Ecuador's proposed constitution includes an article that grants nature the right to "exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution" and will grant legal standing to any person to defend those rights in court.
Voters will get to decide on Sept. 28 whether to adopt the new
constitution, which would allow the president to run for reelection, to
dissolve Congress, and to exert great control over the country's
central bank. According to Reuters, 56 percent of Ecuadorans approve of the proposed document.
The blog Green Change quotes the five articles that acknowledge rights said to be possessed by nature, or "Pachamama," a goddess revered by indigenous Andean peoples whose name roughly translates into "Mother Earth."
Chapter: Rights for Nature
Art. 1. Nature or Pachamama, where life is reproduced and exists, has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution.
Every person, people, community or nationality, will be able to demand the recognitions of rights for nature before the public organisms. The application and interpretation of these rights will follow the related principles established in the Constitution.
Art. 2. Nature has the right to an integral restoration. This integral restoration is independent of the obligation on natural and juridical persons or the State to indemnify the people and the collectives that depend on the natural systems.
In the cases of severe or permanent environmental impact, including the ones caused by the exploitation on non renewable natural resources, the State will establish the most efficient mechanisms for the restoration, and will adopt the adequate measures to eliminate or mitigate the harmful environmental consequences.
Art. 3. The State will motivate natural and juridical persons as well as collectives to protect nature; it will promote respect towards all the elements that form an ecosystem.
Art. 4. The State will apply precaution and restriction measures in all the activities that can lead to the extinction of species, the destruction of the ecosystems or the permanent alteration of the natural cycles.
The introduction of organisms and organic and inorganic material that can alter in a definitive way the national genetic patrimony is prohibited.
Art. 5. The persons, people, communities and nationalities will have the right to benefit from the environment and form natural wealth that will allow wellbeing.
The environmental services are cannot be appropriated; its production, provision, use and exploitation, will be regulated by the State.
The concept that nature itself can possess rights runs counter to the classical liberal theories of government that hold sway throughout much of the West, which view rights as possessed only by individual human beings. But Ecuador is not the first country to propose granting rights to nonhuman entities: Many countries, including the United States, have long held that corporations possess many of the same rights - such as the rights to free expression and to due process - that human beings have. And in June, Spain's parliament approved a measure to extend some human rights to nonhuman apes.
But, as an editorial in the Los Angeles Times observes, Ecuador's extension of rights to nature may represent a larger shift in how humans view their place in the world:
No other country has gone as far as Ecuador in proposing to give trees their day in court, but it certainly is not alone in its recalibration of natural rights. Religious leaders, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Dalai Lama and the Archbishop of Constantinople, have declared that caring for the environment is a spiritual duty. And earlier this year, the Catholic Church updated its list of deadly sins to include polluting the environment.
Ecuador is codifying this shift in sensibility. In some ways, this makes sense for a country whose cultural identity is almost indistinguishable from its regional geography - the Galapagos, the Amazon, the Sierra. How this new area of constitutional law will work, however, is another question. We aren't ready to endorse such a step at home, or even abroad. But it's intriguing. We'll be watching Ecuador's example.
[via Grist]
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
17 Comments so far
Show AllIt's all very well that there is a few articles that pretend to protect nature in the new constitution, but the matter of the fact is that the Ecuadorian constitution, which was approved in a referendum, is the most industrialist, progressivist, capitalist expansionist constitution that the world has ever seen. It entirely breaks with the tradition of constitutions as a declaration of abstract principles by including specific references to IIRSA, which is a World Bank project to open South America to global capital. Ecuador is now tied forever after (unless they rewrite the constitution once more) to the biggest industrial integration and infrastructure project the world has ever seen.
Read more here:
http://colonos.wordpress.com/2008/05/22/corridors-of-destruction-and-oth...
and here:
http://colonos.wordpress.com/2008/09/27/the-misleading-guardian-and-the-...
IIRSA and the Manta-Manaus corridor spells the end of what is left of the great forest. The articles celebrated above are introduced to make a environmentalists jump with joy, but remember that the president of Ecuador, Mr. Correa, PhD in Economics from US and Belgian universities, calls environmentalists and indigenous activists "infantile" and "romantic" - so don't prove him right READ THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION AND DO SOME RESEARCH ON ECUADOR AND CONSTITUTIONS IN GENERAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What a joke this is, socialism has completely overtaken the poor country of Ecuador and guarantees they will remain poor for decades to come. Of course all you progressives think this is such a good idea and we should do the same here and continue to destroy capitalism. Global warming is a scam from the leftist to expand government control over all the economy and Al Gore is the charlatan leading the charge. Btw, is there any such thing as a nonpartisan progressive organization? I think we all know that progressives will always support big-government liberals so what is with the pretending? Like there is anyone involved in this organization that would even think of voting for McCain/Palin.
You have no idea.... at all..
This is inspiring - wish I had thought of it.
Saving the environment is religion to me. My god consists of two parts.
First: The improbable and beautiful world that supports our life, and whose beginning and end and existence are sources of endless wonder and speculation.
Second: Our human ability to think and act in an intelligent and loving way.
