Cassandra Voices

Tag: ecocide

  • A Visit to the Hague

    Late last year HHJ Gumpert KC – one of the judges in the formidable fortress that is Woolwich Crown Court the flagship anti-terrorism court in the U.K. – kindly secured for me a visit to the ICC out of court time. The tour was given by a former member of the team he led in the Congolese prosecutions.

    The ICC issued its first judgment in 2012 when it found Congolese rebel leader Thomas Lubanga Dyilo guilty of war crimes related to his abuse of child soldiers. Lubanga was sentenced to fourteen years’ imprisonment. Gumpert also successfully prosecuted Dominic Ongwen, who was sentenced to twenty-five years for myriad crimes.

    The Rome Statute, which entered into force on 1 July 2002, established the International Criminal Court, though Israel voted against it, after murmurings on the transfer of populations that is the resettlement programme. The court works on the principle of ineffectiveness, where national courts have been derelict. It lacks universal territorial jurisdiction, and may only investigate and prosecute crimes committed within member states, crimes committed by nationals of member states, or crimes in situations referred to the Court by the United Nations Security Council.

    On 17 March 2023, ICC judges issued arrest warrants for Russian leader Vladimir Putin and the Presidential Commissioner for Children’s Rights in Russia for alleged child abductions in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Putin was charged for actions against Ukraine, which although not a party to it, has accepted the authority of the court since 2014. Should Putin travel to a state party to it, local authorities can arrest him. Later in 2023, Russia’s Ministry of Internal Affairs retaliated by placing several ICC officials on its wanted list. On November 21 last year, when I was in Gompert’s court in Woolwich, warrants were formally issued for the arrest of Benjamin Netanyahu.

    It occurs to me that an informal journalistic war crimes court was initiated by Christopher Hitchen, whose book The Trial Against Henry Kissinger (2001) accused Henry Kissinger of war crimes. This led to a Parisian judge issuing an arrest warrant and Kissinger hopscotching it back to the safety of Fox News. So, Netanyahu will no doubt control his foreign trips, and Ireland is clearly out of the question. Mr Putin does not seem to need to travel to enemy states.

    The process to establish the ICC district may be “triggered” by any one of three sources: (1) a state party, (2) the Security Council, or (3) a prosecutor.

    So, there is huge independence in that there is a self-originating prosecutor jurisdiction. though he needs the approval of Pre-Trial Chamber to initiate the investigation. The factors listed in Article 53 are a reasonable basis for a prosecution. These include whether the case would be admissible, or whether there are substantial reasons to believe that an investigation would not serve the interests of justice (the latter stipulates balancing against the gravity of the crime and the interests of the victims).

    Brumandinho Dam Disaster, Brazil, 2019.

    2016 Policy Paper

    During my visit there was much talk about the Policy paper on case selection and prioritisation published in September 2016, indicating that the ICC would focus on environmental crimes when selecting cases. According to this document, the Office will consider prosecuting Rome Statute crimes that result in, inter alia, the destruction of the environment, the illegal exploitation of natural resources or the illegal dispossession of land.

    Richard A. Falk coined the phrase Ecocide as a Crime Against Humanity in 1974. In my view we should also include Economicide, when one deals with the illegal dispossession of land. What about bringing banksters or hedge fund managers (including through NAMA) to justice? And what about no longer drawing a distinction between the Kinahan gang and Goldman Sachs? Or is it time bring a case against Bill Gates or Elon Musk?

    It should be born in mind that, alas, having someone prosecuted by the ICC is a tricky exercise. The Israelis clearly breached international law when they bundled Adolf Eichmann onto a plane in Argentina in 1960. How do you get Netanyahu to court? Or Putin? Or what if one indicted Trump or Bannon? A real danger is that the present U.S. administration will directly or indirectly withdraw funding for the court, even though the U.S. is not a signatory. They might even undermine American officials for working against the interests of Israel, or any of its allies in this dangerous world.

    The core concept of Crimes Against Humanity had its first incarnation during the Nuremberg Tribunal, but its inception may derive from the discourse in Sophocles ‘Antigone’ as to whether an immoral law is a law. In that play – the Rosetta stone of modern natural law – the heroine Antigone observes to the harsh, positivist Creon, King of Thebes, who will not allow her brother, who has fought against him, to be buried with the proper rites, that natural law has been breached.

