Joshua Philipp: Högsta domstolens Cisco-beslut kan motverkas med olika lagar | NTD NYHETER

The Supreme Court has shut down a human rights case. Joining us now to discuss this is Joshua Phillips, senior investigative reporter with the Epoch Times and host of Crossroads on Epoch TV. So Josh, always great to have you on today. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of tech giant Cisco shutting down a human rights lawsuit, accusing it of facilitating abuses in China, but it did not dispute the allegations of abuses against Falun Gong practitioners. There's no determination on the merits of the allegations. So to start off, maybe you can just talk to us a bit about the ruling itself. Yeah, so what this does is it makes it so that they cannot bring the charges against Cisco. Effectively, what had happened was Cisco, in its own writings, right, reviewed by the Epoch Times, of course, in its own writings, had detailed how they were creating technologies to help the Chinese Communist Party in its persecution against Falun Gong. And, you know, people can say, well, you know, domestic persecution, whatever. Put this in perspective. What this means is that a company can create technologies, knowingly, openly even stating it, to be used in a religious persecution, and the company cannot be held liable for aiding and abetting. This means that if a company was going, because it's a Supreme Court decision now, if a company finds out there's a genocide in Africa against Christians, and they create technologies, and they even say in writing, you know, you can use this to crack down on Christians. You can use this to find Christians and arrest them. This Supreme Court ruling means that the case cannot be brought against the company for doing that. Because effectively, based on records right now, that seems what Cisco Systems has actually done. They said it openly. They created the technologies. And, of course, we know a massive persecution is happening in China, which it does appear these technologies are aiding and abetting in, based on what I believe is the case. Okay, so talk to us a bit more about the implications of this ruling. Is there no room left? Does it mean that American companies can essentially help the CCP in human rights abuses with no consequences? Well, so this actually shuts down the interpretation under two different laws. One of them being around torture. One of them being around, you know, foreign human rights cases. Effectively, whether you can bring those cases in the United States. And the Supreme Court has determined aiding and abetting cannot be the case for this. This does not mean like direct involvement in the persecution. Maybe they can find a case to suggest that Cisco Systems was directly involved somehow. But so far, no. The dissenting judges, it was a six to three ruling. Actually, the liberal judges were the ones who were against Cisco on this. The liberal justices were the ones who kind of raised the bigger problems with this. What they said effectively is this could make it so that companies can legally carry out acts of genocide, slavery, human rights abuses, religious persecution, anything, you know, as long as they're not like directly, directly involved. But creating technologies, aiding with technologies, aiding with other things they're providing, and they cannot be held liable. On the fallen doctor practitioner side, one thing they argued is that the crimes they allege were committed took place within the United States. Of course, because the technologies were created here and then sent to China with statements issued here, and then, of course, given to China for the purpose stated of facilitating human rights abuses. I think overall what this means is that it makes it more difficult for human rights cases to be brought forward if people are involved with it. Okay, so then what are the avenues then if a group wants to hold companies accountable, if they're helping the CCP in human rights abuses? Do you have to go to Congress now? What are the avenues? Well, that's a big argument now. This makes it much more difficult for the normal legal process. Some of these laws go back to the founding of the United States. Some of these laws they were trying to use are very old laws, very established laws. At this point, it's going to have to take place through like maybe Magnitsky Act type things where you can actually sanction individuals who've been engaging in human rights abuses. Congress right now is actually working on that. In fact, there was a unanimous call recently in Congress, 444 meaning death, death, death, even issued right after Xi Jinping's birthday, where members of Congress actually suggested the use of the Magnitsky Act to sanction Chinese government officials involved in any way with human rights abuses. Out of the United Kingdom, when they did their tribunal proving the existence of mass organ harvesting, mainly of Falun Gong practitioners, but of other groups as well in China, what they also said in the UK during that tribunal was that anybody involved in that genocide, anybody involved in, again, forced organ harvesting, killing people for the sale of their organs at a government level, an industrial level, can be held liable even if it's like an aiding and abetting type manner. So even though these two laws in the US cannot be interpreted like this, aiding and abetting, congressional pressure, Magnitsky Act, international law, UK law, foreign law, there are still many avenues on this. Okay, that's good to hear. And maybe you can give us a bit more of your comments on the majority opinion. You gave us your comments on the dissenting opinion, but Justice Amy Coney Barrett said that allowing lawsuits like this could interfere with US foreign relations. What are your comments on this? I find it disturbing because I think it undermines what America is meant to stand for. What America stands for is we're kind of the counterbalance to the global communist movement. The global communist movement would suggest that human life is no more valuable than whatever it can produce. The American system, right, the American idea is that we have God-given rights. The right to life is one of them, right? Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. The right to life. And so if companies are engaging in practices that undermine what America stands for, again, God-given rights and the idea that government protects God-given rights, I think we're losing what we stand for on the world stage. This is a very sad day for the United States. I personally very much disagree with this. And what this will do is allow businesses for money to undermine what America represents and to harm people indirectly, again, because this is aiding and abetting for the sake of financial gain. It's a terrible day for the United States. Okay, let's end on something maybe more optimistic. If people are sitting at home and watching this, what can they do to help? Call your members of Congress. Even though this is a Supreme Court decision on this, it did not actually address the actual charges. This was basically preventing the case from moving forward. That does not mean the case is over by any means. It just means that the laws they were going to use to bring the case cannot be used in this context. Congress can still act. President of the United States could still act. And I think America wants to represent the bastion of freedom of speech and freedom of belief rather than a force that will undermine freedom of belief and freedom of speech for profit. They need to act. And so I would encourage people to call your members of Congress if you care about this. Well, okay, Josh, always great to hear your insight. Thank you very much.