(BTW - I am baffled and bemused that anyone could propose that nature is in any way analogous to a corporation.)
Joe
"And earlier this year, the Catholic Church updated its list of deadly sins to include polluting the environment."
Now that's an interesting note. Seems the Pope, J. or G. Ratzinger, has gone through some inner conversion(s) since becoming Pope. The prior one, JP II, said that only people matter, not the environment, which got me pissed off every time he was reported saying this absurdity; given we depend on having a healthy environment and it, in all other senses, remains insane to destroy the environment. To support destruction is an anti-Christian view, so no serious Christian can be supportive; but too many are.
I'm all for this Ecuadorian proposal, seeing no real impediment for human existence with such a law or set of laws. I respect and love, greatly appreciate anyway, Nature, so I have no problems with seeing that I can also treat nature as having rights; while I, and only if I lived in an area where this could be done, would retain the right for tiny-scale clear-cutting in order to build a home, cabin, whatever; latrine, and garden, included. Iow, I respect nature, while accepting non-abusive use of it; and if you're in an area that requires absolutely no de-forestation or de-treeing is needed, then great, just that a lot of people don't have this added benefit.
But, I also recall that humans have established many laws and transgress most of them, too! Not only is God's law not theirs, they don't even follow their own; they (we) even invent and carry out flase-flag attacks in order to continue breaching their (our) own established laws! So would the Ecuadorian govt sanely live up to the law of inalienable rights for all of Nature, and I repeat 'sanely', or is this another political stage act only meant for acquiring votes; until the election or vote is held?
Such law could be sanely established and enforced, but that's not likely to happen when it's in human hands; not in Euro-human hands anyway. The Ecuadorian govt may not be led by a Euro-descendant or immigrant, but Euros have a lot of purchasing power and charlatans also make (their) use of good ideas. So what's with this newly proposed law to protect Nature; we can't even win against important evils of other kinds and we think we'll win for Nature? Nice idea, but ideas and reality often don't match.
'War is a Racket' and the rackets using Nature also aren't going to stop. First, you have to stop the racketeers, gangsters; something politicians mostly refuse to do, and, at disgusting best, only pay (political) "lip service" to or about, never backed up with concrete actions.
Can't get human rights respected and you expect for Nature to be treated with respect? You're dreaming. We don't live in a fittingly ideal and utopist world.
Nope, this world is The Way of The Cross, like with Jesus of Nazareth; only the painful ways in which ends arrive or are imposed varies, while all are painful and definitely unwelcome.
In this sense, the Ecuadorian proposal is very meaningless gesture, to me. I don't believe any human govt is going to manage to ensure that this law is obeyed. The "forces" at work against such law are ... they have a lot of purchasing power and when they can't manage outright buying of state leaderships, then they can buy overthrows and assassinations, can, do, have.
The say that "freedom comes at a price", and "man", is it ever expensive.
"Ecuador is not the first country to propose granting rights to nonhuman entities: Many countries, including the United States, have long held that corporations possess many of the same rights"
Wait a minute, Christian Science Monitor. Granting rights to the biosphere is nothing at all like granting rights to corporations.
The biosphere has near infinite value. The biosphere is defenseless against evil and depends on people to defend it. So the biosphere needs its rights enshrined in law.
In contrast, corporations are a dime a dozen. Corporations are instruments of domination, oppression and control. They deserve no rights. Sure, one may be well-behaved but that's a statistical anomaly.
The point here is a legal. It is an issue of jurisprudence, a conceptual point: corporations are considered "legal persons", which grants them rights similar to those of human being persons. This reflects a legal tactic, since by calling them "legal persons" they can enjoy the same rights as a person. This is conceptually speaking pretty much the same as nature or pachamama is awarded in Ecuador's constitution.
BUT like human rights for human beings are continually overridden by economic concerns, so will nature most likely be secondary to IIRSA in the political future of Ecuador.
"perceptionexperiment September 4th, 2008 1:37 pm
Amazing...
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus"
If Epicurus said that, then he probably thought or believed it, and that'd be double stupidity, error anyway. And he and all who'd be like him on this would all bitch if it wasn't an able and unwilling God, for it's a [requirement] or pre-requirement for being able to live a relationship based on love, which requires freedom to think and choose. If God was not unwilling, then He'd be always intervening and freedom would not exist, and you wouldn't bitch; for it's difficult to bitch about anything we're not aware of anyway.
And it's people who commit errors and practice evil; NOT God. He just allows people to do good or ill, and it's necessary on His part; else, no freedom. He also allows the whole spectrum of characters, f.e., totally pacifist, the quasi-mass-suicide kind, and the ready-to-stand-defence "pacifist" or activist.
Also remark that you don't hear or read God screaming about your flaws even when they're obvious.
When I was a child, I thought like a child; and that was and should remain decades (several) ago. What happened to Epicurus? Never persued his whimsical thoughts further than just having them cross his mind; no investigative sort of analysis of his own thoughts and people treat him as if of leadership quality? See, God permits for more quacks too.
