have overwhelmingly supported him and his party; the leaders of the coup are infused with white supremacists and seek to restore the dominance of the mostly white elite who ruled the country before Morales was first elected in 2005.

U.S. Representatives Jan Schakowsky and Jesus "Chuy" Garcia, both of Chicago, have called for Congress to investigate the role of the OAS in Bolivia following the 2019 election.

This is vitally important, because the coup, and the violence and political repression that followed, might never have happened without the OAS's pivotal role. Perhaps most importantly, the OAS had an enormous impact on the international and domestic media, with many journalists mistakenly believing that the OAS Electoral Observation Mission was impartial, and that therefore their allegations were true.

But the Bolivian coup is not the first time that the OAS has abused its authority as an electoral observer, in order to support a U.S.-backed effort to topple a democratically elected government. This happened in Haiti between 2000 and 2004. And also in Haiti, the OAS did something in 2011 that perhaps no election observers had ever done: they reversed the results of a first-round presidential election, without even a recount or a statistical analysis.

The OAS and its leadership must be held accountable, or these crimes will keep happening.

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. He is the author of Failed: What the "Experts" Got Wrong About the Global Economy (Oxford University Press, 2015).

This article was produced in partnership by the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

==

---

ew 12/20

Nemonte Nenquimo filed a lawsuit against the Ecuadoran government and successfully safeguarded 202,000 hectares of Indigenous territories and Amazon rainforest from oil exploration and extraction.

Nenquimo, 33, is an Indigenous Waorani woman from the Amazon Rainforest in Ecuador. In 2015, she co-founded an Indigenous-led coalition called the Ceibo Alliance and was elected president of an organization that represents the Waorani of Ecuador's Pastaza province.

Ecuador is among the most biodiverse places in the world, but its forests and people have been increasingly threatened by logging, road construction, oil exploration and other extractive industries. In 2018, in an effort to bring oil company investments into the nation,Ecuador's minister of hydrocarbons announced 2.8 million hectares (7 million acres) of land constituting primary rainforest would be auctioned off for oil concessions.

In 2019, Nenquimo and other Waorani leaders filed a lawsuit against three government ministries in Ecuador for falsely claiming they had consent from the Waorani to sell their lands at auction. She also bolstered Indigenous community independence by installing solar and rainwater catchment systems in villages and supporting cottage industries such as chocolate production. Nenquimo helped secure funds for Indigenous filmmakers to tell their stories and played a lead role in a community mapping project charting the Waoroni territory around 16 communities.

In April 2019, Nenquimo and the Waorani won the court case against the Ecuadoran ministries, and the ruling was upheld in the court of appeals, safeguarding 202,000 hectares of Indigenous territories and Amazon rainforest from oil exploration and extraction. This case set an important legal precedent for Indigenous rights in Ecuador.

Nenquimo was named one of TIME magazine's list of 100 most influential people of 2020, and continues to work as a leader of her people and the environmental movement in Ecuador.

---

==

ew 920

The chief executive officer and two senior executives are being forced out of the mining giant Rio Tinto several months after investors started to revolt over the company's

https://www.ecowatch.com/rio-tinto-ancient-aboriginal-site-2646131338.html

---

---

ew mongabay 920

https://www.ecowatch.com/indigenous-women-protect-amazon-2647376402.html

by Rosamaria Loures and Sarah Sax

On an early December morning last year in the state of Maranhão, Brazil, half a dozen members of the Indigenous Guajajara people packed their bags with food, maps and drone equipment to get ready for a patrol. They said goodbye to their children, uncertain when, or whether, they would see them again. Then, they hoisted their bags over their shoulders and set out to patrol a section of the 173,000 hectares (428,000 acres) of the primary rainforest they call home.

This is the Caru Indigenous Territory, where the Amazon peters out toward the northeastern coast of Brazil, and it contains some of the last stretches of intact, contiguous forest in Maranhão. It is also under increasing threat: this part of Brazil has been ravaged by some of the country's highest rates of deforestation and land conflicts over the past decade. Patrols led by Indigenous groups like theirs, known often by the moniker of "Forest Guardians," have been instrumental in enforcing protections and preventing loggers from entering Indigenous territories. Patrols and their enforcement tactics, which have been ramping up over the past decade, have also resulted in community members being threatened, attacked, and killed — as in the case of Paulo Paulino Guajajara last year, who was murdered in a neighboring Indigenous territory.

But members of the patrol that set out through the forest last December don't call themselves guardians; they prefer warriors. And they differ in one other notable aspect: they are all women.

"Why did we take the initiative? Because we are mothers. If we don't act, there would be no forest standing," said Paula Guajajara, one of the "women warriors of the forest," in a public event last year.

Called guerreiras da floresta in Portuguese, this is the name these women have given themselves. They are in many ways an embodiment of what policymakers, politicians and scholars around the world say is a necessary shift toward gender equality in environmental movements. And they are contributing not just womanpower to the patrols — they are also helping to diversify the tactics and forge new partnerships.

In Brazil in particular, where protecting intact forests is one of the cheapest, easiest and most effective solutions forcombating climate change, the work they are doing is literally saving the world.[vid]

Creating a Space and Finding Their Voice

Actively patrolling their land for invaders is nothing new to the Guajajara; Indigenous people have more than 500 years of experience in this. Today, they use satellite technology and coordinate efforts with outside law enforcement to achieve their goals. This approach is relatively new, but its use has been on the rise in recent years.

"Across the country more of these groups are forming because of government inaction — or worse, because the government is actively trying to exploit their lands," Sarah Shenker, campaign coordinator for Survival International's Uncontacted Tribes team, said in an interview. These groups are primarily men, although women are sometimes included in the patrols. But according to Shenker, as well as other experts interviewed for this article, to have "forest guardian" groups made up solely of women is unique.

The women warriors were formed six years ago, an offshoot of a program developed by Indigenous organizations and the Brazilian government and implemented by the Ministry of the Environment to enhance the territorial and cultural protection of Indigenous people, called Projeto Demonstrativo de Povos Indígenas (PDPI) in Portuguese. At the time, the predominantly male forest guardians were attempting to end illegal logging and the sale of wood from their territory — a task that was proving extremely difficult. Seeing this, the women stepped in and formed their own group consisting originally of 32 women.

"In order not to let the project end, we, the Guajajara women, entered and took over the project," Cícera Guajajara da Silva, one of the women warriors, said in an interview.

But the path to being taken seriously and treated as equals has been long.

"To seek partnership, we walked, talked, slept on the floor — all in order to seek improvement for our community," Paula Guajajara said, recalling the initial difficulty in being heard and taken seriously inside and outside of the communities. Their patience has paid off, and the women are quick to point out the support and close collaboration of the male forest guardians that has allowed them to combat the greater goal of stopping illegal logging. "Today we have the women warriors who work together with the forest guardians," Paula Guajajara said. "We've already evicted a lot of loggers. If we hadn't acted, there would be no forest standing."...[long]

==

https://theconversation.com/tc-energys-name-change-rebooting-canadian-pipeline-empires-132295

Canada, the recent oil price crash has distracted attention from the controversial Coastal GasLink pipeline project. Buried in that dispute is the recent history of TC Energy, Coastal GasLink’s parent firm.

TransCanada changed its name to TC Energy just after the January 2019 Unist'ot'en stand-off between the RCMP and land defenders in support of a Coastal GasLink injunction. It was also within 10 days of the Unist’ot’en house group of the Wet'suwet'en First Nation alleging violations of their territorial rights at the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Peoples.

TC Energy’s name change also overlapped with the renegotiation of controversial TransCanada pipeline contracts in Mexico.

While TransCanada says the change would better represent its increasing activities in Mexico and the United States, it also distanced the firm from controversial projects, among them the Keystone XL project that aimed to expand the Keystone pipeline system in Canada and the U.S.

Keystone XL a flashpoint

Keystone XL has been a key target of global environmental activism against the oilsands and, for a time, resulted in Alberta oil being labelled the Earth’s most carbon-intensive and dirtiest fossil fuel. It also turned public attention to the violation of Indigenous territorial rights in which North American pipeline projects are mired.

[pix]

tC Energy now acknowledges that Keystone XL may never be built.

As opposition to Alberta’s oilsands, associated pipelines, environmental injustice and carbon emissions have ramped up in Canada over the past 15 years, so has North American production of natural gas for energy and export. In this shift, TC Energy’s role as a conduit for U.S. natural gas to Mexico is notable.

TC Energy’s name change also dissociates the firm from Canada. In Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America, Canada’s human rights reputation has plummeted due to violence associated with Canadian mining companies.

Negative image

Canada’s negative brand image in Latin America emerges from a long history of the Canadian government backing its extractive sector at home and abroad. TC Energy’s activities across North America are heavily financed by Canadian entities, including Export Development Canada, private banks and a network of influential board members who lobby the Canadian government for financial and diplomatic support.

Read more: The role of Canadian mining in the plight of Central American migrants

Mexicohad been a net exporter of hydrocarbons to the United States for three decades. But the U.S. shale-gas boom and Mexican energy reform shifted energy trade dramatically and helped foster Mexico’s increasing dependence on American natural gas.

:{:{}:

}:

The pattern is reminiscent of Mexico’s abrupt dependence on U.S. maize following the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Mexico shifted from being self-sufficient in this food staple to becoming dependent on imports. The same process has transpired in hydrocarbons, compromising Mexican energy sovereignty.

:{:{}:

}:

The privatization of Mexico’s energy sector, which proceeded at a slow creep for decades and accelerated drastically in 2013, has been a flashpoint for protest throughout the country due to high fuel costs.

:{:{}:

}:

Helped AMLO get elected

:{:{}:

}:

It helped elect opposition leader Andrés Manuel López Obrador to the Mexican presidency in 2018 and factored into the renegotiation of NAFTA.

Read more: Why Mexico's historic elections may bring about big change

TC Energy is among the firms facilitating the growing American and Canadian involvement in the Mexican oil and gas sector. A TransCanada representative was the co-chair of the intergovernmental Canada-Mexico Partnership’s energy sub-committee in 2016.

