One year after the ruling by #Poland’s discredited Constitutional Tribunal banning access to abortion in almost all circumstances took effect, it has had a devastating impact on the lives of women.
Since the ruling took effect on 27 January 2021, more than 1,000 women have turned to the European Court of Human Rights in an effort to vindicate their rights, challenging #Poland’s highly restrictive abortion law and seeking justice.
These groundbreaking cases mark the first direct challenges to be filed before the European Court against #Poland’s abortion law and the 2020 ruling by the bogus Constitutional Tribunal.
Nine leading international human rights organizations have filed third-party interventions to the European Court of Human Rights in these cases from #Poland:
They outline the profound implications that highly restrictive abortion laws have on the lives and health of women and girls.
"Restrictive abortion laws such as #Poland’s are contrary to international and European human rights standards and public health guidelines. They compromise women’s freedom, dignity, health, and lives."
Welcome to our future, thanks to the EU, UK and Switzerland, which continue to throttle vaccine production globally by obstructing the #TRIPSwaiver at the WTO.
If you still think that vaccine donations are going to reach in time the billions of people in poorer countries who haven't had one dose yet, and thus end the global pandemic for all of us, you are either living on another planet, or you're hoodwinked by the EU Commission's lies.
The most powerful line from this report may be this:
"We were misled – down the garden path – we got to December believing the world was coming together around vaccines, not knowing that we got corralled into a little corner while others run off and secure the supplies."
Report: "...there is a more insidious consequence of the overreliance on donations: it reinforces neo-colonial power dynamics & an outdated charity model, leaving low-income countries’ ability to vaccinate their populations dependent on the 'generosity' of wealthy countries."
#Beijing’s Olympics are not business as usual. They take place against a backdrop of Chinese government crimes against humanity targeting ethnic Uyghurs, repression in Hong Kong and Tibet, and risks to athletes unprecedented in the modern Olympic era.
According to the Committee to Protect Journalists @pressfreedom, China remains the worst jailer of journalists in the world for the third straight year.
If some EU member states are now fining people who refuse to get vaccinated, how much should the EU Commission be fined for preventing billions of people from getting vaccinated? 🤔
Some people I know express serious anger about the anti-maskers & anti-vaxers, and yes, I can understand that: their refusal to do the right thing endangers others.
But the damage those individuals do pales in comparison to that of the EU's policy of choking vaccine production.
In blocking wider vaccine production globally, EU & UK take a neocolonialist approach to the pandemic, saying:
❗️ we're in charge;
❗️ we decide who lives & dies;
❗️ we may give you some charity later if we feel generous & if you behave.
It’s arrogant & self-destructive.
From the beginning, the EU & UK have been blocking wider vaccine production globally by obstructing the #TRIPSwaiver, a proposal at the World Trade Organization to temporarily waive some intellectual property rules on vaccines & other health products.
EU & UK leaders have adopted this policy to boost pharma monopoly profits.
They know it will prolong the pandemic & lead to more deaths & suffering.
They know it gives more time for new variants to emerge.
But profits come first, so the policy is: enforce vaccine shortage.
It's not that our "leaders" are failing as politicians; it's that they are failing as human beings.
"Exhibit A" for me would be the moral disaster that is the European Commission. Here are just a few reasons why. (There are many more: I could make this thread 50 tweets long, at least.)
"Exhibit B" today would be this from the UN "leadership". I mean, why would anyone in such a position not raise (and condemn) mass atrocity crimes? How broken does your moral compass have to be to dodge that responsibility?