SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Following the August 15 aerial bombing of Abs Hospital in Yemen's Hajjah governorate, which killed 19 people and injured 24, the international medical humanitarian organization Doctors Without Borders/Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) has decided to evacuate its staff from the hospitals it supports in Saada and Hajjah governorates in northern Yemen.
MSF is withdrawing its staff members from Haydan, Razeh, Al Gamouri and Yasnim hospitals in Saada governorate and Abs and Al Gamouri hospitals in Hajjah governorate. The airstrike on Abs Hospital was the fourth and the deadliest attack on an MSF-supported medical facility during this war, while there have been numerous attacks on other health facilities all over Yemen.
Since the suspension of the peace talks between the Saudi-led coalition (SLC) and the Houthi forces in Kuwait 11 days ago, the SLC has resumed an intensified bombing campaign in northern Yemen.
Over the last eight months, MSF has met with high-ranking SLC officials on two occasions in Riyadh to ensure that humanitarian and medical assistance can reach Yeminis, as well as to seek assurances that attacks on hospitals would end.
Aerial bombings have however continued, despite the fact that MSF has systematically shared the GPS coordinates of hospitals in which the organization works with the parties involved in the conflict. Coalition officials repeatedly state that they honor international humanitarian law, yet this attack shows a failure to control the use of force and to avoid attacks on hospitals full of patients. MSF is neither satisfied with nor reassured by the Saudi-led coalition's statement that this attack was a mistake.
Given the intensity of the current offensive and MSF's loss of confidence in the coalition's ability to avoid such fatal attacks, MSF considers the hospitals in Saada and Hajjah governorates to be unsafe for both patients and staff.
The decision to evacuate the staff, who include obstetricians, pediatricians, surgeons and emergency room specialists, was not taken lightly, but in the absence of credible assurances that parties to the conflict will respect the protected status of medical facilities, medical workers and patients, there may be no other option. This is the case in Hajjah and in Saada governorate based on recent events.
While an independent investigation remains necessary, previous military coalition investigations related to attacks on MSF facilities have not been shared with MSF.
"This latest incident shows that the current rules of engagement, military protocols and procedures are inadequate in avoiding attacks on hospitals and need revision and changes," said Joan Tubau, MSF general director. "MSF asks the Saudi-led coalition and the governments supporting the coalition, particularly the U.S., U.K. and France, to ensure an immediate application of measures to substantially increase the protection of civilians."
The hospitals that MSF supports in Saada, Haydan, Razeh, Abs, Yasnim, and Hajjah will continue to operate with staff from the Ministry of Health and local volunteers. These hospitals are already struggling to keep up with the medical needs caused by the renewed bombing campaign, which are exacerbated by the numerous supply shortages in Yemen. MSF asks all parties to ensure the safety of these hospitals and to allow them continue to provide medical care with neutrality and impartiality.
MSF deeply regrets the consequences of this evacuation for MSF's patients and Yemeni Ministry of Health medical colleagues who will continue to work in the health facilities under unsafe conditions. MSF hope that the security situation will improve so that the population will have some respite and MSF teams will be able to return to providing much-needed medical care. MSF regrets the collective failure to protect Yemeni civilians from military action and to provide an adequate humanitarian response.
MSF condemns the way all actors involved in the conflict, including the Saudi-led coalition, the Houthis and allies, are conducting this war and carrying out indiscriminate attacks without any respect for civilians. MSF offers its sincere condolences to the families of MSF's staff member and patients who died during the attack. The killing of people inside a hospital speaks to the cruelty and inhumanity of this war.
Before the August 15 bombing of Abs Hospital, MSF has been working in 11 hospitals and health centers in Yemen and providing support to another 18 hospitals or health centers in eight governorates: Aden, Al-Dhale', Taiz, Saada, Amran, Hajjah, Ibb and Sanaa, with more than 2,000 MSF staff in the country, including 90 international staff.
This press release can be found online here. See also MSF's recent update on the bombing of Abs Hospital, online here.
Doctors Without Borders/Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) is an international medical humanitarian organization created by doctors and journalists in France in 1971. MSF's work is based on the humanitarian principles of medical ethics and impartiality. The organization is committed to bringing quality medical care to people caught in crisis regardless of race, religion, or political affiliation. MSF operates independently of any political, military, or religious agendas.
"Trump cozying up with the industry is wildly unpopular," asserted climate campaigner Jamie Henn.