:{:{}:

}:

While TransCanada described a welcoming environment when it shifted activities to Mexico, this has soured with increasing opposition, including Indigenous mobilization, against pipeline projects in Mexico.

:{:{}:

}:

Shared risks across the continent

:{:{}:

}:

Shortly after López Obrador’s election in 2018, but before he took office, TransCanada suspended pipeline projects in four states due to protests. López Obrador has renegotiated terms associated with various pipeline contracts, including TC Energy, reportedly saving Mexico US$4.5 billion dollars.

:{:{}:

}:

In both Canada and Mexico the ecological and financial risks of pipeline projects are shouldered by local residents and pension holders.

:{:{}:

}:

As Canadian investment in Mexico’s energy sector has increased, the global financial hazards of locked-in hydrocarbon consumption, which are risky given their financial implications for carbon mitigation measures, have also been more broadly distributed to Mexicans.

In northeastern British Columbia, earthquakes from natural gas fracking threaten dams and pose a risk to the area’s residents, according to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. The carbon emissions from the first phase of the LNG Canada project that would receive fracked gas via Coastal GasLink are estimated at 3.45 megatonnes per year.

This is a large portion of the province’s future emissions. British Columbia has said it would cut emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, to about 13 megatonnes.

The Coastal GasLink project also poses risks to those whose pensions finance the project if the project is unable to proceed.

In December, TC Energy sold a 65 per cent interest in Coastal GasLink to a consortium involving AIMCo (Alberta Investment Management Corp.) and KKR, a private U.S. financial company operating in partnership with the National Pension Service of Korea. AIMCo manages the funds that secure future income for more than 368,000 public sector employees and pensioners in Alberta and the rest of Canada.

Read more: Coastal GasLink and Canada's pension fund colonialism

In recent years, the inter-governmental Canada-Mexico Partnership has promoted Alberta’s approach to securing “right of way from Indigenous peoples to Mexico. This entails replicating the divisive model that industry has used to get consent from Indigenous peoples in Canada in Mexico.

Given TC Energy’s trajectory over the past decade this is problematic.

TC Energy’s behaviour in Wet'suwet'en has resulted in a nationwide crisis. The Canadian government and Canadian firms should not facilitate the export of those behaviours to Mexico.

tags: Indigenous

Mexico

Keystone XL pipeline

First Nations

Andrés Manuel López Obrador

Wet'suwet'en First Nation

TransCanada

Wet'suwet'en

Coastal GasLink

Alberta oilsands

---

---

dn 880

==

---

08.14.20 - 8:00AM

A Rude Awakening – August 14, 2020

https://kpfa.org/episode/a-rude-awakening-august-14-2020/

Living in the Time of Dying doc

Stan Rushworth  https://stanrushworth.com/about-the-author/

...I wrote a book back in ‘91, called Sam Woods American Healing, which a good Chiricahua friend calls a Tsalagi perspective, though it is not about Tsalagi perspective at all. I felt there were too many books about Indigenous thought at the time, so I didn’t want to enter that fray. It wasn’t the way I was brought up. A literature instructor at Cabrillo College read the book and insisted that I had to take over the Native American Literature class Cabrillo was then offering. I accepted his offer, and I’ve been teaching that class ever since, over twenty years now.

During that time, I also taught in American Studies at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and worked in Oakes College Core classes for some years, where I brought Indigenous curriculum and speakers. I also taught numerous Critical Thinking classes around Indigenous issues at Cabrillo over the years...

For many years, I’ve brought members of the Santa Cruz Indian council into classes, and Dr. Darryl “Babe” Wilson has been a guest speaker and participant in my classes for a very long time. Dr. Wilson is one of the most significant Indigenous writers of our time, and I take every opportunity to expose students and faculty to his ideas and writing and stories. He has also participated in our Social Justice Conference, another forum in which we seek to include Indigenous issues.

https://www.amazon.com/Morning-Sun-Went-Down/dp/0930588975 1998  The

 Morning the Sun Went Down 

:{:{}:

}:

 gifted poet, writer, and storyteller, as well as a cultural and political activist, Darryl Babe Wilson earned a Ph.D. from the University of Arizona at Tucson. He is the co-editor of Surviving in Two Worlds: Contemporary Native American Voices (University of Texas Press, 1997). Darryl currently teaches Native American Studies at de Anza College in Cupertino, California, and at California State University at Hayward. The father of seven sons, he lives in San Jose, California.

----

:{:{:{}:

}:}:

:{:{}:

California through Native Eyes: Reclaiming History

By William J. Bauer, Jr., Jr.}:

:{:{:{}:

}:}:

https://books.google.com/books?id=cLD8CwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

[ti wo:

Tending the Wild: Native American Knowledge and the Management of California's Natural Resources by M. Kat Anderson (2005)

Shapes of Native Nonfiction: College Essays by Contemporary Writers Ed. by Elissa Washuta and Theresa Warburton

---

[[ anez bolivia evang // bolsonaro re-assert rightful place above uppity indigenous? catholic? pagan?

has doing god's will earned him "magical authority? see below

https://www.alternet.org/2020/08/trump-and-white-evangelical-christians-are-bonded-by-sadism/

john s eb

there’s still too much confusion over the president’s bond with white evangelical Protestants (WEPs). I suppose there will always be as long as outsiders presume that Donald Trump’s strongest supporters believe in loving thy neighbor as thyself. Once you see that WEPs do not apply the Golden Rule universally and unconditionally, things become clearer. Once this Christian concept is removed from the discussion, “paradoxes” melt into the air. What’s left is a natural alignment of political interests.

How do I know WEPs don’t truly believe in the Golden Rule? From life experience. I know what I’m talking about. All you have to do is listen carefully, however, and know what to listen for. Elizabeth Dias wrote a big piece in the Times last week trying to clear up the “contradiction” of WEPs standing by Trump “when he shut out Muslim refugees. When he separated children from their parents at the border. When he issued brash insults over social media. When he uttered falsehoods as if they were true. When he was impeached.” A source explains helpfully that there’s no contradiction at all.

“The years of the Obama presidency were confusing to her,” Dias wrote of her source. “She said she heard talk of giving freedoms to gay people and members of minority groups. But to her it felt like her freedoms were being taken away. And that she was turning into the minority.” The source: “I do not love Trump. I think Trump is good for America as a country. I think Trump is going to restore our freedoms, where we spent eight years, if not more, with our freedoms slowly being taken away under the guise of giving freedoms to all. Caucasian-Americans are becoming a minority. Rapidly.”

This makes no sense to outsiders. Freedom for “gay people and members of minority groups” is not taking anything away from anybody. This makes no sense, because outsiders do not generally accept a worldview in which power is ordered. First God, then man, then woman, then child. White over nonwhite. Heterosexual over LGBTQ. Christian over non-Christian. When you believe with your whole being that power is ordered according to God’s will, “giving freedoms to gay people and members of minority groups” is not political equality, as outsiders would often see it. It’s knocking you out of the order of power. It’s taking something away. Equality is literally theft

when political equality is theft, you cannot apply the Golden Rule universally and unconditionally. If you did, you’d be complicit in a crime. The Golden Rule demands white people share power with nonwhite people. It demands husbands share power with their wives. Neither can ever be done.A wife, according to the same source in Dias’ reporting, must “submit” to her husband in accordance with God’s law. If she does not, she’s trying “to rule over him.” Same for whites and nonwhites. If white people are not at the top of the order, they are being ruled over. This is why Dias’ source says that, “Caucasian-Americans are becoming a minority. Rapidly.” The more for “them,” the less for “us.” They believe Trump prevents that from happening.

They believe Trump is “restoring their freedom.” Utter nonsense. What they are really saying is that the president will prevent people lower down the order of power from achieving more freedom and equality, “violating” their “freedom.” He must do that by any means, even if he confiscates kids from their mothers, bans a world religion, orcommits treason. None of that matters as much as maintaining the supremacy of a religious identity built on sand.And make no mistake: this is a religious identity. These are very real anti-democratic Christians hostile to critical thinking, modernity, pluralism, and all forms of equality. “It’s almost like it is a reverse intolerance,” a WEP source told Dias. “If you have somebody that’s maybe on the liberal side, they say that we are intolerant of them. But it is inverse intolerant if we can’t live out our faith.”[ // reverse discrimination]

If WEPs believed in the Golden Rule, they’d never tolerate other people’s pain. They do tolerate it, however. Indeed, they like it. It feels good to see the president “restoring their freedom.” When WEPs say they want to “live out our faith,” what they mean is sadism is and should be a natural consequence of the natural order of things in which God’s people are chosen to rule in God’s name. “Evangelicals did not support Mr. Trump in spite of who he is,” Dias wrote. “They supported him because of who he is, and because of who they are.” That’s correct, but take that to its logical conclusion. His enemies are their enemies. His pleasures, their pleasures. Their bond is far from a contradiction. It’s an alignment of political interests in which sadism is the point.

----

has doing god's will earned him "magical authority? ends justify the means? see above

mis-spoke? made up extreme exec priv or somesuch? invokes article II? or somesuch?that chosen onewas a goof/joke? tho rw in bolivia ~ evo m claims she is restoring xian thus doing god's will? reasserts hier over indig prez

https://www.alternet.org/2020/08/former-dhs-staff-trump-claimed-magical-authorities-to-break-the-law/

no lnx

no lnx twt text

Former DHS staff: Trump claimed ‘magical authorities’ to break the law..]]

==

===

well, it's official libtard fuckwit [boy kings? // GoT?]

:{:{}:

}:

https://www.alternet.org/2020/07/we-will-coup-whoever-we-want-elon-musk-and-the-overthrow-of-democracy-in-bolivia/

On July 24, 2020, Tesla’s Elon Musk wrote on Twitter that a second U.S. “government stimulus package is not in the best interests of the people.” Someone responded to Musk soon after, “You know what wasn’t in the best interest of people? The U.S. government organizing a coup against Evo Morales in Bolivia so you could obtain the lithium there.” Musk then wrote: “We will coup whoever we want! Deal with it.”

