You Don't Bring Me Flowers

Photo: Martin Rubli

You Don't Bring Me Flowers

Neil Diamond

You don't bring me flowers
You don't sing me love songs
You hardly talk to me anymore
When I come through the door at the end of the day

I remember when
You couldn't wait to love me
Used to hate to leave me
Now after lovin' me late at night
When it's good for you, babe
And you're feeling alright
Well, you just roll over
And you turn out the light

And you don't bring me flowers anymore
It used to be so natural (Used to be)
To talk about forever
But used-to-be's don't count anymore
They just lay on the floor 'til we sweep them away

And baby, I remember
All the things you taught me
I learned how to laugh
And I learned how to cry
Well I learned how to love
And I learned how to lie
So you'd think I could learn
How to tell you goodbye

You don't bring me flowers anymore
Well, you'd think I could learn
How to tell you goodbye
You don't sing to me
And you don't sing me love songs
You don't bring me flowers anymore

PERMANENT PEOPLES’ TRIBUNAL

PERMANENT PEOPLES’ TRIBUNAL

Founder: LELIO BASSO (ITALY)

President: PHILIPPE TEXIER (FRANCE)

Vicepresidents:

LUIZA ERUNDINA DE SOUSA (BRASIL)

JAVIER GIRALDO MORENO (COLOMBIA) HELEN JARVIS (AUSTRALIA)

NELLO ROSSI (ITALY)

Secretary General:

GIANNI TOGNONI (ITALY)

Session on Human Rights, Fracking and Climate change (14-18 May 2018)

2018 06 04: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

General Secretariat:

VIA DELLA DOGANA VECCHIA 5 - 00186 ROME - TEL:0039 0668801468
E-mail:ppt@permanentpeoplestribunal.org
www.permanentpeoplestribunal.org

The PPT is an international, fully independent organization established in 1979 as an opinion
Tribunal having as its primary statute the Universal Declaration of Peoples’ Rights (Algiers,
1976). The main aim of the PPT is to contribute to the struggle of peoples for their
self-determination and the prevention, assessment, judgment and reparation of their fundamental
rights, whenever international institutions do not fulfil their responsibilities to ensure the full
respect of obligatory duties of justice by public or private actors.

Over five days, from 14 to 18 May, 2018, the PPT heard testimony and received other evidence
relating to fracking and its impact on climate change, human rights and the rights of nature.
Included were very substantial reports from four pre-PPT Citizens’ Tribunals that had gathered
scientific, technical, social, cultural and experiential testimony from many community
organizations, experts and individual citizens. The PPT also received other such evidence from
individuals, experts and NGOs on the negative impact of fracking on the environment, people’s lives
and on their communities.

Given the overwhelming volume and comprehensiveness of the evidence received and the need to
consider all of this carefully, the panel of ten jurors will necessarily take several months to
formulate a precise and comprehensive Opinion, including recommendations.

Because the matters considered by the PPT are of great significance and public concern around the
globe, especially to those affected negatively by the fracking industry, and generally speaking by
the expansion of the fossil fuel extractive frontier, with all its consequences on the climate
crisis, on the environment and on peoples’ rights, by industry role players themselves, and
governments across the world insofar as they have responsibilities to abide by laws and to protect
the public, human rights and the environment, this Preliminary Statement is issued now for public
discussion and action to abate the negative effects of fracking.

The dramatic impacts of the Unconventional Gas and Oil Extraction technologies on people, the
environment and the climate were elaborately documented to the PPT, including a comprehensive
exposition of facts and related oral, visual, juridical and cultural evidence which clearly
established beyond any reasonable doubt the reality of violations of the rights of humans and of
nature, and a significant contribution to climate change. Such findings require the urgent
ascertainment and attribution of responsibilities as well as of the measures which must be
undertaken to avoid an irreversible worsening of the situation; and to bring about changes in
practices, policies of reparation for injuries suffered, and rehabilitation of environmental
destruction including the contribution of fracking to climate change.

