• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

U.N. Prepares to Debate Whether 'Mother Earth' Deserves Human Rights Status

Daenerys

Mother of Dragons
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/0...r_'Mother_Earth'_Deserves_Human_Rights_Status

United Nations diplomats on Wednesday will set aside pressing issues of international peace and security to devote an entire day debating the rights of “Mother Earth.”

A bloc of mostly socialist governments lead by Bolivia have put the issue on the General Assembly agenda to discuss the creation of a U.N. treaty that would grant the same rights found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to Mother Nature.

Treaty supporters want the establishment of legal systems to maintain balance between human rights and what they perceive as the inalienable rights of other members of the Earth community -- plants, animals, and terrain.

Communities and environmental activists would be given more legal power to monitor and control industries and development to ensure harmony between humans and nature. Though the United States and other Western governments are supportive of sustainable development, some see the upcoming event, “Harmony with Nature,” as political grandstanding -- an attempt to blame environmental degradation and climate change on capitalism.

“The concept ‘Mother Earth’ is not universally accepted,” said a spokesman from the British Mission to the U.N. about Bolivia’s proposal. “In general, our view is that we should focus on tackling important sustainable development issues through existing channels and processes.”

The General Assembly two years ago passed a Bolivia-led resolution proclaiming April 22 as “International Mother Earth Day.” The measure was endorsed by all 192 member states. But Bolivian President Evo Morales envisioned much more, vowing in a speech to U.N. delegates that a global movement had begun to lay “out a Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth.”

Morales, who repeatedly says “the central enemy of Mother Earth is capitalism,” called for creating a charter that defends the right to life for all living things. Morales, who was named World Hero of Mother Earth by the General Assembly, has since made great strides in his campaign.

In January, Bolivia became the world’s first nation to grant the natural environment equal rights to humans. Bolivia’s Law of Mother Earth is heavily influenced by the spiritual indigenous Andean world outlook that revolves around the earth deity Pachamama, roughly translated to Mother Earth.

The Bolivian law establishes 11 rights for nature that include: the right to life and to exist; the right to pure water and clean air; the right to not have cellular structure modified or genetically altered; the right to have nature’s processes free from human alteration. The law also establishes a Ministry of Mother Earth to act as an ombudsman, which will ensure nature is “not being affected my mega-infrastructure and development projects that affect the balance of ecosystems and the local inhabitant communities.”

Emboldened by this triumph, Morales’ goal is to emulate his domestic achievement as a U.N. treaty. In a 2008 address to a U.N. forum on indigenous people, he said the first step in saving the Earth is to “eradicate capitalism” and to force wealthy industrialized countries to “pay their environmental debt.” Morales presented 10 points, or Evo’s Ten Commandments, as they are affectionately called by devotees, to save the planet.

Among them is a call to end the capitalist system, and a world without imperialism or colonialism. Respect for Mother Earth is Commandment 6. U.N. critics slammed the decision to devote an entire day debating Mother Earth legislation as not only a waste of time and resources, but a major blunder.

“The UN is a one-act show,” said U.N. watchdog Anne Bayefsky, of Eye on the U.N., in which “Western democracies are responsible for the world’s ills and developing countries are perpetual victims.”

Bayefsky said the General Assembly’s focus on Mother Earth distracts from more pressing issues and problems at the U.N.

“The rights of inanimate objects violated by developed countries are considered a useful focal point this month,” she said, adding that, “Syria is scheduled to be elected next month to the U.N.’s top “human” rights body, and Iran is on the U.N.’s top women’s rights body.” Syria is one of the sponsors of the “Mother Earth” treaty.

Bolivia’s ambassador to the U.N., Pablo Solon, who will represent Morales at the debate and ‘expert’ panel discussions at U.N. headquarters, said, “Presently many environmentally harmful human activities are completely legal,” including those that cause climate change.

“If legal systems recognized the rights of other-than-human beings,” he says, such as mountains, rivers, forests and animals, “courts and tribunals could deal with the fundamental issues of environmental contamination.”

It is not clear if Bolivia’s new tough environmental laws will actually go as far as to protect life forms like insects, but the legislation does include all living creatures.
 
United Nations diplomats on Wednesday will set aside pressing issues of international peace and security to devote an entire day debating the rights of “Mother Earth.”

Didn't finish the whole article yet, but just the first sentence shows you what a piece of crap Fox News is. The first freakin' sentence shows their bias and agenda, blatantly, obviously, without shame. I remember a time when news sources were at least somewhat unbiased. What happened to those days? Now you turn on the news and it's like watching propaganda unfold....
 
So far as the actual article goes, if I were Bolivia, I wouldn't be chucking stones at my own glass house...

http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2005/102924/index.html

The projected expansion trend may represent a serious threat for certain tree species, for example large-leaved mahogany in Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia and Brazil, FAO said.

Secondly, I hope that all Bolivians are vegetarians... oh wait, that won't work, because if "Nature" has a right to life, then even the carrot you are eating definitely should.

Thirdly, it is nice to see that we're not the only nation that struggles with humaniacs, if a little disturbing to find that a Nation's president is either one of them, or subject to their BS.
 