Musk refers here to the coup against President Evo Morales Ayma, who was removed illegally from his office in November 2019. Morales had just won an election for a term that was to have begun in January 2020. Even if there was a challenge against that election, Morales’ term should rightfully have continued through November and December of 2019. Instead, the Bolivian military, at the behest of Bolivia’s far right and the United States government, threatened Morales; Morales went into exile in Mexico and is now in Argentina.

At that time, the “evidence” of fraud was offered by the far right and by a “preliminary report” by the Organization of American States; only after Morales was removed from office was there grudging acknowledgment by the liberal media that there was in fact no evidence of fraud. It was too late for Bolivia, which has been condemned to a dangerous government that has suspended democracy in the country.

Lithium Coup

Over his 14 years in office, Morales fought to use the wealth of Bolivia for the Bolivian people, who saw—after centuries of oppression—remarkable advances in their basic needs. Literacy rates rose and hunger rates dropped. The use of Bolivia’s wealth to advance the interests of the people rather than North American multinational corporations was an abomination to the U.S. embassy in La Paz, which had egged on the worst elements of the military and the far right to overthrow the government. This is just what happened in November 2019.

Musk’s admission, however intemperate, is at least honest. His company Tesla has long wanted access at a low price to the large lithium deposits in Bolivia; lithium is a key ingredient for batteries. Earlier this year, Musk and his company revealed that they wanted to build a Tesla factory in Brazil, which would be supplied by lithium from Bolivia; when we wrote about that we called our report “Elon Musk Is Acting Like a Neo-Conquistador for South America’s Lithium.” Everything we wrote there is condensed in his new tweet: the arrogance toward the political life of other countries, and the greed toward resources that people like Musk think are their entitlement.

Musk went on to delete his tweet. He then said, “we get our lithium from Australia”; this will not settle the issue, since eyebrows are being raised in Australia regarding the environmental damage from lithium mining.

Suspension of Democracy

After Morales was removed, an insignificant far-right politician named Jeanine Áñez set aside the constitutional process and seized power. She showed the character of her politics when shesigned a presidential decree on November 15, 2019, that gave the military the right to do whatever it wanted; even her allies found this to be too far and repealed it on November 28.

Arrests and intimidation of activists from the Movement for Socialism (MAS)—the party of Morales—began in November 2019 and still continue. On July 7, 2020, seven U.S. senators published a statement that said, “We are increasingly concerned by the growing number of human rights violations and curtailments of civil liberties by the interim government of Bolivia.” “Without a change in course by the interim government,” the senators wrote, “we fear that basic civil rights in Bolivia will be further eroded and the legitimacy of the crucial upcoming elections will be put at risk.”

There’s no need to worry about that, since the government of Áñez seems unwilling to hold an election. By all polls, Áñez looks likely to be defeated in the general elections. A recent poll by El Centro Estratégico Latinoamericano de Geopolítica (CELAG) says that Áñez will get a mere 13.3 percent, far behind the Movement for Socialism’s Luis Arce (41.9 percent) and the center right’s Carlos Mesa (26.8 percent). The election was supposed to have taken place in May, but it was rescheduled for September 6; it has now been postponed once more, this time to October 18. Bolivia would not have had an elected government for an entire year.

Luis Arce of MAS recently told Oliver Vargas, “We face persecution, we face surveillance… we are facing a very difficult campaign.” But, he said, “we are sure that we will win these elections.” If elections are permitted.

The CELAG study shows that 9 out of 10 Bolivians have seen their incomes decline due to the coronavirus recession. Because of this—and of the attack by this government on the MAS—65.2 percent of Bolivians have a negative appraisal of Áñez. It is important to note that due to the positive policies of Morales’ MAS, there is widespread support for a socialist orientation; 64.1 percent of Bolivians support taxes against the rich, and Bolivians in general support the resource socialism of the MAS and Morales.

CoronaShock and Bolivia

The government of Áñez has been utterly incompetent regarding the coronavirus. The number of confirmed cases of COVID-19 in this country of 11 million people is 66,456; sincetesting is low, the number is likely much higher.

Musk returns to our story. Earlier this year, on March 31, Bolivia’s Foreign Minister Karen Longaric wrote an obsequious letter to Musk asking him about the “offer of cooperation posted by you regarding ventilators ready to be dispatched to countries where they are needed the most.” Longaric said, “If it is not possible to send it to Bolivia, we can arrange its receipt in Miami, FL. and transport them from there as quickly as possible.” No such ventilators came.

Instead, the government bought ventilators from a Spanish supplier for $27,000 for each of the 170 devices; Bolivian producers had said they could supply ventilators for $1,000 per unit. The health minister in the Áñez government—Marcelo Navajas—was arrested for this scandal.

Morales

Evo Morales read Musk’s tweet about the coup in Bolivia and responded: “Elon Musk, the owner of the largest electric car company, says about the coup in Bolivia: ‘We will coup whoever we want.’ Another proof that the coup was about Bolivian lithium; at the cost of two massacres. We will always defend our resources!”

The reference to the massacres is important. In November, from Mexico City, Morales watched as the government of Áñez let loose the dogs of war against the people of Bolivia from Cochabamba to El Alto. “They are killing my brothers and sisters,” Morales said at a press conference. “This is the kind of thing the old military dictatorships used to do.” It is the toxic character of the government of Áñez, backed fully by the U.S. government and Elon Musk.

Protests across Bolivia began on July 27 for the restoration of democracy.

Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian, editor, and journalist. He is a writing fellow and chief correspondent at Globetrotter, a project of the Independent Media Institute. He is the chief editor of LeftWord Books and the director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research. He has written more than 20 books, including The Darker Nations and The Poorer Nations. His latest book is Washington Bullets, with an introduction by Evo Morales Ayma.

Alejandro Bejarano is a Bolivian musician, documentarian, and social media manager. In 2016, he received the Medal of Honor for Cultural Merit of the Plurinational Legislative Assembly of Bolivia.

This article was produced by Globetrotter, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

==

---

https://www.alternet.org/2020/07/us-corporations-a-driving-force-behind-unprecedented-wave-of-global-land-privatization-report/

a  study released Tuesday by the Oakland Institute details an “unprecedented wave of privatization of natural resources that is underway around the world”—one that is largely being driven by the United States and its allies.

According to the progressive think tank’s report (pdf), “Driving Dispossession: The Global Push to Unlock the Economic Potential of Land,” governments around the world—particularly in developing countries—are often put under pressure by financial institutions and Western agencies to open up land for so-called “productive use” by miners, agribusiness interests, and other corporate entities intent on exploiting natural resources for profit.

The U.S. in particular, the report says, is a “key player in an unfettered offensive to privatize land around the world.”

With deforestation and fossil fuel extraction helping to fuel the climate crisis, governments are being pushed in a direction that’s “just the opposite of the drastic shift we need to win the struggle against climate change,” Frederic Mousseau, policy director of the Oakland Institute and lead author of the report, said in a statement.

“Most of the land on our planet, especially in the Global South, is public land or land held under customary tenure systems [and] is seen as an obstacle to exploitation and economic growth,” Mousseau said.

The Oakland Institute included in its report six case studies in Ukraine, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Zambia, Papua New Guinea, and Brazil, finding that global land privatization is often directly driven by U.S. interests.

[twt]

zambia has been affected by what the Institute calls a recent “surge of American and European startups attempting to apply blockchain technology to land registries,” referring to the digital ledger created for Bitcoin.

The Zambiangovernment is partnering with Medici Land Governance (MLG), a blockchain company and subsidiary of the U.S. online retailer Overstock.com, to assist with land registration and titling. According to former Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne, the use of blockchain “will help unlock trillions of dollars in global mineral reserves that are inaccessible due to unclear land governance systems.”

In Sri Lanka, a U.S. government entity known as the Millenium Challenge Corporation (MCC) approved a five-year compact for the country in 2019, offering the Sri Lankan government $480 million to map and digitize public lands in order to “promote land transactions that could stimulate investment and increase its use as an economic asset.”

“The proposed MCC compact would shift control of millions of hectares away from the state towards private interests,” the report says, and was proposed by a U.S. entity formed in 2002 by Congress with the stated goal of “reducing poverty through growth.”

“In practice, poverty alleviation has taken a back seat to promoting private sector growth,” the report continues. “This has translated to countries shifting their policies in adherence to a neoliberal economic framework—including the privatization and commodification of land—in exchange for substantial financial grants.”

MCC compacts throughout Africa have “allowed investors to acquire land at bargain prices to facilitate large-scale industrial agriculture at the expense of smallholder farmers,” the Oakland Institute added.

The study also points to Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro’s aggressive push to assume control of Indigenous territories in the Amazon Rainforest, appointing a member of one the country’s most powerful agribusiness families to head the Ministry of Agriculture. Illegal land invasions and massive fires driven by agriculture and mining interests have threatened Indigenous people while contributing to deforestation and the climate crisis.

As the Institute published the report while the Covid-19 pandemic is upending the global economy, the report points out that “returning to normal is not an option.”

Instead, the economic crisis “must be used as a catalyst to address the systematic issues surrounding the rampant overexploitation of natural resources that has driven the climate crisis to its current state.”

Rather than erasing local governance and negating individual autonomy, governments must instead build systems that incorporate a diversity of ownership and tenure systems, and focus on a development path that serves the people instead of one that takes the land away from them for corporate profits.”

---

==

afp via an 620

rio de Janeiro (AFP) - The impact of the new coronavirus has spared no one in Brazil, including in the Amazon rainforest, where iconic indigenous leader Raoni Metuktire accuses President Jair Bolsonaro of using the pandemic to eradicate his people.

Known for his colorful feather headdresses and the large disc inserted in his lower lip, chief Raoni is one of the most famous defenders of the Amazon and the indigenous peoples who live there.

Now in his 90s, he has traveled the world raising awareness about the threat posed by deforestation.

But he is riding out the coronavirus pandemic in his village in the heart of the rainforest, where he spoke to AFP by video call.

The chief, a member of the Kayapo ethnicity, did not mince words as he criticized Bolsonaro for the far-right president's treatment of Brazil's indigenous peoples and handling of the pandemic.

"Bolsonaro wants to take advantage of this disease. He's saying, 'Indians have to die, we have to finish them off,'" he said, speaking through an interpreter.

