Vegan protesters reject righteous domination

On Monday, a coordinated series of animal rights protests took place across the country. Vegan protestors occupied abattoirs in Queensland, NSW and Victoria, and blockaded one of Melbourne’s busiest intersections. To say these protests were controversial would be an understatement.

Social media was flooded with angry meat-eaters posting photos of their meat-based meals, which they claimed were inspired by the ‘vegan terrorists’ or ‘vigilante vegans’. The Prime Minister called the protestors ‘unAustralian’, arguing: ‘This is just another form of activism that I think runs against the national interest, and the national interest is [farmers] being able to farm their own land.’

More intriguing, to me, was the reaction of many progressive people, who expressed responses ranging from discomfort to outright rage. The protestors were accused of using coercive tactics to force their personal views on other people, and of choosing tactics that didn’t help their cause because they were either disruptive to traffic, trespassed on private property, or harassed farmers. Others accused vegans more broadly of being racist, classist, ableist and blind to their privilege.

— Read the rest of the article over at Eureka Street

Advertisements

Children speak truth to climate inaction

When I was a young child, I had nightmares about Ronald Reagan. I was terrified he was going to start a nuclear war and destroy us all.

People often laugh when I recount this tale. To many it seems funny, almost cute. Others have described my fears as the product of a childish imagination or parental brainwashing. But the fact is that nuclear war was a genuine possibility. The world was not in safe hands.

Although I was lucky enough to have parents who took my agency seriously, the most overwhelming and depressing aspect of that experience was how little my fears counted. As a child, I had no power and very little voice, despite the fact that the adults in charge were risking our very survival.

Fast forward 35 years, and my own children are faced with a similar predicament in relation to climate change, but now there is a crucial difference: it’s not a genuine possibility, it is a reality. We are already changing the climate and creating devastating changes to the planet. The only question that remains is how devastating will these changes become? How many ecosystems will collapse? How many rivers will run dry, species die out, diseases spread, famines ravage, wars rage?

— Read the rest of the article over at Eureka Street

Of Protest, the Commons, and Customary Public Rights: An Ancient Tale of the Lawful Forest

In this article, John Page and I explore an ancient tale of customary public rights that starts and ends with the landmark decision of Brown v Tasmania. In Brown, Australia’s highest court recognised a public right to protest in forests. Harking back 800 years to the limits of legal memory, and the Forest Charter of 1217, this right is viewed through the metaphor of the lawful forest, a relational notion of property at the margins of legal orthodoxy. Inherent to this tale is the tension that pits private enclosure against the commons, a contest that endures across time and place – from 13th century struggles against the Norman legal forest, through to modern claims of rights to the city.

This article is now available as an Advance copy with the UNSW Law Journal.

Water justice struggles as a process of commoning

The discourse of the human right to water has been critiqued for being overly individualistic, technical, compatible with the commodification of water (Bakker, 2007; Roithmayr, 2010; Bond, 2012), and as running the risk of overly centring the state (Dwinell and Olivera, 2014; Haiven, 2015; Angel and Loftus, 2017). These concerns have also been borne out to varying degrees in the institutional recognition and articulation of the right at both the United Nations and national levels (Clark, 2017). Due to the consensus-driven, ‘post-political’ nature of these forums (Rancière, 2004), Sultana and Loftus (2012: 9) acknowledge that this institutional engagement risks stripping the right to water of its conceptual weight – rendering it ‘a floating signifier devoid of any political content’. But they also signal a note of caution against overemphasizing the significance of these largely theoretical debates at the expense of empirical realities (Sultana and Loftus, 2012, 2015).

I have argued elsewhere that community-level water justice campaigns that elect to employ the discourse of the human right to water often successfully resist the deradicalizing risks of engaging with both the state and rights discourse (Clark, 2017). Building on this thesis, this paper will emphasize the everyday empirical realities water justice campaigns to explore whether the process of articulating and, particularly, of claiming the right to water can itself be described as a practice of commoning.

— Read more over at the Community Development Journal

The inequity of this silent killer

When our kids were little, our family moved to Hanoi for my partner’s job. After we’d settled in to our new neighbourhood of Tay Ho (Westlake), we enjoyed walking the streets and admiring the beauty of the city. Hanoi is set around a number of lakes and filled with historic buildings and old winding laneways that are too narrow for cars. It is also surprisingly green. Plants grow on every available square inch, crammed into tiny pockets of dirt and pots.

But we hadn’t been there long until we begun bemoaning the frequency of foggy days and waiting hopefully for the rare clear days when Westlake would shine blue and we could see clearly over the rooftops from our sixth-story terrace.