What has become clear is that fracking is, with important but limited exceptions, an ongoing and
expanding reality that affects both the rights of nature as well as the rights of individuals and
communities in all the countries which were considered by the PPT, with specifically dramatic
consequences on indigenous peoples. This is just a sample of impacts and consequences suffered
elsewhere where fossil fuel exploration and extraction (including of non conventional fuels such as
tar sands as well as shale gas and shale oil) continues unabated. The many practices of resistance,
research and of resilience by people and their communities that have been presented to the PPT
underline that the violations of rights are generally planned and implemented intentionally, as
well as being hidden when possible and denied when exposed. Also, the frequent absence of
appropriate juridical-normative terms of reference is not recognised by governments as a vacuum to
be urgently corrected, thus providing corporations an excuse to operate within a regime of
impunity.

The scenario of rights violations and impunity, often resulting from regulatory capture, that
fracking presents appears as an exemplary model of the broader geopolicies and strategies of states
and powerful corporations that have imposed a tragic hierarchy of values across the world, which
has resulted in the rights of people and the rights of nature being subjugated to the financial
interests of states and corporations. A sort of systemic crime architecture.

The Advisory Opinion of the PPT will be oriented to provide proposals that are not merely
descriptive by answering the four main questions which have guided the preparation and
implementation of this Session. The Opinion will also explore, evaluate and make findings on the
responsibilities for the multiple abuses of rights violations and the roles that many actors play
in this respect. The Tribunal will, in addition, focus on:

- the possible ways of strengthening the role of local communities and indigenous peoples which
must be further recognized as the main subjects of inviolable rights including that of
self-determination;

- the necessary evolution of existing international, national, and local juridical institutions,
concepts and laws which could ensure an innovative role of the guarantors of the rights of affected
and threatened human communities and of nature;

- the promotion of broader and more effective networks of community and political actors capable
of transforming the many but fragmented and dispersed experiences of resistance and resilience into
a true transversal “people”, fighting for the combined respect and promotion of the fundamental
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the more recent Universal Declaration of the Rights of
Mother Earth.

It is then the Interim Opinion of the PPT that:

The evidence we have considered is consistent internally, almost without exception. It is also
consistent with the external evidence to which the Tribunal was referred, i.e. the results reached,
discussed and analysed in hundreds of independent reports and refereed research publications.

The evidence clearly demonstrates that the processes of fracking contribute substantially to
anthropogenic harm, including climate change and global warming, and involve massive violations of
a range of substantive and procedural human rights and the rights of nature. Thus the industry has
failed to fulfil its legal and moral obligations.

The evidence also shows that governments have, in general, failed in their
responsibility to regulate the industry so as to protect people, communities and nature. In
addition, they have failed to act promptly and effectively to the dangers of climate change that
fracking represents.

Finally, this particular Session of the PPT has been an experiment of collaboration and
communication. It has sought to overcome the economic constraint of limited resources which impede
what should be a permanent, timely exercise of assessing, monitoring, preventing and transforming
the universe of violations which occur in the present global scenarios, where the decisions on
policies which go against the fundamental rights of nature and of human communities are taken,
imposed and directed centrally by those who have unlimited resources.

The experiment has been a resounding success, with the inevitable but instructive limitations,
thanks to the commitment of an organising group which deserves the recognition and gratitude not
only of the PPT, but of all those who can now transform this experiment into a flexible and
powerful tool which could allow the struggles of the communities of the world to become more
globally and more timely known, shared and effective.