    Yes; for it was not Zeus that had published me that edict; not such are the laws set among men by the justice who neither dwells with the gods below; nor deemed I that thy decrees were of such force, that a mortal could override the unwritten and unfailing statutes of heaven. For their life is not of to-day or yesterday, but from all time, and no man knows when they were first put forth…

    From the great Roman statesman Cicero’s perspective, an unjust law is not a law: ‘Those who formulated wicked and unjust statutes for nations, thereby breaking their promises and agreements, put into effect anything but laws.’

    Most famous of all, early Christian lawyers, St Augustine of Hippo said: ‘lex iniusta non-Est lex’ – an unjust law is not a law.

    Radbruchs’s Formula

    A crucial juristic figure was the German Gustav Radbruch (1878-1949), both a law professor and a government minister during the Weimar Republic. In Radbruchs’s Formula he argued that where statute law was incompatible with positivist law to an intolerable degree, and where it negated the principle of equality, which is central to justice, it could be disregarded.

    [P]reference is given to the positive law, duly enacted and secured by state power, even where it is unjust and fails to benefit the people unless it conflicts with justice to so intolerable a level that a statute becomes in effect false law and must therefore yield to justice…where there is not even an attempt at justice. Where equality, the core of justice, is deliberately betrayed in positive law then the statute is not merely false law it lacks completely the very nature of law.

    For him justice (Gerechtigkeit) was linked to human rights. Thus, in Funf Minuten Rechtsphilosophie he contended that there was a law which was above statute: ‘However one may like to describe it: the law of God, the law of nature, the law of reason.’

    It is important to note that his views were followed in various German cases after the War and was part of the discourse that led to the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal.

    Historically much later, in the 1992 cases of Strelitz, Kessler and Krenz, former East German Border Guards were convicted of offences despite section 27/2 of the East German Border Act that indicated that the protection of the border outweighed the right to life. The German Supreme Court in endorsing Radbruch indicated that:

    [A] justification available at the time of the act can be disregarded due to its violation of superior law if it shows an evident and gross violation of basic principles of justice and humanity… The contradiction of the positive law to justice must be of such unbearable proportions that the law must yield to justice as incorrect law.

    A group of Bosniaks from the Lašva Valley close by Travnik, Bosnia and Herzegovina that were forced out of their homes and villages by Croat forces in 1993. Photo: Mikhail Evstafiev.

    Ethnic Cleansing

    The Nuremberg Court and The European Convention on Human Rights were set up with the idea that the cataclysms of the past must never happen again. Sadly more have come to pass. In Bosnia we witnessed the arrival of a modern variant: ethnic cleansing. In 1992, the United Nations General Assembly deemed ethnic cleansing to be a form of genocide stating that it was:

    Gravely concerned about the deterioration of the situation in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina owing to intensified aggressive acts by the Serbian and Montenegrin forces to acquire more territories by force, characterised by a consistent pattern of gross and systematic violations of human rights…. controlled areas of concentration camps and detention centres, in pursuit of the abhorrent policy of ‘ethnic cleansing’, which is a form of genocide.

    In 2001, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) judged that the 1995 Srebrenica massacre was genocide though the Court had no authority to determine whether it amounted to war crimes and Crimes against Humanity. A kind of fore runner of the ICC though ad hoc.

    The court concluded by seeking to eliminate a part of the Bosnian Muslims, the Bosnian Serb forces had committed genocide. They targeted for extinction the 40,000 Bosnian Muslims living in Srebrenica, a group which was emblematic of the Bosnian Muslims in general.  They stripped all the male Muslim prisoners, military and civilian, elderly and young, of their personal belongings and identification, and deliberately and methodically killed them, solely on the basis of their identity.

    Slobodan Milosevic, the former President of Serbia and of Yugoslavia, was the most senior political figure to stand trial at the ICTY. He was charged with having committed genocide. The formal accusation accused him of planning, preparing and executing the destruction of the Bosnian Muslim national, ethnical, racial or religious groups, as such, in named territories within Bosnia and Herzegovina.

    He died during his trial, on 11 March 2006, and no verdict was returned. Ten years later, Radovan Karadzic was found guilty of genocide in Srebrenica, war crimes and Crimes against Humanity, ten of the eleven charges in total, and sentenced to forty years’ imprisonment.

    Morality of the Law

    The natural lawyer Lon Fuller, in supporting Radbruch, argues that the German courts were correct in striking down the Nazi laws and that a legal system must have certain characteristics if it is to command the fidelity of a right-thinking person. Fuller, in The Morality of Law, (1964) argues that Nazi law did not have coherence and goodness and instances the use of retroactive legislation, such as the Rohm purge of 1934. Further, for Fuller, the Nazi laws were deeply immoral for a variety of procedural reasons. They were not published, they were vague, and they could not be interpreted in a congruent fashion.