I can’t remember exactly when I admitted to myself that it wasn’t fog that was obscuring visibility. But once I had fully acknowledged the extent of the airborne pollution, I felt a lot less keen on living in Hanoi with young children.

— Read more over at Eureka Street

The fight to make water a human right

[Excerpt from article over at Eureka Street.]

In 2010, the United Nations General Assembly and Human Rights Council recognised the existence of a human right to water, guaranteeing access for everyone to ‘sufficient, safe, acceptable, physically accessible and affordable water for personal and domestic uses’.

Eight years on, it is past time that Australia incorporated this right into domestic law. Nonetheless, any push to do so will face an uphill battle, due to the awkward position occupied by human rights within our culture.

Surveys of the Australian population have found a significant gap between those who believe our human rights are sufficiently well protected, and those more disadvantaged groups who experience a very different reality. Our political class also has a history of ambivalence, or even hostility, to providing more comprehensive protection for human rights, and has been especially reluctant to legally recognise socioeconomic rights.

–Read more over at Eureka Street.–

#MeToo exposes legal failures, but ‘trial by Twitter’ isn’t one of them

File 20180316 104671 12l78mb.png?ixlib=rb 1.1
In a 2016 ABS survey, one in two women reported having experienced sexual harassment, but 90% of them did not contact the police. – Cindy Zhi/The Conversation NY-BD-CC

Cristy Clark, Southern Cross University

Six months after the explosive allegations of sexual harassment against Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein came to light, giving impetus to the #MeToo movement, this series looks at the aftermath of the movement, and if it has brought about lasting change to sexual harassment and gender equality.


Critics have raised concerns that #MeToo has turned into a “trial by Twitter”, suggesting it has turned the legal principle of innocent until proven guilty on its head. The Australian’s opinion columnist Janet Albrechtsen argued this point on the ABC’s #MeToo Q&A special last month.

But such comments reveal an ignorance of the meaning and context of this principle. Leaving aside the fact that some people on social media side with the accused, public discussion – whether it takes place on Twitter or around a water cooler – is not comparable to state punishment.

Those concerned about the failure of a legal principle in relation to #MeToo might better focus on that of justice for victims.

Continue reading

Law, legitimacy and activism in the Anthropocene

In the first episode of The Handmaid’s Tale, Offred reflects on how she and her fellow Handmaids found themselves in their current predicament – living in a world where a small group of elites have rewritten the law in line with an inhumane and brutally enforced ideology that serves their own interests.

When they slaughtered Congress, we didn’t wake up. When they blamed terrorists, and suspended the Constitution, we didn’t wake up then either. … Nothing changes instantaneously. In a gradually heating bathtub, you’d be boiled to death before you knew it.

In the real world, there’s a dominant narrative that we are blindly walking down the path to catastrophic climate change, which is a pretty depressing thought. But the truth is even scarier – we are being shepherded down this path quite deliberately. We may have taken a while to wake up, but ever since we did and began to object, our governments have been making ever increasing use of state power to silence us.

I reflected on this during a recent trip to Heron Island on the Great Barrier Reef. Heron’s reef supports around 4000 turtles, while many more return to the island in spring to nest. During one afternoon snorkeling trip, I was lucky enough to see three turtles, including a small juvenile, feeding on seaweed just metres from me. As I watched, my feelings turned from wonder to horror as it occurred to me that they are likely to see the reef die around them; gradually boiled to death.

[Please buy your copy of AQ: Australian Quarterly to read the rest of my article.]

Clearing homeless camps compounds the violation of human rights and entrenches the problem

On Wednesday evening, the New South Wales state government passed legislation empowering police to dismantle the Martin Place homeless camp in the heart of Sydney’s CBD. This follows similar actions in Victoria, where police cleared a homeless camp outside Flinders Street Station. Melbourne Lord Mayor Robert Doyle proposed a bylaw to ban rough sleeping in the city.

In March, the UN special rapporteur on the right to housing, Leilani Farha, censured the City of Melbourne’s actions, stating that:

… the criminalisation of homelessness is deeply concerning and violates international human rights law.

As the special rapporteur highlighted, homelessness is already “a gross violation of the right to adequate housing”. To further discriminate against people rendered homeless by systemic injustice is prohibited under international human rights law.

Continue reading

Detroit

I’m in Detroit, Michigan for a few days, doing a bit of research into the water shut offs here and the contaminated water crisis in Flint. I’ll write more about this later, but here are a few photos for now.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.