Panel or the judges:
Alberto Acosta Espinosa
Lilia América Albert Palacios
Andrés Barreda
Upendra Baxi
Gill H. Boehringer Maria Fernanda Campa Louis Kotzé
Larry Lohmann Francesco Martone Antoni Pigrau Solé

PPT General Secretariat:

Simona Fraudatario
Gianni Tognoni

Link: http://permanentpeoplestribunal.org/?lang=en

A Judge Bans Civil Disobedience Training on State Land

Gaspésie - Learning to Disobey While Respecting the Law - A Judge Bans Training at the Opposition Camp at Junex

My translation of article of Alexandre Shields published in Le Devoir May 26 2018

The opponents of the Junex oil project in the Gaspésie peninsula do not have the right to give a training camp on civil disobedience on the public land they are now occupying. A Superior court judge has accepted the request for injuction presented by the Quebec Government, admitting that the government could be harmed seriously and irreperably if such a camp would come to be.

In a ruling Thursday evening, judge MIchel Beaupré has "banned anybody occupying illegally and without authorisation State land from having training camps about civil disobedience, or any other similar activity."

The judge thinks that having such a camp, that should have started Friday, could cause serious and irreperable prejudice for the Quebec government.

However, the court does not rule on the Couillard Governement`s request that demands that the opponents assembled around the group Environnement Vert-Plus, be kicked out of public land they are occupying for the past 9 months. This question will be debated during the debate on the basics of Quebec`s request, at an ulterior date not yet determined.

Also, Judge Beaupré adds that the right of the governement is "apparent" since the Energy and Natural Resources Minister Pierre Moreau has the right and powers of property over State land. But the opponents occupy this public property without the minister`s authorisation.

The court does not rule either on the question of the right of freedom of expression, the freedom of association and peaceful demonstration of citizens opposed to the oil industry`s installation in the Gaspésie. These questions will be debated later.

Reacting to the ruling, the spokesperson of Environnement Vert-Plus Pascal Bergeron, qualified the magistrate`s decision as a "gag rule". He says that the planned activities within the civil disobedience training are within freedom of expression , demonstration and peaceful association.

The opponents to oil exploitation intend to obey the injunction, the occupation of their camp is maintained, but the training planned on direct action against oil and gas installations will be held on sites near but not on state land.

The Quebec Government and Junex have not yet reacted to the ruling Friday. Junex has never answered the Thurdsay request for an interview with Le Devoir. The "River Camp" - "Camp de la Rivière", west of Gaspé, by route 198, has been built at the entrance of the access road to the Junex drilling sites for it`s Galt project. It is 3 km from the wells of the company.

The oil exploration project for which Junex has already asked for an exploration lease, could very well become the first oil extraction site in Quebec.

The exploration of this deposit that would need a maximum of 30 wells on 5 sites, could last more than 40 years, says Junex. But the project has not gone through the stage of environmental evaluation that could be done under the responsibility of a BAPE.

Coalition of Towns Plan to Sue Quebec to be able to Protect their Drinking Water from Fracking

Some municipalities are getting ready to go to court - Elected officials want to have their own laws to protect drinking water from the oil and gas industry

My translation of article written by Alexandre Shields published in Le Devoir on May 27 2018.

At least 166 municipalities have decided to make a common front and go to court to force the Couillard Government to give them the right to have stricter laws to protect drinking water from oil and gas drilling, learned Le Devoir. The Environment Minister Isabelle Mélançon is still refusing to give them this right, even if she can do so.

These 166 municipalities are part of some 338 municipalities, representing more than 4 million Quebecers, that have passed a law that would require a minimum distance of 2 km between a drinking water source and future drilling.

They all ask Minister Isabelle Mélançon to give them the right to go above and beyond the provincial law. This law, called Règlement sur le Prélèvement des eaux et leur Protection (RPEP), passed back in 2014, imposes a minimal distance of 500 meters between drinking water sources and oil and gas wells. A distance thought of as clearly insufficient by municipalities to insure against any contamination.

But even though a first formal request was presented in June 2017 but rejected by the ex-minister David Heurtel, then discussions and 2 meetings with Mme Mélançon`s team, the "pilot committee" that drives the municipalities`endeavour is still waiting for a positive response from the government.

