Several European countries receive reprimands from the UN for efforts to suppress peaceful climate protests and criminalize demonstrators.
UN Special Rapporteur Michael Forst says in his report, that the suppression of environmental protests is a significant threat to democracy and human rights.
Forst’s reprimands are based on a year-long study, in which information was collected especially from Britain as well as Germany, Denmark, Holland, Spain and Portugal.
All six countries are involved in the 1998 Aarhus Environmental Agreement, which aims to promote citizens’ ability to influence decisions concerning their living environment. Also Finland is included in the contract.
According to Forst, however, in various parts of Europe, the suppression of peaceful environmental protests has been chosen rather than their protection.
“Protesters should be listened to, not punished”
According to Forst, part of the media and some politicians in different parts of Europe label environmental activism as a terrorist threat and criminal.
For example, regarding EU terrorism in the status report roadblocks and taking over banks and airports are branded as acts of extremists. In Spain, the prosecutor’s office has been defined two environmental movements into terrorism, Forst points out.
In many countries, such as Britain, Italy and Germany, new laws have been enacted that prohibit protests such as sit-ins, he states.
In Forst’s opinion, the only legitimate response to peaceful demonstrations and civil disobedience would be for the authorities, the media and the public to listen to what environmentalists have to say.
He points out that the environmental emergency, which has been known for decades, cannot be addressed if those who demand action are criminalized.
Reprimands for Finland for the use of force
In a report published on Tuesday, Forst lists numerous cases in which police in various European countries have used excessive force, ill-treated arrested protesters, and harassed protesters and journalists. Prosecutions for environmental protests have also increased.
Finland, as well as Austria, France and the Netherlands are criticized in the report for excessive use of force against demonstrators. Pepper spray has also been used in Finland and Austria, and water cannons in the Netherlands.
In France, the use of water cannons and rubber bullets has become so common that protesters have started wearing protective gear.
Environmental movements in Denmark, Sweden, France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Spain have reported that prosecutions for peaceful protests have increased and become more severe within the year.
In France, for example, roadblocks have previously been charged with disrupting road traffic, but more recently they have also been charged with endangering the lives of others.
In Denmark, damage or organized damage has been used as a charge, which can be sentenced to up to six years in prison.
In Sweden, an act that was previously considered to be assault against police orders can now lead to a charge of sabotage.
Fines for demonstrations have also increased and become more severe.
Amnesty: Disadvantages in Finland too
Amnesty Finland published on Wednesday own report about the realization of the right to protest in our country. Amnesty states that the majority of demonstrations in Finland go well and the police protect them properly, but there are also shortcomings.
One problem Amnesty sees is that the police do not treat demonstrators in the same way all over Finland. There was inconsistency especially with regard to traffic control and permits issued by the city.
– This puts the organizers of the demonstrations in an unequal position depending on where they live, Amnesty believes.
In general, the police use force very sparingly during demonstrations, but there are a few drawbacks.
For example, protesters have been moved away using force, by dragging or in such a way that the head or body hits the ground, says Amnesty’s expert Anu Tuukkanen To .
He also states that in the public debate, demonstrations are often seen as a disturbance, even though they are an essential part of freedom of opinion.
Tuukkanen also finds it unfortunate that the police often go quickly to break up demonstrations. He would like more weighing between the protection of freedom of assembly and the magnitude of the disruption caused.
Tuukkanen points out that according to the UN agreement on political and civil rights, civil disobedience can be within the scope of peace of assembly when it is peaceful.
In Finland, peaceful demonstrators have been arrested, for example, for neck-snapping and kept overnight in a tube, but not arrested.
Tuukkanen believes that in Finland the rights to protest are implemented quite well on a European scale: there are no visible attempts to blackmail the legislation, the police use moderate force, and water cannons and tear gas have not been used. On the other hand, we also have a more peaceful protest culture.