The Austrian climate group ‘Last Generation’ pours black oil over Klimt’s painting ‘Death and Life’ on display at the Leopold Museum on November 15th. ⓒ’Last Generation’ Twitter It happened on November 22, 2018 in Lausanne, a city in western Switzerland. Twelve young men in their early twenties entered the Lausanne branch of Credit Suisse, one of the two largest banks in Switzerland. He was dressed in a tennis suit and held a tennis ball and racket in his hand, unseen as a bank customer. They set up a simple tennis net in the bank lobby and started playing tennis. It wasn’t a serious match. The youths who had been playing for a while sat in the lobby and unfolded the banners they had prepared. ‘Credis Suisse is destroying the environment. Roger, do you know that?’ Roger refers to the recently retired Swiss tennis player Roger Federer. What is the relationship between a Swiss bank, a tennis player, and the environment for this phrase to be used? Big bank Credit Suisse is known for its steady investments in fossil fuel mining companies. And Roger Federer had a sponsorship deal with Credit Suisse at the time. Since a star like Federer is in charge of an advertising model for Credit Suisse, an anti-environmental company, Federer is also indirectly responsible for environmental destruction, and ‘fake tennis players’ demand is that ‘if you care about the environment, sever the sponsorship contract’ . Twelve young people were activists from Lausanne Climate Action (LAC). Immediately after the bizarre protest, they were fined a total of 21,600 Swiss francs (about 30 million won) for unauthorized occupation. If the LAC activists had meekly paid the fine, the story would have ended here. However, they refuse to pay the fine and take the case to trial. Thirteen lawyers volunteered for free representation for them. The defense team argued that the fake tennis match was justified because it effectively publicized the bank’s environmental destruction. In early January 2020, shortly before the first trial court’s verdict, something more interesting happens. A climate movement group (‘350 Europe’) tweets. “Since 2016, Credit Suisse has awarded $57 billion to fossil fuel excavation companies. In Lausanne, 12 young protesters are on trial for trying to tell Roger Federer about Creditis Suisse’s climate crimes. Roger Federer, do you support this?” The tweet has been retweeted over 800 times, one of which was Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg. Roger Federer doesn’t usually reveal his political beliefs. However, it seems that it was embarrassing to ignore it even after the name of Greta Thunberg, an iconic figure in the global climate movement, was mentioned in a tweet. Federer, who was in Melbourne ahead of the Australian (Australia) Open tennis tournament, reveals his position in an interview with Reuters. Let him listen to him. “I take the threat of climate change very seriously. Even more so when he and his family arrive at the site of the bushfire destruction in Australia. As a father of four, and as an ardent supporter of universal education, I have great admiration and admiration for the youth climate movement. Thank you for forcing us to examine our actions. Thank you for reminding me of my responsibilities as an individual, as an athlete and as an entrepreneur. I will use this privileged position to have serious conversations with my sponsors about important issues.” Different verdicts in the second and third trials No matter how much fines were imposed, the 12 activists exceeded their intended purpose by eliciting a response from Thunberg and Federer. But here comes what the Swiss press has dubbed ‘icing on the cake’. On January 13, 2020, the result of the first trial judgment in this case came out innocent. The purpose of the acquittal from the single judge of the Lausanne District Court is as follows. “Given the imminent climate crisis, their action is essential and appropriate. (This type of protest) is the only effective way to expect a response from the bank, and it is the only way to get media and public attention.” It achieved its purpose of attracting public attention (Cake), and even resulted in an acquittal (Icing), which even the lawyers did not expect, and the tennis protest was dubbed ‘Double Victory’. The Swiss daily 〈NZZ〉 described this ruling as “a historical ruling that will be recorded in Swiss law textbooks”, expressing “the first game between Gifu youth and Credit Suisse, without question, was a landslide victory for the young people with a score of 6-0,” as if relaying a tennis match. Evaluated. This is because it is the first time that a Swiss court has sided with protesters since the civil movement related to the climate crisis began. In an editorial on the day of the ruling, the newspaper said, “(This ruling) means that civil disobedience is no longer an inappropriate method given the urgency of the climate crisis. This ruling could forever change the way civil disobedience is dealt with in the future.” It wasn’t just the Swiss press that was surprised. Major media outlets in countries where related protests were active, such as The New York Times, BBC, and Deutsche Welle, reported the news immediately after the verdict. The unexpected judgment of the first trial received great attention at home and abroad, but the second and third trials made different judgments. The High Court of Vaud, the canton to which the city of Lausanne belongs, fined each of the 12 protesters 100 to 150 Swiss francs, saying, “It is true that climate change is an immediate crisis, but the defendants could have chosen a different way of demonstrating.” did. And the federal