Exasperated by the slowness of Quebec to answer their request, 166 municipalities have decided Friday to instruct their lawyer to file an application in court to obtain the requested exemption.

"The analysis that is the basis of our request is solid and credible. So we do not want to start all over again a new scientific analysis process that would put us back at least till the end of June, so after the National Assembly`s session`s closure, during the summer period and just before the electoral campaign" says the mayor of Ristigouche Sud-Est François Boulay, member of the pilot committee, Friday.

"The committee remains open to negociations. We are ready to welcome any reasonable proposition and work with the Minister. But the municipalities want an anwer and an adequate answer." added jurist Richard Langelier, in charge of scientific suppport to the municipalities.

If the Environment Minister refuses to agree to give an exception , the committee could then ask the court to evaluate the "reasonable character" of such a decision.

"Our question is as follows: can a municipality pass a law that is more strict than the provincial government`s in order to protect it`s drinking water?" says François Boulay. Passing such a law that puts a 2km distance between a source of drinking water and drilling made the gas company Gastem sue his municipality. But the court ruled in the municipalities favor, without ruling on the 2km part.

To avoid repeating this situation, that was a major risk for Ristigouche Sud-Est`s finances, the municipalities have decided to ask Quebec directly the right to vote on more strict laws than those of the RPEP.

"To give more weigth to the unprecedented legal prodedure that they now have decided to start, the municipalities will try to have more to join them. "We will quickly be more than 200 municipalities" predicts Richard Langelier. They have also received last week the unanymous support of the members of the Union des Municipalités du Québec.

Mr Langelier added that they did not mean to stop all of the oil and gas exploration projects that could develop in Quebec where more than thousands of square kilometers have exploration permits. As per Mr Langelier, the Gaspésie Bourque project belonging to Pieridae Energy, is more than 2km from the nearest drinking water source.

In the office of Isabelle Mélançon, they said Friday that they wanted to avoid going to court. Press spokesperson Julien Marcotte, repeated that the Minister will have an answer for the municipalities "in June", without giving an exact date. He says that Mme Mélançon never promised to answer the committee by May 25 like they say. He added that the MInister came into her function in October 2017 and had to familiarize herself with the dossier.

While the municipalities want to be able to prevent risks of contamination of their water by hydrocarbons, the Energy and Naturale Ressources Minister Pierre Moreau has still not published the law that would enact the hydrocarbons Law.

The bills published in September 2017 confirmed the intention of the Couillard giovernment to allow fracking. They also would allow drilling at 350 meters form residential areas and 275 meters from hospitals and schools. Minister Moreau promised to make corrections, but still has not published the laws.

Gunshot!

Yesterday, I was working in my woodpile in the backyard, stacking firewood while listening to the birds signing all around me. Suddenly, a loud "crack" on the left of me, then immediatly after, a metallic "bing" to the right: I recognized the sound of an air BB gun. So I looked up to my left, trying to see through the thick cedar hedge of my neighbor`s.

I could not see a thing until he moved. I could make him out between the branches, and he was carrying a black rifle. I then heard a "pffft". The cartridge sounded empty. That`s when he walked back to his house with it and went in by the basement door.

My heart was beating real fast. I don`t think he knew I was there. He`s a bit deaf for working in construction without any ear protection. If he had fired again, I would have cried out, making him aware that I knew what he was up to. I thought of calling the police, but I have already accused him of assault in the past and he had pleaded guilty and just got a letter from the prosecutor (I got a copy). So was it worth calling the police?

He already makes me uneasy, and now I will be event more watchful of him.

Pauvre Rivière Richelieu!

Je me demande ce qui pousse Marcel Comiré, directeur général de Covabar à dire "qu`il n`y a pas de péril dans la demeure" dans Le Journal de Chambly du 25 avril 2018, réagissant à l`article du Journal du 18 avril sur "un rapport alarmant sur la rivière Richelieu", rapport de Fondation Rivières mettant en lumière le piètre bilan des mauvaises performances des usines d’épuration qui déversent des égouts non-traités dans la rivière.