Bolsonaro has faced criticism for pushing to open protected Amazon lands to farming and mining, which he argues would benefit indigenous communities.

Indigenous leaders and activists are skeptical, however, and have condemned the president for some of his comments, including that indigenous people "are becoming more and more human, just like us."

Bolsonaro has likewise faced criticism for his handling of the pandemic, which he continues to downplay even as the number of deaths soars in Brazil.

Indigenous peoples in the Amazon are particularly vulnerable to diseases from the outside world.

There are mounting fears for their safety as the virus surges in Brazil, which has now registered more than 34,000 deaths, the third-highest toll worldwide, after the United States and Britain.

The Amazon region is one of the hardest-hit, including its indigenous inhabitants, who have a COVID-19 mortality rate twice as high as non-indigenous Brazilians.

At least 211 indigenous Brazilians have been killed and 2,178 infected by the virus, according to the Brazilian Indigenous Peoples' Association (APIB).

Human-rights officials from the United Nations and Organization of American States warned Thursday the virus poses a "grave risk" to Amazon indigenous communities.

"This disease called coronavirus is very dangerous. It has starting killing my people, in every region," Raoni said.

But Bolsonaro, he added, "doesn't care about us."

Despite the "shoddy health services" available to his people, the president has done nothing to improve them, he said.

Blocked aid

Raoni, who has lobbied world leaders and campaigned with the likes of Arnold Schwarzenegger, James Cameron and Sting, said he planned to stay in his village, Metuktire, in Brazil's Mato Grosso state, until the danger has receded.

"I will only leave my village when things go back to normal," he said.

"I'm very worried about my people. I tell them to stay in the village, not to go the city... but some of them don't listen."

In some cases, villagers returning home have brought the virus with them. That includes the village of Gorotire, where five residents have died of COVID-19, he said.

French environmental group Amazon Planet has collected 43,000 euros (nearly $50,000) to help indigenous communities observe stay-at-home measures and avoid leaving their villages for food and supplies.

But 10 tonnes of food and hygiene products it is trying to ship to the Kayapo have been blocked in what the group's president, Gert-Peter Bruch, called "a criminal excess of bureaucracy."

Land grab

The pandemic forced chief Raoni to cancel a trip to Brasilia, where he was due to pressure officials on another issue vital to indigenous communities, official recognition of their lands.

The Brazilian government's agency for indigenous affairs, FUNAI, recently opened 237 indigenous territories to settlers because they had not been officially recognized by presidential decree.

That land alone covers an area the size of Portugal.

"No, that can't happen," Raoni said.

"Our land cannot be occupied by invaders" -- loggers, farmers and illegal gold-miners, he said.

That brought him back to Bolsonaro.

"He needs to recognize our lands," he said.

---

https://www.ecowatch.com/amazon-brazil-gold-mining-2645732733.html

illegal

Peter Yeung

From the skies above Creporizao, a remote town in the south of the Brazilian Amazon, the surrounding area looks like a vast blanket of dark green rainforest. But along the dirt roads and rivers that run through it like arteries are telling patches of muddy brown: illegal gold mines.

Wildcat miners come to the area seeking their fortune. Every day, hundreds of laborers embark on long journeys up and down the Crepori river to reach the gold pits, while others fly in on small planes that land on makeshift airstrips. Such scenes have become common across the world's largest rainforest, and are being held up as the cause of widespread destruction.

Jose Maria, a miner from the state of Maranhao, some 1,000 kilometers (620 miles) to the east — who does not reveal his full name — is waiting on the river banks for a ride. "We're here to do honest work and earn a living," he said. "I don't see what the problem is."

But the pits where Jose Maria and fellow miners work are located on the more than two million-hectare territory of the Munduruku, one of the largest indigenous tribes in the Amazon, whose mineral-rich lands are protected under Brazil's 1988 Constitution.

A 2019 survey by polling institute Datafolha showed 86% of Brazilians oppose mining on indigenous territory, yet it has been encouraged by Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro's controversial bill, which calls for the legalization of commercial mining on indigenous land.

Submitted to Brazil's Congress in early February, the bill has yet to be put to a vote. A planned ballot was pushed back with the president of the Chamber of Deputies, Rodrigo Maia, telling Congress it was "not the right moment." But he also stressed that the bill was "not unconstitutional."

Brazil's Ministry of Mines and Energy told DW it was planning to "regulate activities" on indigenous land, adding that the process would require "consultation with the indigenous communities," which would be able to participate in mining activity.

While some in the Munduruku have been won over by the allure of riches, and allow gold extraction on their land in exchange for money, the majority remain opposed to illegal mining.

'Full-scale gold rush'

About 13% of Brazil's territory is classified as indigenous land, spread across more than 400 reserves. But according to the Amazon Geo-Referenced Socio-Environmental Information Network, there are more than 450 illegal mining sites in the Brazilian Amazon, where most of those reserves are located.

The proposed law would likely lead to a dramatic rise in the level of mining activity.

"Once you open the door, it will become a flood," Glenn Shepard, an American anthropologist who works with indigenous populations affected by illegal mining, told DW. "The law will create a precedent for miners to go in. It's already a full-scale gold rush going on, and these indigenous groups are losing control."

Greenpeace's journalism team, Unearthed, has reported that gold miners planned to continue working through the coronavirus pandemic, increasing fears of spreading the disease to indigenous groups.

In advance of the vote on the bill, the Ministry of Mines and Energy told DW it had received more than 4,000 applications for mining-related activities on indigenous land.

Tensions between miners and local communities are already high. In June last year, Brazil's indigenous rights agency, Funai, reported dozens of miners dressed in military uniform invading the Wajapi community, in the Brazilian Amazon, stabbing and killing one of its leaders.

According to research by international NGO, Global Witness, 20 land and environmental defenders were killed in Brazil in 2018 alone. Globally, the nonprofit cited mining as the deadliest sector, with 46 reported murders in the same year.

The deforestation issue

Environmentally, one of the biggest impacts of mining is logging. A 2017 report published in the journal Nature Communications found that mining accounted for 9% of all forest loss in the Amazon between 2005 and 2015.

Satellite analysispublished by the Monitoring of the Andean Amazon Project revealed that 2,000 hectares of gold mining-related deforestation occurred in 2019 across the Munduruku indigenous reserve, more than double the amount recorded the year before.

Last November dozens of tribal leaders from the Amazon met with officials in Brasilia to file claims and report serious threats to their territories.

Alessandra Korap Munduruku, a leader from Para state who attended the meeting, says the legalization of mining would "be the death of our people."

Besides bringing "disease and prostitution to our people, drug addiction to our children, and violent conflict to the Munduruku men," she said gold mining activity is also killing fish through mercury poisoning.

Released across the region's major Tapajos River during the mining process, mercury is seeping into the tributaries like those that snake past the mining town of Creporizao. Local communities rely on these rivers for many of their water needs.

Late last year, in the first study of its kind, Erik Jennings, a neurologist based in the city of Santarem, took blood and hair samples from 112 tribespeople to assess mercury levels.

"It's a slow genocide," Jennings told DW. "The mercury can cause serious cognitive and visual impairment, and deform fetuses."

​Problematic legal trade

Even the legal gold trade in Brazil is largely unregulated, which facilitates illegal business and plays a significant role in the destruction of the Amazon. Prosecutors in Para state say the lack of regulation in the legal trade and the fact that receipts are paper-based carbon copies make it easy for criminals to thrive and illegal gold to enter the legal system.

"The practice of fraud in the sector is quite easy, and the investigation of illegalities becomes an almost insurmountable obstacle," Luis de Camoes Lima Boaventura, public prosecutor in the Amazonian city of Santarem said.

"Until a computerized system is installed, the authorities cannot check, in real time, the legality of the transactions. To make a transaction of illegal gold, all you currently need is a pen and paper."

According to National Mining Agency estimates, around 30 tons of gold worth some 4.5 billion reals ($1.1 billion, €900 million) are illegally traded in the state of Para annually. That is around six times more than the amount legally declared.

When miners like Jose Maria return to Creporizao at the end of what can be days away, they come to one of a dozen gold shops that line the main drag to melt what they have mined into standardized bars. Once that is done, illegally-mined gold, which is responsible for widespread deforestation, pollution and violence in the Amazon, has entered the system and can no longer be traced.

Reposted with permission from Deutsche Welle.

mining deforestation environment indigenous rights pollution brazil amazon rainforest rainforests

==

==

https://theconversation.com/indigenous-people-may-be-the-amazons-last-hope-130941

==

https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/02/10/climate-justice-indigenous-solidarity-wetsuweten-rcmp-raids

no lnx many pix vid

Climate Justice and Indigenous Rights Advocates Rally in Solidarity With Wet'suwet'en People as RCMP Continue Raids

By Guest • Monday, February 10, 2020 - 11:54

On February 8, 2020, a Wet'suwet'en solidarity event stopped a Toronto train at Dufferin Street and Bartlett Avenue in Toronto.

By Julia Conley, Common Dreams. Originally published on Common Dreams under CC BY-SA 3.0 US.

Indigenous rights supporters held solidarity actions across Canada over the weekend as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police continued their raids on Wet'suwet'en land in British Columbia.

The Unist'ot'en Camp reported on its official Facebook page Sunday that at least 21 people had been arrested since Thursday, when, as Common Dreams reported, the RCMP conducted a violent pre-dawn raid to fulfill an injunction on behalf of Coastal GasLink, which aims to build a pipeline in Wet'suwet'en territory in northern British Columbia.

The camp uploaded several videos over the weekend of the resistance to the police, who were reportedly set to meet with Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs Saturday to discuss reconciliation regarding the injunction, which was filed despite a long-standing Canadian Supreme Court decision stating the Wet'suwet'en had not given up their homeland in the province. The RCMP reportedly refused to attend the meeting after arriving late.

According to Ricochet, the RCMP expanded its “exclusion zone” Saturday, taking control of most of the territory of the Gidimt'en, one of the five clans of the Wet'suwet'en.

“The exclusion zone has been created by the RCMP to force Wet'suwet'en land defenders off our land,” the Unist'ot'en Camp said in a statement. “It is a colonial and criminalizing tool to illegally and arbitrarily extend RCMP authority onto our lands. The massive exclusion zone, completely under RCMP authoritarian discretion, falls outside the injunction area. Chiefs and Wet'suwet'en people are illegally being denied access to their own territories.”