court, the highest court in Switzerland, went one step further and dismissed the appeal, saying, “It cannot be seen that there was an imminent climate crisis during the protests,” and the conviction was confirmed. Interestingly, throughout the trial process, the two main issues, namely, ‘can climate change be regarded as an imminent crisis’ and ‘whether the purpose could have been achieved by other means of protest’ were different for each judge. The 1st trial said, ‘It is an imminent crisis and this was the only way’, the 2nd trial said, ‘It is an imminent crisis, but another method could have been chosen’, and the 3rd trial said, ‘It cannot be regarded as an imminent crisis’. Following this process, two questions arise. First, how important is it to attract media and public attention during the protest process? In the case of the tennis protest above, it is true that the unusual method became a hot topic and attracted public attention by inviting celebrities to participate. However, it is unclear how much bank support for fossil fuel mining companies will actually decrease in the future. It is not clear how much public interest is related to the rate of achievement of practical goals. Second, what criteria should be used to judge the necessity or legitimacy of demonstrations? In the case of an issue like the climate crisis, in which there are scientific grounds but various interpretations and public support and indifference are clearly divided, judges’ judgments differ even on whether or not it is an ‘imminent crisis’. When protesting in an unfamiliar way in front of a new phenomenon called the climate crisis, what should be the standard for judging the necessity or legitimacy? It’s hard to answer easily. The reason why I took a long look at an unusual protest that has already reached the third trial judgment is because of the recent trend of protests in Europe and the United States. Let’s take a few examples. On September 10, 2019, the Limmat River, which runs through downtown Zurich, Switzerland, turned fluorescent green. A climate group called ‘Extinction Rebellion’ released a dye called uranine into the river. There was an expert opinion that it was harmless to the human body as a non-toxic material, and about 30 members of the group jumped into the green river to prove it, but many citizens expressed concerns when they saw the unrealistic color of the river. The group later said it did this “to warn of the imminent collapse of our ecosystem.” At 8:00 am on Monday, October 24, three activists from the group Renovate Switzerland glued their hands to the highway leading into the city center from the outskirts of Zurich, blocking traffic. Their demand is that the government immediately allocate a budget of 4 billion Swiss francs to renovate the insulation system of 1 million buildings to address the energy and climate crisis. Angry citizens got out of their cars as the roads were blocked on their way to work and violently protested, tearing up banners put up by protesters. In 2019, ‘extinction resistance’ released green dye into Zurich’s Limmat River to warn of the climate crisis. ⓒZurich City Police Agency Mixed Support and Criticism On November 5, two activists belonging to the environmental group Futuro Vegetal in Spain displayed two works by Francisco Goya, ‘Clothed Maja’ and ‘Naked Maja,’ at the Prado Museum in Madrid. ‘ I attached my hand to each frame with glue and wrote ‘1.5℃’ on the wall between the two works. ‘1.5℃’ is the average temperature increase limit agreed upon in the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. To that end, they argue, they should cut back on raising livestock for food and instead grow grains, fruits, vegetables and plants. On November 15, the Austrian climate group Letzte Generation Österreich poured black oil over Gustav Klimt’s 1915 painting Death and Life at the Leopold Museum in Vienna and glued their hands to the glass frame. attached Any number of such cases could be enumerated. What they have in common is ‘non-violence’ and ‘attracting attention’. Criticism of this method, which has been called civil disobedience, civil disorder, and civil disturbance, is fierce. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said, “People who are blocked from traffic do not understand the seriousness of the climate crisis, but only feel annoyed.” It causes economic losses, so it should be severely punished.” There are supportive opinions. Swiss historian Christian Kohler said, “Attention is essential to the success of social movements. There have been many successful social movements in the past through new methods,” he said. I also agree that the climate crisis is a serious task and attention is essential for the success of social movements. At the same time, I hope that the attention will be directed to the heart of the problem. As I was writing about 12 tennis players, I was reminded of the old sci-fi movie 12 Monkeys (1996). The main character, who traveled back in time from a future world where 99% of humanity went extinct due to a virus infection, becomes suspicious of an activist group called ’12 Monkeys’ and follows him around. However, it turns out that they were just playing a joke by releasing animals from the zoo into the streets, and there was someone else who spread the deadly virus. Paying attention to the noisy commotion, you missed the point. Questions grow as we see the controversial protest method and the reaction of citizens, politicians, and the judiciary to it. There must be a limit to the energy required for social movement, but are we using it well?
ssn-general
Success in ‘Attracting Attention’ But what next?