Pourquoi minimiser l`importance et la portée de ce rapport désolant sinon pour nous faire accepter la médiocrité? Faut-il en comprendre que se complaire dans la pollution est modus operandi chez Covabar, ou est-ce seulement l`opinion de son directeur général?

Je me rappelle que Marcel Comiré avait exprimé publiquement pas mal le même point de vue suite à la non-acceptabilité sociale exprimés par la majorité des citoyens de Richelieu suite à l`annonce de l`implantation d`une porcherie de 5,800 têtes sur gestion liquide en page une du Journal de Chambly le 6 septembre 2005. Les gens de Richelieu s`étaient énervés bien pour rien, ai-je compris de ses interventions sur le sujet.

Quels sont les effets de telles déclarations sur la perception qu`a la population vis-à-vis Covabar? L`organisme se dit un "comité de concertation" pour tous ceux qui se trouvent dans le bassin versant de la rivière Richelieu. Je me demande quelle sorte de gens sont les bienvenus à sa table.

Le Regard Des Autres

Dès que j`ai acheté ma maison en 1979, j`ai commencé à lui faire subir des changements, à commencer par la brique rouge dont je trouvais des morceaux dans la neige par grands froids et vents. D`ailleurs, la maison était un ancien camps d`été et la brique lui donnait un air de petite école que je détestais.


Et j`ai toujours aimé travailler dehors sur le terrain aussi. Mais un moment donné, surtout l`été, j`ai remarqué qu`un homme en auto ralentissait souvent devant chez moi pour mieux m`observer et parfois même il s`arrêtait sur le bord de la rue et regardait chez moi.

Je ne reconnaissais pas le bonhomme et bientôt sa présence m`irritait autant qu`elle m`effrayait. Alors j`ai décidé de le confronter, mais quand il me voyait venir vers lui, il repartait aussitôt.

Après des années de me faire épier de la sorte, un jour que je m`avançais vers lui, il ne s`est pas enfui. Le coeur battant bien fort, appréhendant la rencontre et voyant que sa fenêtre d`auto était baissée, je lui ai demandé ce qu`il me voulait. D`un air désapprobateur, fronçant les sourcils, il me dit: "C`est affreux ce que tu as fait avec cette maison-là!" puis démarra dans son auto.

Je ne savais pas plus qui il était. Il n`était pas le fils d`un ancien propriétaire précédent: celui-ci m`avait déjà visité et nous nous sommes bien entendus. Alors qui était-ce? Qui était cet homme qui empoisonnait mes étés, me rendant nerveuse et peureuse, moi sur mon terrain à moi? Devrais-je le rapporter à la police?

Bien des années plus tard, je repris contact avec un ancien ami d`enfance. On s`est retrouvés un moment donné aux funérailles de sa cousine, une de mes meilleures amies d`enfance. Et il était là! L`homme inconnu qui m`avait épié pendant des années était là, et mon ami d`enfance me dit que c`était son grand frère! Le grand frère ne m`a jamais adressé la parole cette journée-là, et moi je l`évitais comme la peste.

Après un certains temps, je me confiais à mon ami d`enfance retrouvé et expliquais le comportement bizarre de son grand frère pendant des années. Et au lieu de sympathiser avec moi pour tous ces moments d`effroi que j`ai dû subir, il s`attendrit en disant "Pauvre ti-gars! C`est bien lui, faire des affaires de même!" J`avais commis un crime de lèse-majesté en modifiant la maison où sa première épouse décédée avait grandi.

Alors selon certaines personnes, quand on achète une maison, avant de la modifier, il faudrait consulter tous ses propriétaires précédents et leur famille et leurs amis, pour être bien sûr de ne pas les choquer? Balivernes!