The neighboring Gitxsan Nation led a solidarity action on Saturday, blocking a rail line in protest of the RCMP's actions, the injunction, and the Canadian government's failure to intervene on behalf of the Wet'suwet'en people's rights.

“The Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs and their house members have fought the forcible removal from their territories as they seek to protect their sovereign rights and protect the land, water and air,” Gitxsan hereditary chief Norman Stephens told Richochet. “If their rights are being trampled, our rights are being trampled.”

Other rail blockades were reported across the country, and solidarity actions took the form of rallies and protests at government buildings in Canada as well as in the United States.

Climate action leader Greta Thunberg also expressed support for the Wet'suwet'en on social media.

“Indigenous rights equals climate justice,” Thunberg tweeted.

---

---

https://www.ecowatch.com/nature-destruction-violence-women-2644975232.html

no lnx

Where Humans Destroy Nature, Women Also Suffer More Violence

Common Dreams Jan 30  CLIMATE

The Diwalwal Gold Mine in Mindanao, Philippines on Feb. 1, 1988. Destruction of the environment by extractive industries is linked to significant threats to women's safety, a new study has found. Patrick AVENTURIER / Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images

By Julia Conley

Climate action leaders have warned for years that marginalized frontline communities in poor countries are already facing the most destructive impacts of the climate crisis, and a new study confirms those fears, detailing how women in those regions are at greater risk for violence and abuse as the environment is degraded.

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) released its study on Wednesday after conducting more than 80 case studies and speaking to more than 300 sources over the course of a two-year project.

:{:{}:

}:

"This study adds to the urgency of halting environmental degradation alongside action to stop gender-based violence in all its forms, and demonstrates that the two issues often need to be addressed together," said Dr. Grethel Aguilar, IUCN's acting director-general.

The study is the largest and most comprehensive to ever examine the gender-specific effects of the climate crisis, IUCN says.

Of the more than 300 responses IUCN compiled from international organizations working in developing countries, six in 10 respondents said they had observed gender-based violence directed at female environmental defenders, climate refugees and migrants, and an increase in such violence in areas where the climate crisis and global heating has put a strain on resources.

Abuses the organizations uncovered include child marriage and forced marriage, forced prostitution, sexual violence and assault, and human trafficking.

"As environmental degradation and stress on ecosystems increases, that in turn creates scarcity and stress for people, and the evidence shows that, where environmental pressures increase, gender-based violence increases," said Cate Owren, lead author of the report.

The publication was praised by women's rights advocates on social media.

"The fight against the climate crisis will have far more of an impact if represented by those most affected," tweeted the British Women's Equality Party.

The study found that both human trafficking and forced child marriage are becoming increasingly common in places where chronic drought, flooding and heatwaves have caused crop yields to suffer and brought on a scarcity of resources.

"When families struggle to meet basic needs, marrying off young daughters is seen as a way to lighten financial burdens," the report reads. "There is growing concern around reports of an increase in child marriage associated with conflict and natural disasters and environmental shocks."

According to The Guardian, about 12 million more young girls are believed to have been married off after extreme weather events increased, while human trafficking increases by 20 to 30% after weather disasters.

"In most parts of the world, women are already disadvantaged and lack land rights and legal rights, so are vulnerable to exploitation," wrote Fiona Harvey in The Guardian. "When the additional stresses caused by the climate crises bite, they are the first to be targeted."

The destruction of the environment by extractive industries has significant effects on women's safety, as an influx of male miners, construction workers and security guards is linked to an increase in gender-based and sexual violence, often with Indigenous women as targets.

"Mining areas, many of which are in Indigenous territories, have seen heavy military presence, resulting in various human rights violations, such as torture, psychological disturbance, destruction and divestment of properties (livestock and crops), as well as violence against women, including rape," reads the study in a section about the Mindanao region of the Philippines.

Sexual violence is also used to suppress women who attempt to defend their homes and environments from extractive industries, and to intimidate others who may come forward in protest.

"Environmental crimes degrade ecosystems, and also often bring new, worsening patterns of violence against women, minorities, and marginalized communities," said Jenny Springer, director of IUCN's global program on governance and rights. "Many Indigenous women in particular face gender-based and other violence as their communities act to defend their territories, resources and rights from such illegal activities."

Since women in many parts of the world are responsible for gathering water and provisions for their families, they are often at an increasingly greater risk for gender-based violence as they have to travel farther from home, as resources shrink.

IUCN surveyed the Danish Refugee Council, which conducted a study at Doro Refugee Camp in South Sudan regarding dangers faced by residents there. Women in the study identified collecting firewood outside the camp as the biggest risk they regularly took.

"Food insecurity and the lack of firewood forces women and girls to go outside of the camps to collect firewood despite the risks of suffering violence by militias, private forest owners, rangers or other unknown perpetrators," the report reads. "Many ... survey respondents also raised these concerns as one of the major threats in refugee camps as related to emergency responses and protracted crises."

IUCN's study was released a day after CARE International published its report "Suffering in Silence," showing how the climate crisis has exacerbated conflicts and economic and political instability across Africa, making the continent home to nine of the 10 most-overlooked humanitarian crises in the world.

"Environmental degradation now affects our lives in ways that are becoming impossible to ignore, from food to jobs to security," said Aguilar. "This study shows that the damage humanity is inflicting on nature is also fueling violence against women around the world — a link that has so far been largely overlooked."

Reposted with permission from Common Dreams.

How the Women of Standing Rock Are Building Sovereign Economies ›

At COP25, Women's Rights and Climate Activists Advocate a ... ›

The March for Equity, the Environment, and Women Are One, Says ... ›

Dozens of Scientists Are Pushing the UN to Make Environmental ... ›

Climate Destruction as Gender Violence ›

==

==

https://theintercept.com/2019/07/30/criminalization-environmental-activists-global-witness-report/

vICTORIA TAULI-CORPUZ, the United Nations special rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous peoples, was disturbed to learn that her name had been included on a list of “terrorists” allegedly affiliated with the Communist Party of the Philippines and its armed wing, the New People’s Army.

Authoritarian President Rodrigo Duterte had imposed martial law on the island of Mindanao in May 2017, when ISIS sympathizers attacked the predominantly Muslim city Marawi. By October, ISIS had been ousted, but martial law remained in place. Tauli-Corpuz, who is Filipina and a member of the Indigenous Kankanaey Igorot people, saw the emergency suspension of rights transform into a tool to go after the Indigenous Lumad people, who have stood in the way of Duterte’s industrial priorities in the region, including agribusiness, coal extraction, and gold mining. In the two months after the ISIS conflict ended, the military’s harassment and violence reportedly displaced 2,500 Lumad people.

Tauli-Corpuz and Cecilia Jimenez-Damary, the U.N. special rapporteur on the human rights of internally displaced people, released a statement that December demanding that the Philippine government halt all human rights abuses against the Lumad, including killings and violent attacks carried out by members of the armed forces, and bring those responsible to account.

A few months later, the Duterte administration placed Tauli-Corpuz on a list of 600 so-called terrorists as part of a petition filed in court seeking to declare the Communist Party and its armed wing as terrorist organizations. Human Rights Watch declared the petition a “virtual hit list,” citing the “long history in the Philippines of the state security forces and pro-government militias assassinating people labeled as NPA members or supporters.”

Fearing for her safety, Tauli-Corpuz left the country. As she saw it, Duterte was once again using anti-terrorism rhetoric to attack the Lumad people and obtain access to their territory — this time by undermining a key international protector.

Thirty land and environmental defenders were murdered in the Philippines last year — more than in any other country, according to a new report released by the nonprofit Global Witness. But murder only represents the extreme end of the spectrum of abuses faced by those fighting to protect their homes, forests, and rivers against the encroachment of destructive industries. For land defenders across the globe, a simple smear campaign — such as labeling an advocate a terrorist — can end with someone discredited, in prison, or dead. Any of the three results has the same effect: to eliminate a barrier to agribusiness, dam projects, or extractive industries.

For the first time since Global Witness began releasing its annual reports in 2012, the organization has included a section on criminalization, in which governments and private interests create, change, or reinterpret laws to transform once-legal activities into criminal acts.

“Criminalization is done to put fear into the hearts of people so they will stop protesting. For Indigenous people, this is a very serious action because when they criminalize a leader, then the whole community or organization gets paralyzed,” Tauli-Corpuz told The Intercept. “That’s what it’s intended to do — it’s intended to repress freedom of association and the freedom of people to express their own views.”

Many Deaths Go Unrecorded

Image: Courtesy Global Witness

In 2018, Global Witness documented 164 killings worldwide of people fighting to protect their land and ecosystems from destructive industries. Nearly a quarter of those murdered were Indigenous. And more than a quarter of the killings were associated with opposition to mining and extractives industries.

Colombia, India, and Brazil were also among the deadliest places for land defenders last year. And Guatemala, the origin country of a quarter of the migrants apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border in 2018, had the highest rate per capita of land defenders murdered. According to Global Witness’s count, the number of murders there rose from three in 2017 to 16 in 2018. As The Intercept previously reported, the victims were fighting to protect their territories from a range of industries, from agribusiness to hydropower to mining. The uptick in violence has been linked to a sharp turn away from democracy in the country and President Jimmy Morales’s abandonment of internationally lauded efforts to combat impunity and corruption.

In its report, Global Witness makes clear that its tally of land defenders murdered is almost certainly an undercount. Researchers rely heavily on in-country human rights organizations and journalists to record such attacks. In countries where press freedom is stymied or other conflicts complicate the ability of such groups to track violent incidents, land and environmental defender deaths go unrecorded.

Tauli-Corpuz’s experience underlines the risks undertaken by those who simply document violence and intimidation. In Guatemala, too, the leaders of the nonprofit Unit for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, who meticulously track murders, arrests, and smear campaigns against people fighting destructive industries, have themselves faced some of the same threats as those for whom they advocate.