    We are now entering such a dangerous universe. In camera, unpublished surveillance laws are violating privacy, and retroactive and overly broad legislation erode free expression. The anti-immigration hysteria and the rise of the far right may lead to de facto ethnic cleansing. The control of the world by transnational corporations has occurred through violations of privacy, data mining and economic crime.

    The real concern in northern Europe and in Brussels also is around how AI will not be controlled by a corporate economy. Why is that? Considerations of profit will ensure, as the former head of AI in Google recently argued, that within thirty years there is a ten to twenty percent chance of human liquidation. It trespasses in an unbridled way on boundaries.

    The question of compensation and reparation also arose in our discussion at the ICC, and I mentioned that the Innocence Project in all its conferences has a separate stream for the exonerated. So does the ICC. Thus, surely it is time the Irish government finally to deliver on its Magdalene Laundry promises, and compensate those disposed by banksters? Fat chance.

    The concept of obligations ergo omnes needs to be extended to new challenges. The ICC needs to be supported to extend its jurisdiction. They seem beleaguered but to quote Halldor Laxness they are at least Independent People. Independent People are important. Thus bankers were jailed in his native land Iceland when Independent People prevailed.

    Feature Image: The premises of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands. The ICC moved into this building in December 2015.

  • Weighing up Ireland’s Hate Crime Law

    The new so-called Hate Crime Bill [Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022] in Ireland has generated quite a furore, including outright condemnation by Elon Musk, who described the measure as a “Massive attack on freedom of speech.”

    It has also been branded “insane” by Donald Trump Junior, which was used as a distorted form of justification for the law by Minister Simon Harris. However, criticism has also come from Paul Murphy of People Before Profit from the opposite end of the political spectrum to the Trump family. There has also been criticism from human rights bodies.

    The crucial provisions are Section 7 and Section 8.

    Protected Characteristics

    Section 7 is the mechanism by which offences against those of protected characteristics can be criminalised. At one level it is an admirable measure. Indeed, I have represented people with disabilities, who are one of the categories included.

    More controversially, transgenderism is one of the protected categories. It was surely not hate speech for the feminist author Germaine Greer to say that a man who becomes a woman can never really understand what it is to be a woman.

    In my view it was a serious violation of fair comment to no platform Greer for the comments – no matter whether one agrees with her ideas or not. To criminalise such a statement would be a return to the Dark Ages of the Papal Index.

    One hopes that a statement such as that made by Greer would be protected as legitimate political or cultural criticism, which are important delimiters and qualifiers contained in the Act, but the defence would arise only if the matter actually came to Court. The existence of a criminal charge might still be bandied about to damage the reputation of an individual or publisher. Malicious prosecutions are not unheard of in the Emerald Isle.

    Perhaps what really stoked the ire was Greer also stating “because he does not have a smelly vagina”. This brings us to the subject of ridicule. Ronald Dworkin wrote an article on the right to ridicule inspired by the Danish Cartoons incident.

    ridicule is a distinct kind of expression: its substance cannot be repackaged in a less offensive rhetorical form without expressing something very different from what was intended….

    So, in a democracy no one, however powerful or important, enjoys a right not to be insulted or offended. Christopher Hitchens and the English judge Stephan Sedley have also remarked that any freedom to speak inoffensively is worthless.

    In more carefree times, political opponents Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley came together as pundits at the behest of a failing network for the 1968 Democratic and Republican Party Conventions. This has recently been documented in a film called ‘Best of Enemies’, which is now a West End play by the same name.

    William F. Buckley was the archangel of neo-conservatism, while Gore Vidal was an embodiment of what now seems an excessive liberalism. They deliberated on a state of siege, with riots in Chicago and democratic legitimation in question. America, along with the rest of the world, was on the brink, just like today.

    The debate famously culminated after the Republican Convention nominating Richard Nixon, who now seems a more sympathetic figure when compared to what followed him. Indeed, Nixon’s statement in 1969 that government has a great role to play in health care, ‘but we must always make sure that our doctors will be working for their patients and not for the federal government,’ is perhaps an idea that still has some merit; especially when one considers the damage of the top-down, dictatorial approach taken by many governments in response to Covid-19.