It might seem like a nice idea if He'd restrict some present freedoms, but if He did, then He'd likely be restricting a lot more than you'd be prepared to "bargain for"; peace and justice wouldn't be known terms or concepts; love and friendship wouldn't be known; etcetera. Want to know about peace and justice; etcetera? Then you have to know what it is for them to not be respected! I appreciate knowing of these concepts; just don't appreciate the lack of respect.
The real problem is [never] found in God; they're always the fault of people, instead. It's not the lizard's or reptile's fault, nor that of the lion, etcetera, no other animals; it's always of human fault, though never of the "little ones", infants, f.e., always being innocent (and never born with original sin). If God wasn't as He is, then we also wouldn't know of the concept of being [responsible].
So is Epicurus' misunderstanding rooted in God's Way helping to make Epicurus (and like-thinkers) feel guilty for what he's part of; perhaps? What ever his personal state of being was, he wasn't a careful or profound thinker; at best superficial, to the point of childish.
I'd look for someone more intelligent to quote, if I was to quote someone, or you. I've meditatively gone through a lot of criticisms and questioning of God, doing this very carefully and for enough time; and I found answers. Nothing damages the credibility and integrity of God; it can take considerable time to arrive at the answers or conclusions, but they always wind up illustrating God's real love for human kind simply all of "Creation", really. And this is why God can be ... very angry.
If God was as Epicurus childishly dreamed that a God should be, then God could never be angry, for nothing could ever make Him angry; no such thing or incident could happen. But He didn't choose to have mere robots and freedom comes with pain (and there evidently are no limits!). Christians have no acceptable reason for believing otherwise, for it is The Way of The Cross we must all be willing to follow, with our variable difficulties. It's the way the Christian founder was treated and can be much enough our own conclusion; but not always, it's not a requirement, and we mustn't seek to cause such ends. It's not easy for me and hasn't been for many other people, including members of the Christian churches, anyway; but would any of us wish to give up freedom, when doing that basically means giving up [conscience]? I don't think so.
All of these features of us and reality would NOT exist if God wasn't as He is; able, and unwilling, but for good reason and with pain, sorrow, for both us and Him. He has to be integral, and He chooses for love to exist. It's a very painful [gain]; painful enough that we imagine we'd be willing to give up freedom, conscience, ..., but only in momentary imagination. "Can't have it both ways!" We must try though, and it's why, f.e., Francis established the vow of working for both peace and justice, not only peace, for the Franciscan order.
Epicurus? Dummy!
All mammals have-I might say suffer from- the same emotions. If anything, nonhuman mammals may have stronger emotions since they apparently lack the cerebral advantages of being able to put grief, pain, loneliness into context.
Caging them "like an animal", torturing them for the flimsiest of excuses, says more about our fitness to exist, even our right to live than anything about the suffering animals.
Human life is not worth more that nonhuman life. There is no objective standard to indicate anything of the sort. If anything, my life is worth less than my dog's life---I am capable of yielding to the impulse to suicide.
Wonderful. Which means that the oligarchy will be dead set against it.
It is inevitable that after five hundred years of Euro domination, Indigenous Peoples would regain the power to reconstruct their culture's. Let's not be too quick to forgive the Christian Religion. Remember, it was they who unleashed the Age of Discovery and the ensuing great genocide. Great human and environmental destruction lay at their doorstep. Christian Religion has yet to refute their belief in dominion; therefore, the stated changes in their beliefs ring hollow. Nor have they ever apologized for the deaths of one hundred million indigenous peoples, and the theft of their resources and cultures. Christianity is a religion of death. Indigenous sacred beliefs celebrate life and understand the deeper meanings of their lifeways. Most people of Euro ancestry still cannot see past their own eyes and seem to prefer to live in a circle of death.
I'm skeptical. I doubt if these rights will extend to the animal protein production industry.
I am ready to edorse such a step at home, and around the world.
I also believe corporations have proved not to deserve such rights.
Its also a cop-out to say "this makes sense for a country whose cultural identity is almost indistinguishable from its regional geography" as this is the case the world over, not to see it is just denial.
This is just like the dark ages when religion and the state were one, and the state dictated to the people what God (nature) demands (rights).
People surely must see this is a blatant scam to get the people to surrender their rights to the state, who will then be the decider of what is or is not best for nature (like the Pope does for God). If they rule people can not eat meat, or can not have children to protect nature, or must sacrifice their first son, or must die on retirement, then they will be able to do so.
They are giving you a new religion people.
Americans are often accused of reading only media that generally share their views. MiMiCcS has shown he/she is not one of them. This I must applaud, not criticize.
That said, how is saving the environment a religion? Only in the conservative religious mind, I think, not in the reality of maintaining a planet that can support life, including human life which is dependent upon nature for as long into the future as possible. Whether you think "humans" have been on earth for anthropologies five million years, give or take a million, or the Christian/Judaic fundamentalists six thousand years, a planet given over to clear-cuts, and hamburger production, may not maintain human life six thousand years, let alone another five million.
Isn't it currently the state that decides how to protect people from other people... so what's the difference to extend the protection to nature. In our country we extend the protection to corporations. I'd much rather protect nature than corporations.
I am fairly sure that they couldn't ban the sustainable hunting of meat the way this is written.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus
Amazing...
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus