A report on attacks on land and environment defenders in 2017 | Hacker News Reader

A report on attacks on land and environment defenders in 2017

globalwitness.org

63 pointsvector_spaces11 comments

> Companies have a responsibility to their customers, who should have confidence that the products they buy are not fuelling human rights abuses, cultural destruction or environmental devastation.

We need better agreements between countries that force politicians to support humanitarian actions. Right now rich countries expect to get goods without looking at the atrocities committed to produce them. And then, there is an increasing willingness to protect frontiers to shield that some countries from the consequences of their actions.

We need to improve the world together. We need to support environmental protection all over the globe. It is very difficult for small economies to eradicate violence and corruption when rich countries pour money that makes the problem worst. It is not an easy task. Patronizing developing countries is not going to work.

The article also links to that: https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/environmental-act...

This ought to be the primary purpose of trade deals.

Currently agreements like the TTIP and TPP are written with the primary purpose of advancing the interests of the corporations who secretly shadow-write them and the secondary interest of increasing net trade (e.g. ensuring that you can buy a t shirt at hot topic for $4 instead of $6).

this is the new "sponsor a child in the third world" scam? their only actual actions I could find on the site is to publish business self regulation?

I'd love to be wrong...

What do you mean by that? Surely comparing charities with advocacy groups is a red herring in of itself?

I suppose this hinges primarily on who is counted, and it sounds fishy. "Defending one's land" would technically include anyone who defends themselves against intruders, South African farmers for example. Yet those are not counted because they aren't "defending" their land for environmental reason, while south american farmers that are murdered by "unknown assailants" or "criminal gangs" are included.

I can't help but think you're attempting to race-bait people, because most people bring up South African farms as part of the idea that a 'white genocide' is occurring in South Africa, which is funny because a significant proportion of those murdered in farms in SA are black.

I'm not, it has nothing to do with race, it just shows that they are doing a somewhat weird definition of what gets counted and what gets discarded.

The numbers they present are so small that the farm murders in South Africa would significantly change the picture. As I wrote: they include "killed by criminal gang" in South America, and as far as I know, the farm murders are generally committed by criminals in search for loot.

It's sad that you can't mention South Africa without somebody showing up and implying that you are a white nationalist and completely avoiding to engage with the argument. Well, such are the days, I guess.

Honest question: what are the parameters for a 'white genocide?' To clarify, what would have to occur for you to believe that title is appropriate?

Not the op, but:

Genocide is an organized attempt to drive a race to extinction. An effort whose stated goal is to kill everyone of European decent residing in South Africa would qualify as genocide.

Genocide is not just any large-scale killing. It's certainly not the seizing of property, regardless of scale.

Here[1] is the United Nations definition of genocide. Do you think what is occurring in South Africa (or what occurred in Rhodesia-Zimbabwe specifically as well as in Zimbabwe ~2 decades later) qualifies?

[1]https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/genocide

> Defending one's land" would technically include anyone who defends themselves against intruders

It's perfectly clear that they mean defending one's land against people who want to take or despoil that land, not just people who come on to your property to rob or assault you. You're being disingenuous.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com