Noting former U.S. President Donald Trump's coziness with the fossil fuel industry and the fact that an overwhelming majority of voters want politicians to tackle its greed, one prominent climate campaigner urged Vice President Kamala Harris—the Democratic nominee—to highlight her Republican opponent's Big Oil ties during Tuesday night's debate.
"Harris should absolutely go after Trump for being in the pocket of Big Oil," Fossil Free Media director Jamie Henn said on social media, adding that "89% of Americans want politicians to crack down on Big Oil price gouging."
In a
separate post, Henn urged ABC News, which is hosting the first—and likely only—2024 presidential debate, to ask the candidates about the climate emergency.
"Ninety-nine percent of Americans have experienced some form of extreme weather this year," he wrote. "If ABC News doesn't ask about the climate crisis this evening, it's journalistic malpractice."
On Tuesday, a trio of Democratic U.S. lawmakers called on fossil fuel executives to comply with a request for "information regarding quid pro quo solicitations" from former U.S. President Donald Trump, who earlier this year promised to gut climate regulations if they donated $1 billion to his Republican presidential campaign.
Climate campaigners have been warning of the dangers of a second term for Trump, who during his previous administration rolled back regulations protecting the climate, environment, and biodiversity, resulting in increased pollution and
premature deaths and fueling catastrophic planetary heating.
"If a Trump administration was merely going to be a four-year interregnum, it would be annoying. But in fact it comes at precisely the moment when we need, desperately,
acceleration," 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben wrote in a Guardian opinion article last week.
"The world's climate scientists have done their best to set out a timetable: Cut emissions in half by 2030 or see the possibilities of anything like the Paris pathway, holding temperature increases to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels, disappear," he continued. "That cut is on the bleeding edge of the technically possible, but only if everyone is acting in good faith. And the next presidential term will end in January of 2029, which is 11 months before 2030."
"If we elect Donald Trump, we may feel the effects not for years, and not for a generation," McKibben added. "We may read our mistake in the geological record a million years hence. This one really counts."
"Anti-abortion opponents are trying everything to keep abortion rights questions away from voters—but their dirty tricks keep failing," said one campaigner.
Reproductive freedom defenders on Tuesday cheered the Missouri Supreme Court's restoration of an abortion rights referendum—one of numerous 2024 ballot initiatives seeking to codify access to the healthcare procedure in states from coast to coast.
Missouri's highest court overturned Cole County Judge Christopher Limbaugh's ruling removing Amendment 3—also known as the Right to Reproductive Freedom initiative—from the November 5 ballot. Limbaugh ordered Republican Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, who decertified the measure on Monday, to place it back on the ballot.
“The majority of Missourians want politicians out of their exam rooms, and today's decision by the Missouri Supreme Court keeps those politicians out of the voting booth as well," Planned Parenthood Great Rivers Action vice president of external affairs Margot Riphagen
said on social media. "On November 5, Missouri voters will declare their right to reproductive freedom, ensuring decisions about our bodies and our healthcare—including abortion—stay between us, our families, and our providers."
Kelly Hall, executive director of the Fairness Project—which provides funding and technical assistance to abortion rights campaigns in Missouri, Arizona, Montana, and Florida—said in a statement that "anti-abortion opponents are trying everything to keep abortion rights questions away from voters—but their dirty tricks keep failing. They know that when voters have a say, reproductive freedom is upheld time and time again."
Chris Hatfield, a lawyer representing abortion rights groups in the case, toldThe New York Times: "This is a big deal. The court will send a message today about whether, in our little corner of the democracy, the government will honor the will of the people, or will have it snatched away."
Missouri has one of the nation's most draconian abortion bans, with the procedure
prohibited in almost all circumstances "except in cases of medical emergency." The ban—which dates to 2019—took effect when the U.S. Supreme Court overturnedRoe v. Wade in 2022.
The Midwestern state joins
at least seven others in which abortion will be on the ballot this November. Every abortion rights ballot measure since the overturn of Roe has passed.
In neighboring Nebraska, the state Supreme Court on Monday
heard arguments in three lawsuits filed by activists trying to keep multiple abortion rights referenda off the ballot.
"You don't have to agree with the tactics of climate activists to understand the importance of defending their rights to protest and to free speech."
Rich Western countries have cracked down on non-violent climate protests with harsh laws and lengthy prison sentences, in violation of international law and the civil rights they champion globally, according to a report released Monday by Climate Rights International.