Alice Harrison, a spokesperson for Global Witness, said that a focus strictly on murders obscures the wider range of violence and persecution land defenders face. For example, last year was the first since 2012 that Brazil did not have the highest number of deaths on the organization’s tally. But advocates for land defenders in Brazil, Harrison said, “have seen an uptick in really violent physical attacks, a lot of them just shy of murder.” It’s expected to get worse, she said. President Jair Bolsonaro has pledged to open up the Amazon and Indigenous territories to industry; budget and staffing have been slashed at Brazil’s environmental monitoring agency as well as the agency responsible for monitoring the rights of Indigenous people in areas with violent land conflicts.

And across Latin America, killings often occur only after individuals have been framed as criminals through the legal system. The Honduran environmental activist Berta Cáceres, for example, faced years of legal pressure before being assassinated by hit men hired by the dam she opposed.

“When you start looking at defenders through criminalization, you start to draw dots between global south and global north,” said Harrison. In countries like the U.S. and the U.K., murders of land defenders are rare, but arrests, lawsuits, and disproportionate penalties for crimes like trespassing are common. In countries across the globe, new laws have been passed that criminalize dissent under the guise of national security.

In 2018, according to Global Witness, Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Nicaragua, and Vietnam passed laws that could be used to stifle political dissent or prosecute environmental activists.

The U.S. has also seen a spate of anti-protest laws passed. Since Donald Trump was elected, at least 17 states have introduced bills increasing penalties for anyone who interferes with “critical infrastructure,” including controversial oil and gas pipelines. The laws have passed in eight states. This past June, the Trump administration proposed federal legislation that would prescribe up to 20 years in prison for disrupting or conspiring to disrupt an oil or gas pipeline.

With supporters of unfettered development like Duterte, Trump, and Bolsonaro in positions of power across the globe, the risks for environmental defenders are only expected to increase, even as the accelerating climate and biodiversity crises enhance the urgency of their work.

Harrison would like to see a stronger regulatory environment for land defenders. As an example, she points to the Lacey Act in the U.S., which requires wood importers to assure that their suppliers are not sourcing logs using illegal practices. Nothing equivalent exists in the U.S. for industries like agribusiness.

Tauli-Corpuz says organizing against laws that criminalize protest is essential. In the Philippines, a court ordered that her name be removed from the terrorist list following sustained pressure from local and international organizations. Eventually, the list was thrown out entirely.

But martial law is still in place in Mindanao, and the label of “terrorist” or “Communist” is still used across the Philippines as an excuse to criminalize and attack the Lumad and other Indigenous land defenders.

“We cannot just take these kinds of actions quietly. We have to protest and get the support of the international community and other people who are concerned about this kind of fascism,” Tauli-Corpuz said. “It’s really important to wage a campaign any time such criminalization happens — that is one way of protecting people.”

---

2016 report (long)

https://www.article19.org/data/files/Deadly_shade_of_green_A5_72pp_report_hires_PAGES_PDF.pdf

Introduction Latin America is, by far, the most dangerous region of the world for environmental human rights defenders (EHRDs). The lack of effective guarantees of human rights protection in Latin American States has created this dire situation. The absence of effective safeguards is worsened by the weak rule of law in most Latin American countries, by worrying trends of impunity that corrode the fabric of society, and by the fact that environmental movements usually concern major development projects involving powerful governmental and corporate interests. This report illustrates the severe human rights violations in Latin America against environmental defenders, who engage in lawful activities that bring to light environmental damage and human rights abuses. Though not exhaustive, this report provides an overview of recent incidents throughout Latin America. The incidents cited cover a range of human rights violations, including violent attacks, torture, disappearances, and killings. Indigenous peoples are the most vulnerable because many development projects are located on their land.

When States disregard appropriate consultation procedures, the result is often conflict, forceful displacement, environmental degradation, and human rights violations. Killings of environmental activists and journalists are increasing and members of indigenous communities comprise over 40% of the deaths.1 Of the recorded killings globally in 2014, 75% were in Latin America; the most dangerous country for environmental defenders is currently Honduras. The persistent human rights violations targeting EHRDs are caused by resource exploitation, and increasing numbers of large-scale and mega-development projects in Latin American countries. For example, Honduras currently has 837 mining concessions, of which 411 have already been granted covering an area of 6,630 km2.

In Colombia, coal extraction between 2000 and 2010 nearly doubled and the number of mining concessions has similarly maintained an accelerated pace. This has resulted in a substantial increase in attacks across the region. According to the Guatemalan Human Rights Commission/USA, in the decade between 2000 and 2010, 118 environmental human rights defenders in Guatemala were murdered and over 2,000 assaults occurred against groups of protesters. The November 2014 Global Witness report, Peru’s Deadly Environment, revealed that the majority of environmental killings in Peru were being perpetrated by the State and private security forces, and most were related to extractive sector projects.3

...

IV. Indigenous Peoples in Latin America

Following the demise of colonial power structures, States acquired sovereignty over natural resources in their territory,31 often granting concessions for the exploration and extraction of natural resources. In Latin America, these economic operations often took place in lands and territories already occupied by indigenous peoples. More often than not, the extraction of natural resources has been conducted without regard to environmental impacts, or the rights of indigenous inhabitants of the territories where the resources were found.32 Further, many face a lack of legal recognition of their lands. The near-absence (in contexts such as Brazil) of legal processes which would demarcate indigenous lands is a problem which arguably leads to further human rights violations related to indigenous rights. In this context, human rights law has developed certain guarantees to ensure protection of the rights of indigenous peoples affected by exploration of natural resources in their territories, and consequently to ensure their survival as peoples.

A. Legal Standards in the Inter-American Human Rights System Over the past two decades, human rights law has clarified the duties incumbent upon States with respect to indigenous peoples’ rights.33 These protections can be found in specialised treaties and instruments dealing with the rights of indigenous peoples, as well as in the decisions of the supervisory mechanisms established to oversee the basic documents of the Inter-American Human Rights System. Currently, Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization (ILO) is the only international treaty dealing specifically with indigenous and tribal peoples. Convention 169 was concluded in 1989, replacing ILO Convention 107, which had focused on the goal of integration and assimilation rather than on the protection of indigenous peoples’ lands, culture, and distinctiveness. Among the Latin American and Caribbean countries, the following states are party to Convention 169: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, and Venezuela.34

==

https://time.com/5638438/global-witness-environmental-activists-murdered/

Across the world calls to protect the planet are growing louder, yet standing up against the deleterious effects of mining, logging and agribusiness continues to be fatal, U.K.-based watchdog Global Witness said in a new report Tuesday.

By sheer number, the Philippines was found to be the deadliest country for environmental defenders in 2018, with 30 environmentalists murdered. But around the globe, more than three defenders were killed each week of last year, the group’s latest report Enemies of the State? says.

“These are ordinary people trying to protect their homes and livelihoods, and standing up for the health of our planet,” Global Witness said in a release.

While the total last year, 164 deaths, represents a drop from the 2017 peak of 201, the group notes that non-lethal means of quashing dissent are also rampant.

“Countless more people were threatened, arrested or thrown in jail for daring to oppose the governments or companies seeking to profit from their land,” it said. It is common for businesses and authorities to “use courts and legal systems to silence those who threaten their interests,” the report notes.

The report calls renewed international attention to the bloodshed that has occurred under President Rodrigo Duterte’s watch. Soon after coming to power in 2016, Duterte declared a deadly crackdown on drugs and his administration has been mired in accusations of human rights abuses and violence. In 2017, Global Witness said 48 environmental defenders were killed on the archipelagic nation, the highest ever recorded in an Asian country. In both 2017 and 2018, a large number of those deaths were linked to agribusiness.

[pix PI protest]

globally, mining was responsible for the largest number of killings—43 deaths—while conflicts over water projects surged at 17 deaths.

Across sectors, demand for consumer products—from food to jewelry to mobile phones—drives the persecution, the report says.

Global Witness warned that despite a dip in total deaths, the overall climate for environmental activists does not look to be improving. “Signs are worrying that the situation for environmental and land defenders will worsen,” it says. For example, Brazil’s strongman leader Jair Bolsonaro has pledged to open indigenous reserves for commercial development and in the U.S., President Donald Trump has sought to open more land to oil and gas companies.

And in the U.K., anti-fracking activists were targeted with terrorism related charges carrying potential life sentences, charges far more serious than are usually brought against protesters.

"This is a phenomenon seen around the world: land and environmental defenders are declared terrorists, locked up or hit with paralyzing legal attacks, for defending their rights, or simply for living on lands that are coveted by others,” Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, U.N. Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, said in a statement.

Companies and governments must act to stop land and resource conflicts, the report says.

“As we hurtle towards climate breakdown, it has never been more important to stand with those who are trying to defend their land and our planet against the reckless destruction being meted out by the rich and powerful,” Alice Harrison, a senior campaigner at Global Witness, said.

==

guk no lnx

Environmental activist murders double in 15 years

Death toll almost half that of US troops killed in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001, data shows

Jonathan Watts

@jonathanwatts

Mon 5 Aug 2019 11.00 EDTLast modified on Mon 5 Aug 2019

Michelle Campos, whose father, grandfather and teacher were killed for opposing mining in Mindanao, the Philippines]

Michelle Campos, whose father, grandfather and teacher were killed in September 2015 for opposing mining in Mindanao, the Philippines. Photograph: Tulda Productions

Killings of environmental defenders have doubled over the past 15 years to reach levels usually associated with war zones, according to a study that reveals how murders of activists are concentrated in countries with the worst corruption and weakest laws.

At least 1,558 people in 50 states were killed between 2002 and 2017 while trying to protect their land, water or local wildlife, says the analysis, which calculates the death toll is almost half that of US troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001.

The rate of deaths in this period increased from two to four a week, which the authors attributed to rising environmental stress as the global demand for resources pushes mining, farming and other extractive industries into ever more remote regions.

The study, published in Nature Sustainability, attempts to identify the most important drivers for the murders of environmental and land defenders.

Philippines is deadliest country for defenders of environment

Read more]

The strongest correlation was with rule of law. Almost all of the killings occurred in the countries that scored lowest for corruption, fundamental rights, government powers, transparency and legal oversight. Most of these were in tropical and subtropical countries, particularly in Central and South America.