    In front of a live TV audience of millions, Buckley vented an anger, which he later regretted, calling Vidal ‘a queer’; in response to Vidal describing Buckley as a crypto-Nazi.

    Hate Speech

    Let’s consider both comments in the light of the current Irish legislation, Section 7 and Section 8 in particular. Buckley’s comment is arguably hate speech directed against a protected characteristic, i.e. gay people, although a term that was originally meant as an insult has since been appropriated by the gay community as almost a badge of honour, in a way similar to the artistic licence taken with the “n-word” among African-American (or Black?) communities. Can offensive terms be used by those with a protected characteristic?

    Moreover, in a 1974 essay for the New York Review of Books ‘Fascinating Fascism’ on Leni Riefenstahl, Susan Sontag wondered how it had come about that ‘a regime which persecuted homosexuals [had] become a gay turn-on?’ Under the current legislation would it be a crime to suggest that the Nazi (anti-)aesthetic could be ‘a turn on’ to a gay person?

    A latter-day Gore Vidal might also be prosecuted for branding a right-wing Republican such as Buckley a crypto-Nazi, as Section 8 criminalises grossly trivialising genocide, crimes against humanity and peace.

    Crucially Section 11 of the act allows for a defence of criticism with respect to protected characteristics. But this does not apply, remarkably, to crimes against humanity under Section 8. To this we now turn.

    The language of Section 8 which criminalises inter alia crimes against humanity may be desirable in principle, although the overly broad language sets off alarm bells.

    Arguably, condoning or negating such crimes ought to be a criminal offence. Imagine being an Armenian and having to listen to Turkish propaganda justifying what is considered the first orchestrated attempt to eliminate a national group in the twentieth century?

    But this may easily become a legitimate subject for debate, such as exploring whether the Malthusian policies of the British Crown in Ireland during the Famine of 1845-51 should be described as a genocide.

    Also, who decides whether a genocide has taken place, a body of historians, or a court of law? Do we need to allow the fog of war to dissipate before any such adjudications with criminal ramifications are determined?

    Could it now be an offence to claim that Putin’s war in the Ukraine is really about Great Powers competing for resources rather than an attempt to eliminate Ukrainian national identity? By assessing the attendant brutality of the war in terms of Great Power politics, would a publisher or individual then be “trivialising” a crime against humanity.

    A measured denial of genocide – such as claims that the ICC’s Putin arrest warrant was based on State Department funded report that debunked itself – is completely different to an ahistorical assessment of a wide range of primary sources. The crucial issue here is adherence to the facts. It must be open for historians, journalists and lawyers to scrutinise questionable narratives around controversial events, such as the Kennedy Assassination. A distinction perhaps is that crimes against humanity are generally on a scale such as to make them undeniable.

    Criminalising that which grossly trivialises crimes against humanity is far too opaque and subjective a ground for a prosecution. The Act ought to be challenged under Article 40.6.1 of the Irish Constitution: ‘The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.’

    An Article 26 Reference (by the President to the Supreme Court required within seven days of his receiving it) poses the risk however that if is unsuccessful there will be no further opportunity challenge any aspect of it in an Irish court.

    Ecocide and Economicide

    There may, however, be certain unintended consequences of the Act that could be used to advance progressive causes.

    In international law there are established candidates which are part of customary international law so called lex lata (established principles of customary international law), and more speculative controversial candidates over which there is an increasing lack of consensus, called in international law terms de lega ferenda (not yet firmly established).

    Thus, for example, one potential crime against humanity supported from the 1970’s proposed by Richard A. Falk is ecocide or crimes against the environment. Since such a crime involves various forms of intent and can include a conspiracy, it would involve at least the meeting of minds of the major oil and gas companies, and those who profit from them, including legislators.

    There is also a potential new crime against humanity for which there is less authority to date of economicide. Perhaps all of those who peddle a neoliberal world view, or support vulture or cuckoo fund, or allowed wealth to be siphoned off by Big Pharma during Covid-19 could and should be prosecuted!

    It could be said that the lifting of the eviction ban by the government is a form of economicide, as it is indirectly fuelling far-right wing extremism, led by gangsters attacking people with baseball bats. Thus, arguably, government policies, or the lack thereof, have indirectly generated racial hatred, and racism (speech directed against a protected characteristic) is criminalised by the Act.

    The framing of the innocent is also a de ledge ferenda candidate as a crime against humanity. One might argue that the Garda and/or the Department of Justice have condoned or been in denial of this.

