Peru now has a ‘licence to kill’ environmental protesters
Peru now has a ‘licence to kill’ environmental protesters
Law exempts soldiers and police from criminal responsibility if they cause injuries or deaths
Some of the recent media coverage about the fact that more than 50 people in Peru – the vast majority of them indigenous – are on trial following protests and fatal conflict in the Amazon over five years ago missed a crucial point. Yes, the hearings are finally going ahead and the charges are widely held to be trumped-up, but what about the government functionaries who apparently gave the riot police the order to attack the protestors, the police themselves, and – following Wikileaks’ revelations of cables in which the US ambassador in Lima criticized the Peruvian government’s “reluctance to use force” and wrote there could be “implications for the recently implemented Peru-US FTA” if the protests continued – the role of the US government?
The conflict broke out in northern Peru after mainly indigenous Awajúns and Wampis had been peacefully protesting a series of new laws which were supposedly emitted to comply with a trade agreement between Peru and the US and which made it easier, among other things, for extractive industries to exploit natural resources in their territories. Following a blockade of a highway near a town called Bagua – and an agreement that the protestors would break up and go home, reached the day before – early on 5 June the police moved to clear it and started shooting. In the ensuing conflict, 10 police officers, five indigenous people and five non-indigenous civilians were killed, more than 200 injured – at least 80 of whom were shot – and, elsewhere in the Bagua region, a further 11 police officers were killed after being taken hostage.
“So far only protesters have been brought to trial,” said Amnesty International in a statement marking five years since the conflict and pointing out that human rights lawyers have said there is no serious evidence linking the accused to the crimes they are being prosecuted for – which include homicide and rebellion. “[S]o far little progress has been made to determine the responsibility of the security forces. Likewise, no progress has been made to investigate the political authorities who gave the orders to launch the police operation.”
Does this desperate failure of justice not effectively constitute a “licence to kill” for the police? Maybe, maybe not, but whatever the answer Peru has now formalised that licence by emitting a law that, as the Dublin-based NGO Front Line Defenders (FLD) puts it, grants:
. . . members of the armed forces and the national police exemption from criminal responsibility if they cause injury or death, including through the use of guns or other weapons, while on duty. Human rights groups, both nationally and internationally, the Human Rights Ombudsman (Defensoria del Pueblo) as well as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights all expressed deep concern about the law. In the words of the [Lima-based] Instituto Libertad y Democracia [IDL], the law equates, in practice, to a “licence to kill.”
More:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/andes-to-the-amazon/2014/jun/29/peru-licence-to-kill-environmental-protestors
= new reply since forum marked as read
How perfectly helpful and just. 
...to assuage their anxiety over the genocide they are taking part in.
And yet it is all for naught. Their deaths and maiming and injuries, that is. As moral as hell, yes. In the right as hell, yes. Doomed to failure after being crushed under the wheels of capitalism and the exploitation and the further destruction and degradation of our planet - yes!
When workable and sustainable alternatives are found that makes sense and yet we continue to do things the old way, then nothing will change.
What we are demanding is nothing less the total divestiture of the rich. Globally. They own nothing. It is all the peoples of the planet's heritage and no few sick-assholes who think they can award its resources to their progeny using slick inheritance laws and rules that apply to a few -- while the rest of us get stiffed, is coming to its inevitable end. They do not have any inherent right to decide how the resources of the planet will be distributed. And they certainly must not be allowed to continue to widen their trails of pollution and the spreading of all the different cancers that spin-off like germs and viruses from their GREED.
It is way past time for a: 