Only 10% of defender murders results in a conviction, compared with an average of 43% for all global homicides, says the paper.

“The toll is unbelievable,” said Nathalie Butt, the lead author and a researcher at the University of Queensland. “Conflict over resources is the issue, but it is corruption that is the problem.”

She said companies and consumers in wealthy countries in the northern hemisphere should take more responsibility for products sourced in the south. “We need to make ethics and transparency an important part of the supply chain. We need to ensure that there is no blood on our hands.”

The researchers say the tally is likely to be a conservative estimate because many deaths were unreported, particularly in authoritarian states where the media and NGOs are restricted.

The data is provided by the watchdog NGO Global Witness, which reported a fall in killings – closer to three a week – in its latest annual survey. But the authors say the long-term trend remains higher, particularly with regard to killings of indigenous people, who make up a disproportionately large proportion of the victims.

“We think attacks on indigenous people are likely to increase, particularly in Brazil where [president] Jair Bolsonarohas taken power with a promise that indigenous people must adapt to the majority or disappear. He is putting exploitation of the environment first,” warned the report’s co-author, Frances Lambrick, a co-founder and director of the Not1More NGO.

Such concerns increased last month with the killing of the indigenous leader Emyra Waiãpi in an area rife with illegal gold mining.

On Monday the UN high commissioner for human rights, Michelle Bachelet, called on the Brazilian authorities to investigate the incident and bolster efforts to halt illegal land seizures by miners, loggers and farmers.

“The Brazilian government’s proposed policy to open up more areas of the Amazon to mining could lead to incidents of violence, intimidation and killings of the type inflicted on the Waiãpi people last week,” Bachelete said.

“I call on the government of Brazil to reconsider its policies towards indigenous peoples and their lands, so Emrya Waiãpi’s murder does not herald a new wave of violence aimed at scaring people off their ancestral lands and enabling further destruction of the rainforest, with all the scientifically established ramifications that has for the exacerbation of climate change.”

---

ref

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0349-4

The supply chain of violence

Nature Sustainabilityvolume 2, pages742–747(2019)Cite this article

==

2017 guk

Environmental defenders being killed in record numbers globally, new research reveals

The defenders

Environmental activism

Exclusive Activists, wildlife rangers and indigenous leaders are dying violently at the rate of about four a week, with a growing sense around the world that ‘anyone can kill environmental defenders without repercussions’

• See the names of all defenders who have died so far this year here. Read more from the project here.

• Read this article in Spanish

Jonathan Watts and John Vidal

Thu 13 Jul 2017 07.00 EDT Last modified on Wed 10 Apr 2019

Activists call for justice in the case of the murder of Honduran indigenous environmentalist Berta Cáceres, who died last year.

Activists call for justice in the case of Honduran indigenous environmentalist Berta Cáceres, who was killed last year. Photograph: Marvin Recinos/AFP/Getty Images

Last year was the most perilous ever for people defending their community’s land, natural resources or wildlife, with new research showing that environmental defenders are being killed at the rate of almost four a week across the world.

Two hundred environmental activists, wildlife rangers and indigenous leaders trying to protect their land were killed in 2016, according to the watchdog group Global Witness – more than double the number killed five years ago.

And the frequency of killings is only increasing as 2017 ticks by, according to data provided exclusively to the Guardian, with 98 killings identified in the first five months of this year.

The defenders: recording the deaths of environmental defenders around the world

Read more

John Knox, UN special rapporteur on human rights and the environment, said: “Human rights are being jettisoned as a culture of impunity is developing.

“There is now an overwhelming incentive to wreck the environment for economic reasons. The people most at risk are people who are already marginalised and excluded from politics and judicial redress, and are dependent on the environment. The countries do not respect the rule of law. Everywhere in the world, defenders are facing threats.

“There is an epidemic now, a culture of impunity, a sense that anyone can kill environmental defenders without repercussions, eliminate anyone who stands in the way. It [comes from] mining, agribusiness, illegal logging and dam building.”

Mexican indigenous leader and opponent of illegal logging Isidro Baldenegro López was killed in January.

In May, farmers in Brazil’s Maranhão state attacked an indigenous settlement, hacking with machetes at the hands of their victims in another land conflict that left more than a dozen in hospital. There have also been killings of environmental defenders and attacks on others in Colombia, Honduras, Mexico and many other countries since the new year.

Isidro Baldenegro López (foreground) at home in the village of Coloradas de la Virgen, Chihuahua, where he opposed illegal logging operations.

Isidro Baldenegro López (foreground) at home in the village of Coloradas de la Virgen, Chihuahua, Mexico, where he opposed illegal logging operations. Photograph: Courtesy of the Goldman Environmental Prize

Most environmental defenders die in remote forests or villages affected by mining, dams, illegal logging, and agribusiness. Many of the killers are reportedly hired by corporations or state forces. Very few are ever arrested or identified.

This is why the Guardian is today launching a project, in collaboration with Global Witness, to attempt to record the deaths of everyone who dies over the next year in defence of the environment. We will be reporting from the world’s last wildernesses, as well as from the most industrialised countries on the planet, on the work of environmental defenders and the assaults upon them.

Billy Kyte, campaign leader on this issue at Global Witness, said that the killings that make the list are just the tip of an epidemic of violence.

“Communities that take a stand against environmental destruction are now in the firing line of companies’ private security guards, state forces and contract killers,” he said. “For every land and environmental defender who is killed, many more are threatened with death, eviction and destruction of their resources.

“These are not isolated incidents. They are symptomatic of a systematic assault on remote and indigenous communities by state and corporate actors.”

Around the world, the number and intensity of environmental conflicts is growing, say researchers. An EU-funded atlas of environmental conflict academics at 23 universities has identified more than 2,000, ranging over water, land, pollution, evictions and mining.

Greenpeace activists block a 135km illegal road, in the National Forest of Altamira, Brazil. The road cuts directly through the National Forest and is used for illegal logging operations and deforestation inside the protected area.

Greenpeace activists block a 135km illegal road, in the Altamira national forest, Brazil. The road cuts directly through the forest and is used for illegal logging operations and deforestation inside the protected area. Photograph: Daniel Beltrá/Greenpeace]

“These are just the reported ones. There could be three times as many. There is much more violence now,” said Cass business school researcher Bobby Banerjee who has studied resistance to global development projects for 15 years.

“The conflicts are happening worldwide now because of globalisation. Capitalism is violent and global corporations are looking to poor countries for access to land and resources. Poor countries are more corruptible and have weaker law enforcement. Companies and governments now work together to kill people,” he said.

The 2016 Global Witness data shows that the industries at the heart of conflict were mining and oil, which were linked to 33 killings. Logging was in second place worldwide – with 23 deaths, up from 15 the previous year – followed by agriculture. That ranking could change. In the first five months of this year, the most striking trend is that for the first time agribusiness is rivalling mining as the deadliest sector, with 22 deaths worldwide – just one short of the total for the whole of last year.

The situation in Colombia in particular has gone from bad to worse in 2017. Brazil and the Philippines are also on course to hit new highs and indigenous groups continue to suffer disproportionately.

In terms of country rankings, in 2016 Brazil was once again the deadliest country in absolute terms with 49 killings, many of them in the Amazon rainforest. Timber production was implicated in 16 of those cases as the country’s deforestation rate surged by 29%.

The Amazon rain forest bordered by deforested land.

The Amazon rain forest bordered by deforested land. Photograph: Paulo Whitaker/Reuters

More broadly, Latin America remained the most dangerous region for anyone wanting to protect rivers, forests, mountains and oceans, accounting for 60 of the global total of killings of environmental defenders even though it is home to less than a tenth of the world’s population.

:{:{}:

}:

With major economic interests at stake, state security forces were behind at least 43 killings globally – 33 by the police and 10 by the military – while private actors such as security guards and hitmen were responsible for 52 deaths.

The human cost of all this is terrible, said Laura Cáceres, one of the daughters of Honduran indigenous Lenca leader Berta Cáceres, who was murdered in 2016 after resisting the Agua Zarca hydroelectric dam on the Gualcarque river.

Now in exile following death threats, Cáceres was recently in Oxford, in the UK, at a conference organised by Not1More (N1M), a group founded in 2016 in response to the violence facing environmental defenders.

“Berta Cáceres was a hindrance to the system,” she said. “[Honduras] is so battered; 30% of the land has been granted to transnational corporations. Companies are taking over ancestral territories. Forests are being privatised. My mother was passionate about her land, her roots, and she was horrified by the sinister and violent forms with which imperialism acts.”

People protest against violence and insecurity and demand justice over the murder of Honduran high-profile indigenous environmental activist, Berta Caceres.

People protest against violence and insecurity and demand justice over the murder of Honduran indigenous environmental activist, Berta Cáceres. Photograph: Orlando Sierra/AFP/Getty Images]

Shortly after the conference the Guardian reported that another of Cáceres’ children, Berta Zúñiga had survived an armed attack soon after being named leader of the indigenous rights organisation formerly led by her mother.

Defenders frequently say they get no help from government, indeed corrupt governments are often implicated in the violence.

One west African anti-illegal logging activist, who asked not to named for fear of reprisals, said: “I am subject to pressure and threats. Millions [of dollars] are coming out of the forests and yet people have nothing – no schools, no health centres. Money is not going to the state but to private people. We are working without resources.

“My family has been threatened with death. We have had anonymous calls. I keep working with the help of my colleagues. We gave information to the UN, and asked for help. We got nowhere. We could be killed any moment.”

Wildlife defenders are also being increasingly targeted. More than 800 park rangers have been killed by commercial poachers and armed militia groups in the past 10 years, according to US group Global Conservation.

“Rangers face high levels of violence and are being [killed] at an alarming pace,” says Sean Willmore, president of the International Ranger Federation. “Almost 60% of those killed in 2016 were from Asia, with the majority from India.”

US writer Olesia Plokhii, who witnessed the murder of Cambodian illegal logging activist Chut Wutty in 2012, wrote in the Ecologist last month: “Wutty ran his own environmental organisation, had Western financial backers, the support of high-ranking Cambodian military officials, hundreds of local supporters who watched out for him and tools – multiple cell phones, a GPS tracker. He was still murdered.

