*China has sentenced [Uyghur scholar] Rahile Dawut to life in prison and would like the world to forget her. We must not.*

* In Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, the [104]Netherlands and the UK, authorities have responded to climate protests with mass arrests, the passing of draconian new laws, the imposing of severe sentences for non-violent protests and the labeling of activists as hooligans, saboteurs or eco-terrorists.*

They seem to be confused about where the real threat comes from. The protesters do not threaten to destroy civilization and cause a mass extinction; that threat comes from the businesses that insist on continuing to cause the danger and the politicians that refuse to stop them.

If the politicians carried out their responsibility to make those businesses stop roasting the Earth, the protesters wouldn't need to undertake to campaign for them to do it.

When politicians call climate defense protesters "selfish", they are saying the opposite of the truth, denying deny the danger that global heating poses to all of us and the virtue of trying to save civilization from disaster. In effect, they declare allegiance to the planet-roaster side.

*How criminalization is being used to silence climate activists across the world.*

Republicans in the House of Representatives are unable to agree on a speaker.

Putin has jailed Alexei Navalny's defense lawyers.

Some business executives want to start a blacklist of all the students in Harvard student groups that signed their name to a letter that supported HAMAS.

This would be adding evil to evil. The last thing we need in the US is another massive blacklist campaign against freedom of speech.

The letter took an extreme position which entirely exculpated HAMAS for massacres and kidnapping of hundreds of civilians. As you can see in my recent political notes, I reject that view.

It is true that Israel confines millions of Palestinians to what can be called open-air prisons, but that doesn't excuse HAMAS's response.

In a situation with wrong on all sides, we need to be able to see the various wrongs of various sides, and also to weigh them against each other. Two great wrongs are not necessarily equivalent. Whether one wrong overrides or justifies another is a subtle question and it depends on details.

For instance, a crime such as Putin's invasion of Ukraine justifies the violence of fighting back with war, which Ukraine is doing, but it would not justify terrorism as a response. (Ukraine is not doing that.)