Global Climate Strike: Daily Brief

Plus: abusive evictions in Kenya's Mau Forest; Congolese warlord sought by the International Criminal Court has been killed; European Parliament adopts a strong resolution on Myanmar's cleansing campaign against Rohingya; Britain should practice what it preaches; and Human Rights Watch and four other plaintiffs appeal US law that imposes criminal liability for online speech about sex work.

The urgency of the climate crisis is clear around the globe, particularly among those more marginalized and least able to adapt. Today, people are marching in over 150 countries to raise awareness and push for action against climate change. Human Rights Watch is also calling for #ClimateRights4All.

Authorities in Kenya have not investigated abuses by security officials during the forced evictions of thousands of people from Mau Forest in July 2018. Moreover, in August 2019, the government announced plans to evict another 60,000 people from the forest.

The death in the Democratic Republic of Congo of a rebel leader wanted by the International Criminal Court highlights the need to bring justice for his forces’ many victims.

Yesterday, the European Parliament adopted a strong resolution to mark the second anniversary since the beginning of the ethnic cleansing campaign against the Rohingya people in Myanmar. Parliamentarians called on the EU, its member states, and the international community to step up humanitarian efforts, increase pressure on Myanmar authorities to set up the conditions for a safe, voluntary and dignified return of the Rohingyas – including granting them full citizenship and rights –, and to pursue all avenues to secure accountability for the atrocities committed.

United Kingdom's move to suspend parliament – combined with government ministers suggesting they might not respect the rule of law – is at severe odds with the government’s attempts to be an international champion of human rights and democratic values.

Today, Human Rights Watch and four other plaintiffs will present arguments against the dismissal of their challenge to a 2017 United States law that imposes criminal liability for online speech about sex work. Plaintiffs contend the law violates freedom of speech and makes sex work more dangerous for an already vulnerable and criminalized population.