CRI, an advocacy group based in California, found that Australia, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States had used heavy-handed measures to silence climate protesters in recent years. The measures aren't in keeping with the freedoms of expression, assembly, and association enshrined in international law, the report says.
"You don't have to agree with the tactics of climate activists to understand the importance of defending their rights to protest and to free speech," Brad Adams, CRI's executive director, said in a statement.
"Governments too often take such a strong and principled view about the right to peaceful protest in other countries—but when they don't like certain kinds of protests at home they pass laws and deploy the police to stop them," Adams toldThe Guardian.
“These defenders are basically trying to save the planet... These are people we should be protecting, but are seen by governments & corporations as a threat to be neutralised. In the end it’s about power & economics”
- @MaryLawlorhrdshttps://t.co/WPunhbDhCq
— Dr. Aaron Thierry (@ThierryAaron) September 10, 2024
The CRI report details relevant international law, disproportionate actions taken against climate protestors, and draconian new laws established in four of the countries studied. It also lays out recommendations and proposed reforms. CRI was founded in 2022 with a mission that states, "Progress on climate change cannot succeed without protecting human rights—and the fight for human rights cannot succeed without protecting our planet against climate change."
The examples of government crackdowns on climate protesters are numerous. In October 2022, Just Stop Oil activists Morgan Trowland and Marcus Decker climbed the cables of a major bridge in England and remained there for two days, causing police to stop traffic across the bridge. They called for the U.K. to stop licensing new oil and gas projects in the North Sea.
Trowland and Decker were each subsequently sentenced to more than 30 months in prison under a 2022 law passed by the Conservative government that led the country at the time. The sentencing prompted concern from a United Nations special rapporteur. An op-ed published Tuesday in The Guardian by Linda Lakhdhir, CRI's legal director, indicated that the Labour Party, now in power in the U.K., has not made a total break from the Conservatives policies.
A similar U.K. case involved Just Stop Oil's disruption of traffic on a highway in November 2022. Five campaigners, including Roger Hallam, well-known as a co-founder of Extinction Rebellion, had spoken on a Zoom call designed to increase participation in the direct action. This July, they were each sentenced to at least four years in jail, with Hallam receiving a five-year sentence—the longest sentences ever given in the country for non-violent protest, The Guardianreported.
Michel Forst, the U.N.'s special rapporteur on environmental defenders, attended part of the trial and called the sentencing a "dark day for peaceful environmental protest."
The attempt to silence climate protest has gone well beyond the U.K. In late August, a German court sentenced a 65-year-old man to nearly two years in prison for blocking a road as part of a protest. An Australian protester was given 15 months in prison for blocking one lane in a five-lane road for 28 minutes in 2022.
In April 2023, Joanna Smith was one of two protesters who put water-soluble paint on the protective case of a sculpture at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C. She faced unexpectedly harsh federal charges—for two felonies—that could have landed her in prison for five years, and ended up making a plea deal for a 60-day sentence. Her fellow protestor, Timothy Martin, has a trial scheduled for November.
The report makes the following four general recommendations for governments:
The final recommendation stems from the fact that some jurisdictions and judges have prevented climate activists from stating the reasons for their civil disobedience in court. A U.K. judge, Silas Reid, has repeatedly denied climate protesters the ability to explain their motivations to juries, and even jailed two of them for contempt of court when they did so anyway.
The U.S. has not passed a harsh federal bill along the lines of the 2022 U.K. law, but many states have placed anti-protest laws on the books in recent years, and other state legislatures have considered measures, the report says. A 2019 Texas law strengthened penalties for protests around pipelines and other fossil fuel infrastructure, and a 2020 Tennessee law did so for "inconvenient" protests.
Harsh penalties are not the only danger that environmental defenders face. Nearly 200 environmental defenders were killed across the world in 2023, according a report released Tuesday by Global Witness.
Crackdowns on non-violent protest in rich Western countries extend beyond the issue of climate. Pro-Palestinian campus protests in the U.S. have also seen harsh crackdowns in the past year, with fears among campaigners that anti-protest measures could increase.
The report posits that governments should take a different approach to such civil disobedience, given its importance in spurring social change in the past.
"Governments should welcome peaceful protests as the sign of an engaged citizenry," the report says. "Those who engage in peaceful protest should, at a minimum, be assured that their rights will be respected."