    European Convention

    The Act is also likely to be challenged, and is subject to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Irish courts are bound, but rarely properly observe the Charter, despite the interpretative obligation. In reality we follow the ECHR selectively, ignoring it if it is too awkward, as in the nefarious Dwyer case.

    In a number of cases such as Jersild v Denmark (1994) and Lingens v Austria (1986) the ECHR have indicated under Article 10 of the Convention that speech encompasses a right to outrage and shock. These are deemed hallmarks of pluralism, tolerance and broad-mindedness in a society.

    Not everything is permitted. Thus, Holocaust denial or racist speech are excluded from protection, but the parameters are wide and restricted categories do not go quite as far as this Act.

    The crucial case of Lehideux and Isorni v France (1998) is particularly instructive. Here Le Monde newspaper were protected under Article 10 of the Convention for publishing an article celebrating the career of Marshall Pétain, the Vichy French leader who collaborated with the Nazis. The content was not set out in a way to negate or revise clearly established facts.

    It should also be noted that no action of publication or broadcast of hateful material is required, bringing us into the territory of thought crimes. The much-trumpeted defence of legitimate artistic and political criticism only applies to possession of such material.

    Considering the imposition of close to absolute liability for the distribution of so-called offensive material on the internet, and even a reversal of the burden of proof, it is no wonder Elton Musk is concerned. He may be put out of business!

    Moreover, the term ‘may be prosecuted’ is very loose statutory language. On whose behest?

    Stress Test

    Let us stress test the crucial sections of the Act against potential scenarios.

    1. Stating that Leo Varadkar is like Verruca Salz from Willie Wonka’s Chocolate Factory, a spoilt privileged brat, and a wart on the body politic offence falls short of being a criminal offence on a literal interpretation of the Act. But what if one called him a crypto-Nazi or inferred that Nazism could be a turn-on to him? Would that be grossly trivialising crimes against humanity or demeaning to a protected category? Crucially, the defence of political criticism is unavailable for crimes against humanity.
    2. Adrian Hardiman, our finest judge since Declan Costello, once addressed my King’s Inn class to defend his decision in the Portmanock Golf Club case (2009) where he sanctioned the barring of women members from the club, much to the distress of the Equality Authority, which had taken the case. He then argued that a lesbian rugby club should not be obliged to accept him as a member given he was not a lesbian and couldn’t play rugby. These comments by a Supreme Court judge were in a public place. We may have to shut down, or sanitise beyond recognition, the hallowed debating societies of Ireland in response to this Act.
    3. Is Michael O’ Leary the Chairman of Ryanair in his denial of man-made climate change grossly trivialising the crime against humanity that is ecocide? Or what if one were to say that supposed climate change activists including the IMF and Bill Gates are themselves guilty of crimes against humanity for condoning Malthusian practices, rather than focusing on regulating the extractive corporations devouring the planet?

    Book Collector

    I have been a book collector of first editions since I was sixteen. One book in my collection is a first edition of Vladimir Nabokov Lolita, (1959) which narrates in baroque language an affair between a middle-aged man and an under-age girl. I also possess a first edition of the notorious fascist writer Louis-Ferdinand Céline’s Journey to the End of Night (1932). In possessing works that seemingly supports crimes against humanity, and another that undermines protected characteristics am I guilty of an offence?

    Even if I am not prosecuted, does the very existence of such an offence generate opprobrium towards great literature?

    One fears that even the great Dostoevsky’s books may soon be de-platformed if any of these are deemed a “Kremlin-favoured work.”

    Simon Harris has suggested that there is no conspiracy, or campaign being orchestrated against free speech in response to condemnation. The jury is still decidedly out on that question. Perhaps what we see at work is a coalition of interests, or a just a confederacy of dunces.

    A chill wind blows. Slow train coming and more acts to follow.

  • Maasai Forced off Land by UAE Royals

    Forcing indigenous peoples off ancestral lands to create so-called Gardens of Eden, pasture for grazing, or massive dams, is nothing new. It forms the basis of many colonial and neo-colonial projects.

    Recall the clearance of hundreds of thousands of small Irish farmers friom the1840s. Or the formation of the national parks of America, led by John Muir, considered the Daddy of wilderness projects, who openly stated that his nature parks would NOT include people, particularly not the indigenous people whom he regarded as ‘unclean’ blots on his perfect ‘wilderness’.

    Thanks to Muir, thousands of First Nation American Indians were driven off lands they had lived on for hundreds of years, to make way for National Parks; places where they would never be welcome.

