Ecuador constitution would grant inalienable rights to nature

[ensho]

http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/09/03/ecuador-constitution-would-grant-inalienable-rights-to-nature/


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.”

-snip-

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:
-snip-
------------------------------


how wonderful, how sane, how caring. hope it passes the vote.

[InvisibleTouch]

1. Excellent!

I too hope it passes, and that the trend spreads!

[DangerDave921]

2. What?

So can we still cut down trees to make houses? Or does that violate the rights of nature? Can we take her oil, gas, shale, etc. or does that violate her rights?

Sorry, this is idiotic.

[tama]

6. Article five:

"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."

Art.2, paragraph two: "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."

What is radical - and not certainly idiotic - is that this constitution guarantees all individuals, communities and nations (e.g. indian tribes) to speak on behalf of well being of Pachamama, according to legal procedures explained in further detail somewhere else in legislation.

What is clearly idiotic(ally suicidal) is destroying Pachamama - that all life depends on, including human life - in mindless consumption wich serves nothing but selfish greed.

[CashGap]

8. Check Rule #2, Dave

"Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals."

We can accomplish far more towards progressive ideals with environmentalism than ballots.

[DangerDave921]

10. Let me explain myself fully

Supportive of progressive ideals does not mean I have to check my brain at the door and agree with every silly notion that gets posted on here. Sorry, report me to the mods if you must. To grant "nature" so-called "rights" is just plain silly. The governemnt can pass laws protecting nature without the charade of calling them rights.

[fascisthunter]

3. This Oughta Piss off Right Wingers

lolololol

Glad to see there are sane folks in Ecuador... I hope it spreads!!!!

[cobalt1999]

4. Interesting.

Where do they draw the limits though. Can you clear a field to plant corn? Can you spray ants in your house? Can you shoot a deer and eat it?

[DangerDave921]

9. my thoughts too

The government protecting nature is great. To say that nature has "rights" under the constitution is just silly. What rights? Well, whatever the government says. Who protects those rights? Well, the government. So why not just have the government pass laws protecting nature?

[Karenina]

5. Revolutionary!

[LuckyLib]

7. Ecuador has been determined to be one of the countries that contains

every range of biodiversity -- it is a treasure trove of nature, and perhaps they can head off the rape that is occurring in Brazil.