defeats, success, defeat, success, defeat…

28 may

Actually, I can’t really make up my mind. I mean, c’mon. It is a historical result for the environment. Beyond doubts I claim that it will have even a bigger impact than Roe vs Wade. And in the end, we are talking about the same. It wasn’t only that Roe vs Wade anchored the right of women to own and decide on the fate of their own body. By doing so it also decreased, substantially, the impact of people on the environment. Women were finally legally allowed to stop being a production device under the control of men, a rolling belt popping up small humans endlessly. And this is what is all about, the last veredict of the Dutch High Court in the case MilieuDefensie (the dutch chapter of Friends of the Earth) against Shell. It is a historical moment, that will have momentous repercussions. And yet, somehow, I am tempted to believe that it is also a tragedy. Or at least, a defeat of sorts. 

Let’s stick with the metaphor of Roe vs Wade. Growing up and reading about feminism, I was told to believe that a decision of the North American Supreme Court was as good as for ever. After all, I was told, that is the whole core of the North American approach to law: legislation is based on precedent, and precedents are not reversed. And you know were I am going, of course. We all know that in few weeks the North American Supreme Court will hear a case that might eliminate, or substantially weaken, Roe vs Wade. The culture wars were far from solved with a veredict of the Supreme Court. As the election of Trump showed, we still have a long way to go, if we haven’t actually receded. 

There is another precedent, if you allow me the word, in this feeling uneasy about the involvement of the legal system in public debates. Few years back, the racist dutch politician Wilders, in one or another meeting, called for less Moroccans in The Netherlands. So a coalition of activists geared up to trial him, under the legislation that forbids discrimination and incitement to racial hatred. My party refused to support the initiative, to the surprise first, and then the disgust and criticism of many of our natural allies. The argument of the leadership was that Wilders and his disgusting racism should be argued and fought and won over in debates, in the political arena, and not in a court of law. You will not be surprised to know that I still have mixed feelings about the whole situation. Obviously racism is a thing that has to be argued away. To forbid something does not ban it automatically from people’s mind. And yet, if we have laws that forbid incitement of hatred between ethnic groups, what are they good for if we don’t use them? What is the whole legal system good for, if we don’t use it? 

So right now my party celebrates the victory of Milieudefensie in the court room. Shell, one of the most vicious multinationals in the history of mankind, have been forced to reduce their CO2 emitions. It is thinkable that other companies will be trialed, and accordingly forced to complain with a better future for us all. Let there be no doubt: this will make the life of all of us much better, in many ways that we can not even foresee. 

And yet, I feel that we loose something when this win was in a court of law.