    In more recent days Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro has been ramping up his rhetoric, encouraging the rape and pillage of the Amazon, forcing thousands of indigenous Indian tribes from their lands.

    Amazonia. © Arison Jardin

    Lovely hey?

    That a similar atrocity is now being visited on the Maasai people who have lived on, and with, their lands in northern Tanzania for hundreds of years, long before Tanzanian independence, to create killing fields for the super-rich Royal family of the UAE is deeply shocking.

    Since the 1980’s a luxury safari company – the Otterlo Business Company (OBC) – has been trying to complete a deal with the Tanzanian government whereby hundreds of thousands of Maasai will be driven from their ancestral lands. 1,700 acres is to be stolen from them to create a private shooting park for the UAE Royal family and their super rich mates.

    Acting for the Royal family, the OBC, a hugely wealthy private safari set up, have had their eyes on privatising thousands of acres of Ngorongoro, and Loliondo, key parts of the Maasai homeland in Northern Tanzania for decades.

    Ironically, part of these lands were actually set aside for royalty under British colonial rule – in the ‘good old days’. These days, thanks to OBC, ‘hundreds of members of Arab royalty and high-flying businessmen spend weeks each year hunting antelope, lion, leopard and other wild animals’.

    The area is leased (under the Otterlo name) by a member of an Emirati royal family who is a senior officer in the UAE defence ministry ministry.

    The OBC is no newcomer to the ‘big game’ slaughter scene. They have been busy in Tanzania’s wildlife parks for decades. Under a deal brokered with the Tanzanian government in 1992, involving the transfer of millions of dollars to Tanzania’s Armed Forces, Maasai homes were burnt down, their cattle stolen or killed, leaving villagers ‘homeless and without food, clothing, land,  water or basic medical needs’. Now they want this deal cemented – and all Maasai removed. Their villages, schools, fields and medical stations destroyed.

    As the leader of the Maasai, Julius Petei Olekitaika, says, ‘Imagine your home being burned in front of you to clear your land for foreigners to hunt. Imagine not being able to graze our cows because the government wants to protect a foreign investor whose only interest is hunting the wildlife.’

    The Tanzanian government, which gets 17% of its GDP from tourism, has made vague gestures towards the Maasai in the past, assuring them they will be protected, but recently pressure has been upped with the government saying the Maasai population is ‘detrimental to wildlife’.

    This is of course nonsense. Hugely wealthy game hunters, with massively powerful rifles,  and virtually no government oversight, have been a good deal more ‘detrimental to wildlife’ than the Maasai.

    Neighbouring Kenya, which banned big game hunting in 1978, says 80% of wildlife which should be funnelling through the corridor between the game parks of Tanzania and Kenya has been affected. Samwel Nangria, a Maasai organiser, says these guys ‘shoot anything they come across’.

    The Maasai on the other hand, famous for their nomadic and pastoral lifestyle that actually depends on maintaining the balance between people, ecology and animals remaining stable, are the ones being demonised, hunted, shot at, and driven from their homes.

    Already impacted by years of racism and bullying to try and get them out, recently the Maasai have had their livelihood​​s further damaged by a blanket ban on planting crops, and by climate change. With a ban on planting, food shortages are now common. In 2022 the Red Cross reported 60,000 of their cattle died.

    In June 2022 the Tanzanian government sent armed soldiers to evict Maasai. Thousands fled. Hundreds were injured as troops opened fire.

    Not that the big game hunters give a damn. All they want is an abundance of animals they can slaughter and to hell with the Maasai. To hell also with climate change.

    For all of us sharing this beautiful planet, and facing our greatest existential crisis – will we actually survive climate breakdown? How can anyone, or any government, justify allowing extraordinarily wealthy men to jet in, with guns, to take the lands, the livelihood and even the lives of a centuries old people so that they the rich ones can kill some of the most beautiful, and some of the most endangered, animals on earth? And probably take photos of themselves doing it.

    ‘For us’ says Samwel Nangiria, ‘the land is a source of knowledge, a source of life, a source of identity’.

    For the hunters one imagines the land is meaningless. Just somewhere to go and kill stuff.

    A few men enriched by this deal may think they’re the smart ones, but wouldn’t Tanzania’s freedom fighting, Socialist, first president, Julius Nyerere, be turning in his grave if he knew?

    I think he would.

    Feature Image: Maasai School, Tanzania, 2009.