Lilac Wine

In Duarte Agostinho v Portugal and 32 Other Member States, filed in November 2021, a group of Portuguese young people made claims about past and future harms caused by climate change, including harms related to forest fires in Portugal. The case reinforces the potential for the ECHR and the protection of human rights to play a key role in the future for holding countries accountable to carry out their climate obligations.

In this case, the applicants have challenged the legislative inaction of Portugal and 32 other states parties to the Paris Agreement. Their collective failure to take adequate measures to reduce global warming has contributed to significant loss of life as a result of climate change through heatwaves and wildfires, which is likely to contribute to further loss of life in the future (article 2) , unless imminent measures are put in place across all of them. The case conceptualises responsibility for violations of human rights as ‘shared’ amongst the member states. The case thereby challenges the traditional concept of jurisdiction by holding that the impact of the violations may be felt more strongly in some member states , other states also bear responsibility for the violation. Similarly, climate litigation challenges the limits of the existing positive obligations doctrine.

following this trend now in 2023, the governments of Switzerland and France have been accused of breaching the human rights of their citizens by not acting decisively enough on climate change, at a landmark legal hearing in Strasbourg. The European Court of Human Rights will hear cases against France and Switzerland over alleged failings to protect the environment made by a a group of Swiss women over the age of 64 who are supported by Greenpeace Switzerland. The applicants have alleged that heatwaves, caused due to climate change and the inaction of their countries, have impacted the health of senior citizens therefore impacting their right to life. The outcome of this case is highly anticipated and will determine the scope and potential of climate litigation going forward.

The Serious Disruption Regulations passed in June 2023, have essentially enabled the police to stop any protest; a complete violation of freedom of expression.

The regulations are the latest update in a series of crackdowns by the conservative government in diminishing the right to protest. This new measure follows the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 which granted police chiefs new powers to impose start and finish times on protests and noise limits which are widely drawn powers. Police can even stop and search anyone in the vicinity of the protest. A year later and the trend of curtailing the democratic right to protest continues. The 2023 regulations allow restrictions to be imposed on protests with increased regularity. Protests can now even be shut down for too many people attending or due it taking place in a prominent location.

The recent jailing of a woman who terminated her pregnancy after the legal time limit set out in the Abortion Act 1967 in June 2023 has reinvigorated the debate as to whether abortion should be wholly decriminalised in the UK. The Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 originally set out circumstances for which abortion is considered a criminal offence in section 58 if a woman administered drugs or uses instruments to procure her miscarriage illegally. UK law has has a longstanding history of perceiving abortion as a matter which women can be criminalised for.

The current time limit is 24 weeks after which if a woman undergoes an abortion she will be subject to criminal sanctions. It should be noted that the majority of supporters and pressure groups in favour of decriminalisation, such as the Fawcett Society and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, are not advocating the legalisation of abortion after 24 weeks but rather for abortion not to be treated as a criminal matter. Society's attitudes towards abortion as a right for women has changed, and abortion is predominantly a medical issue which women should not be forced to face prosecution for.

Ever talked to someone who says so much yet so little at the same time? Or some people who like to talk about things or events but don't derive any opinions or original thoughts on them as if simply discussing the existence of a state of affairs is interesting enough without any personality. It's like their lips keep moving but nothing interesting comes out, slowly putting me to sleep...

I realise I sound pretty pretentious right about now, and I promise I'm not about to go all Jaden Smith and demand that everyone should have intellectual conversations about the 'political and economic state of the world'. I realise that small talk is important for emotional connection and trust with strangers. All good conversationalists may not prefer small talk, being open to deeper discussions, but they have still mastered small talk and understand its value in connecting with different people. Asking someone how they find the weather can actually reveal a lot about them through their response, in a way which is safe and allows you to empathise with someone's emotions without having to pour out your heart to them.

Can you imagine if someone came up to you randomly, even if an acquaintance, and asked 'whats your deepest darkest secret or trauma? Can we discuss our feelings and our philosophical positions on the state of the universe'?. I'll admit, if a stranger asked me the latter question I'd be pretty excited and interested to answer. Despite these conversation starters being open and interesting a lot of people get creeped out and honestly I'd be creeped out by the first question too. Not everyone reacts the same way to deeper, theoretical or intellectual types of discussion and this is precisely what makes small talk so useful. Small talk allows you to figure out what kind of person you are talking without risking offending or being misunderstood since the rules of small talk and the acceptable topics to discuss (within the relevant context) are so basic and simple to follow.

Establish rapport by first starting with small talk depending on your surroundings and the context what is relevant to say will be apparent. Then slowly say charming things you observe or opinions you have, not too controversial or deep in nature but just to test out how the other person reacts. From there you can attempt to dip your toes into deeper topics of conversation that stem naturally from the flow of the conversation. I would give an example but there is really no way of predicting how these conversations go. The key thing is to learn how to gradually take control of the frame of the conversation if necessary (when its getting boring) and gracefully steer it towards a more engaging direction through genuine interest in another person and their opinions on deeper topics.

The important thing is to be flexible and open to actually listening the other person. By being flexible, I mean don't be dorky and try to plan what you will say or allow yourself to feel rigid and awkward. Allow your own opinions to occur to you naturally and select whether to say them based on appropriateness. when you stress about what to say you lose the original point of small talk w