Cambodian environmental activist Chut Wutty who was killed.

Cambodian environmental activist Chut Wutty who was killed in 2012. Photograph: CCHR/EPA]

“Much less organised and prepared defenders, people who might be forced unexpectedly into protecting their lands due to evictions or enormous infrastructure developments, are up against the same violence.”

The 2016 Global Witness report also notes that environmental protest is being clamped down on across the board – even in the richest countries – citing the case of the Standing Rockcampaign against the construction of an oil pipeline under Lake Oahe in the US, and noting North Dakota legislators only narrowly defeated a bill that would have allowed drivers to run over and kill protesters without being jailed.

N1M co-founder Fran Lambrick told the Guardian: “Frontline environmental defenders are critical in fighting climate change, protecting our natural resources and upholding human rights and cultural identity. Yet they face violent reprisals, threats and criminalisation.”

“We are defenders of life,” said Laura Cáceres. “We are willing to do anything to allow life to continue. We don’t want to lose our lives and lose our mamas and families. But we assume that risk. If they can murder someone with high recognition like my mother Berta, then they can murder anyone.”

==

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/environmental-activists-have-higher-death-rates-than-some-soldiers/

Claudelice Silva dos Santos was shocked but not surprised when her brother and his wife were murdered. For years José Cláudio Ribeiro da Silva and Maria do Espírito Santo da Silva had been on the receiving end of death threats and attacks for their work combatting illegal logging and deforestation in Brazil’s Amazon rain forest, where they lived. “We knew that there was a high risk that it could happen,” Santos says. “But we always believed that it never would happen, that the resistance, the visibility of our fight—all the things we did to prevent the killing—would work out.”

Santos’s relatives were among more than 1,500 people across 50 countries to be murdered in retaliation for protecting land, water, forests and other natural resources between 2002 and 2017. The annual death toll doubled over that 15-year period, and the killings tended to take place in countries with high levels of corruption and weak rule of law, according to study findings published Monday in Nature Sustainability. As the authors report, in that period, murders of environmental defenders outweighed the combined deaths of soldiers from the U.K. and Australia deployed to overseas war zones.

“These cases include everything from award-winning people who were successful in garnering international support to others who were very much operating at the local level,” says Mary Menton, a research fellow in environmental justice at the University of Sussex in England and a co-author of the new study. “Oftentimes it’s individuals killed, but there have also been cases of massacres.”

The study relied on a database of murders of environmental defenders compiled by Global Witness, a nonprofit organization dedicated to exposing corruption and environmental abuse. Global Witness verifies each entry in its database through three separate sources, including media stories, local nongovernmental organization reports and interviews with residents of the affected areas.

The researchers performed a geospatial analysis of 683 deaths that occurred between 2014 and 2017 (in 2018 another 164 environmental defenders lost their lives, according to a report Global Witness published last week). They overlaid the Global Witness data with data pertaining to agricultural harvests, forest cover, mining and dams to see whether the prevalence of these activities correlated with increased murders per capita.

Central and South America are the deadliest regions in which to be an environmental defender, they found. People fighting against mining and big agriculture projects accounted for the greatest share of deaths, and countries with larger agriculture sectors and more hydroelectric dams tended to have higher numbers of murders per capita. Indigenous groups suffered the worst losses, and nonindigenous lawyers, journalists, activists, park rangers and others were killed as well.

The researchers compared murder rates with countries’ rule of law—a ranking calculated by the World Justice Project, a nongovernmental organization, that takes into account corruption, enforcement, justice, fundamental rights, security and order. They also separately compared murder rates to corruption levels, as reported by the nongovernmental organization Transparency International.

Not surprisingly, they found significant correlations between high levels of corruption, weak rule of law and the murder of environmental defenders. “This is an intuitive finding, but sometimes we think we know things, but we don’t have the evidence to back it up,” Menton says. “Now we have an evidence base to say, ‘We see this correlation not just in one country but globally.’”

Only about 10 percent of environmental defenders’ murderers are ever brought to justice, Global Witness says. Criminals may benefit from the involvement of police, government or judiciary personnel in carrying out a crime or ensuring it never gets investigated or prosecuted, Menton says. Alternatively, a country may lack the resources necessary to investigate or prosecute it. Either way, Menton adds, the situation creates an atmosphere of impunity in which “the killers essentially know they’re not going to get caught.”

Such was the case for Santos’s relatives, whose murders were never fully answered for. What she calls the “consortium of death” that claimed her brother and sister-in-law’s lives has three tiers, Santos believes: the people hired to carry out the killings, the people who organized them and the people who financed them. Those allegedly in the latter two tiers—the businesspeople, politicians and large landowners—inevitably get away with their crimes, she says, because they enjoy high-level protection through their connections with authorities (or because they are the authorities). “When justice is not carried out fully, it changes your life,” Santos says. “The only thing we can do is not panic, so we don’t stop our fight.”

According to Philippe Le Billon, a geographer at the University of British Columbia, who was not involved in the new research, the study is “a welcomed contribution to the literature and helps to draw further attention to violence against environmental defenders and the responsibilities of resource-based corporations."

Menton agrees that companies should be pressured to uphold human rights and clean up their supply chains. “If we can show that companies are linked to killings, then they need to be held accountable for their role in that,” she says. “And not just the small, subsidiary companies but the bigger companies upstream.”

Le Billon emphasizes, however, that the data set the authors used is not exhaustive and likely contains “blind spots”—especially with regard to African countries, where Global Witness says murders are likely underreported. Menton agrees that the data do not include every relevant murder. Ones that occur in rural communities may escape notice, and some in authoritarian countries may never be publicly reported. “We’re really only starting to understand the depth of what’s going on,” she says.

Menton and one of her colleagues are now working on a project that focuses on people currently under threat and those left behind after environmentally motivated murders. They aim to better understand the drivers of violence, as well as what factors influence whether communities continue to fight in the face of intimidation, threat and, if applicable, murder. Ultimately, they hope to shed light on how to prevent killings before they happen. Menton also plans to launch an online platform for environmental defenders to safely—and, if necessary, anonymously—share their stories and amplify their voices.

“We want to say to the world, ‘You need to pay attention to this,’” Santos says. “It’s unacceptable for people to be assassinated for defending human rights and for defending a public good, the environment."

---

ref

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sacred-groves-an-ancient-tradition-of-nature-conservation/

---

Environmental activist murders double in 15 years ...

https://yyy.theguardian.com › environment › aug › environmental-activis...

:{:{}:

1.

}:

Aug 5, 2019 - Death toll almost half that of US troops killed in Afghanistan and Iraq since ... “We think attacks on indigenous people are likely to increase, ...

Missing: green ‎| ‎Must include: ‎green

Environmental defenders being killed in record numbers ...

https://yyy.theguardian.com › environment › jul › environmental-defender...

Jul 13, 2017 - Exclusive Activists, wildlife rangers and indigenous leaders are ... of the murder of Honduran indigenous environmentalist Berta Cáceres ... There have also been killings of environmental defenders and attacks on others in ...

Series: Endangered Environmentalists - Mongabay

https://news.mongabay.com › series › endangered-environmentalists

:{:{}:

2.

}:

Green groups under threat from governments and corporate actors: As climate change, pollution, and ... Philippine officials not spared as attacks on environmental defenders persist ... Suspicions of murder in death of Indonesian environmental activist ... 7 convicted of killing Honduran indigenous activist Berta Cáceres.

Number of murdered environmental activists rose once again ...

https://news.mongabay.com › 2018/07 › number-of-murdered-environme...

1.

Jul 25, 2018 - Environmental science and conservation news. ... While no one was killed in that particular attack, indigenous activists represent a ...

Missing: green ‎| ‎Must include: ‎green

164 Environmental Activists Were Killed Last Year: Watchdog ...

https://time.com › World › Environment

1.

Jul 30, 2019 - Environmental activists take part in a protest calling on the Group of 20 nations to end funding ... defenders in 2018, with 30 environmentalists murdered. .... pledged to open indigenous reserves for commercial development and in the ... are declared terrorists, locked up or hit with paralyzing legal attacks, ...

Honduras: the deadliest country in the world for environmental ...

https://www.globalwitness.org › campaigns › environmental-activists › hon...

1.

Countless others have been threatened, attacked or imprisoned. ... Following a two-year investigation into who's behind these murders we can reveal how ... Three indigenous activists who opposed the project have been killed – their bodies ... the consent of indigenous communities before projects are given the green light.

Deadliest year on record for land and environmental ...

https://www.globalwitness.org › press-releases › deadliest-year-record-land...

1.

Jul 24, 2018 - Brutal attacks on those defending their land from destructive ... environmental defenders were killed last year – indigenous leaders, ... “Local activists are being murdered as governments and businesses value quick profit over human life. ... We can never be serious about building a greener, cleaner and ...

Disturbing Report Shows How Many Environmental Activists ...

https://www.indigenouspeoples-sdg.org › english › all-global-news › 1127...

1.

Disturbing Report Shows How Many Environmental Activists Are Killed Each Week ... industries, and defend the rights of indigenous people to their native lands. In addition to gathering data on murders, attacks on and intimidation of what it .... dramatically less green and more threatening to environmental activists than in ...

Environmental Activists Have Higher Death Rates Than Some ...

https://www.scientificamerican.com › article › environmental-activists-have...

1.

Aug 5, 2019 - Arara indigenous chief Tatji Arara (left) patrols near a tree that was illegally cut ... da Silva had been on the receiving end of death threats and attacks for their work ... As the authors report, in that period, murders of environmental ... lawyers, journalists, activists, park rangers and others were killed as well.

Missing: green ‎| ‎Must include: ‎green

[PDF]

A Deadly Shade of Green Threats to Environmental Human ...

https://www.article19.org › data › files › Deadly_shade_of_green_A5_72p...

2.

B. Ongoing Challenges Faced by Indigenous Peoples in Latin America. 19 ... Her death came amid a growing number of attacks against human rights defenders, ... Killings of environmental activists and journalists are increasing and members of ..... From January to February 2010, four defenders were killed in Guatemala.

===