Didn't finish the whole article yet, but just the first sentence shows you what a piece of crap Fox News is. The first freakin' sentence shows their bias and agenda, blatantly, obviously, without shame. I remember a time when news sources were at least somewhat unbiased. What happened to those days? Now you turn on the news and it's like watching propaganda unfold....

Heh, but are they wrong? The Middle East is going even crazier than usual, people are still starving in Africa, Japan is still having earthquake related issues, and what is the UN worrying about? Whether or not to give rights to an inanimate object. :nope:
 
Not exactly sure of the details of the "rights to mother earth" (didn't care to read a lengthy, clearly one-sided source), but I can certainly tell you that the earth is not inanimate. It supports all life, and the destruction of our planet is partially responsible for the starvation, earthquakes, etc...
We can't possibly sustain if we don't learn to truly value the earth and take responsibility for it.

Some people dedicate there lives just to protect small corners of the world and it's dwindling wildlife, and they not only get no support for their invaluable efforts, but they get labeled as "tree huggers" every time they stand to protect development and destruction.

I'm also surprised by how torn the discussion of how we treat our earth is among people in the "reptile community". It's like we value some of the world's most threatened inhabitants based on their domestication, rather than amazing creatures that have lived, adapted, and evolved far before human life.

It's like we (the reptile enthusiasts) sometimes value our fancy morphs, husbandry practices, etc... higher than the conditions of the earth that gave them to us in the first place. Almost considering ourselves as "mother earth" because of the lives that we provide our pets, and ignoring the big, beautiful world outside of our windows because of the pristine conditions that we see through a glass enclosure.
 
It supports all life, and the destruction of our planet is partially responsible for the starvation, earthquakes, etc...
We can't possibly sustain if we don't learn to truly value the earth and take responsibility for it.

First, let's control the semantics. It's sheer human arrogance to believe that humans could destroy the planet. We might modify habitats to the point where they won't support the lifeforms that were there initially, or ourselves, but the planet itself was here long before us and will be here long after us.

The city rats burrowing in my backyard probably will be here, too, come to that....

Some people dedicate there lives just to protect small corners of the world and it's dwindling wildlife, and they not only get no support for their invaluable efforts, but they get labeled as "tree huggers" every time they stand to protect development and destruction.

The people in this article want to give wild animals and natural habitats the same inalienable "right to life" as humans! This means that if you cut down a tree because it's going to fall on your house, you've "murdered" it and could potentially stand trial.

Ever hit an animal driving in your car? Accidentally? I hit a yearling black rat snakes last May, driving to Bush Gardens in Virginia. I felt awful, horrible... but I didn't stop and I shouldn't be charged with hit and run and leaving the scene of an accident!

I'm also surprised by how torn the discussion of how we treat our earth is among people in the "reptile community". It's like we value some of the world's most threatened inhabitants based on their domestication, rather than amazing creatures that have lived, adapted, and evolved far before human life.

It's like we (the reptile enthusiasts) sometimes value our fancy morphs, husbandry practices, etc... higher than the conditions of the earth that gave them to us in the first place. Almost considering ourselves as "mother earth" because of the lives that we provide our pets, and ignoring the big, beautiful world outside of our windows because of the pristine conditions that we see through a glass enclosure.

No one is ignoring that. Not even the delegates from the US and Britain and the other groups that are against this nonsense. They're simply saying that THIS approach does NOTHING but cause problems. They said in the article that time would be much better spent talking about sustainable development than this crap.
 
There is a diffrence between being responsible and a tree hugger.

I agree, if this "law" was to go into effect it would do far more harm then good.
 
The people in this article want to give wild animals and natural habitats the same inalienable "right to life" as humans! This means that if you cut down a tree because it's going to fall on your house, you've "murdered" it and could potentially stand trial.

Ever hit an animal driving in your car? Accidentally? I hit a yearling black rat snakes last May, driving to Bush Gardens in Virginia. I felt awful, horrible... but I didn't stop and I shouldn't be charged with hit and run and leaving the scene of an accident!

There is a difference between being responsible and a tree hugger.

I agree, if this "law" was to go into effect it would do far more harm then good.


I shared this on another forum, and there are some people who just don't understand this =/
 
but I can certainly tell you that the earth is not inanimate. It supports all life, and the destruction of our planet is partially responsible for the starvation, earthquakes, etc...

The planet is still an inanimate object. The planet itself is not alive.

You seem to assume that I don't care about the planet just because I find this measure ridiculous. You know what they say about assuming, right?
 
yeah very stupid suggestion, law, blathering, whatever it is. Respect... others, earth, animals, rights, freedom, and NACHO LIBRE!!!
 
The planet is still an inanimate object. The planet itself is not alive.

You seem to assume that I don't care about the planet just because I find this measure ridiculous. You know what they say about assuming, right?
I wasn't assuming that at all. I wasn't directly responding to anyone with my post. I responded to one observation about the earth being inanimate, that's all.

I also don't think that the discussion needs to go into one side being arrogant, or wrong... It's a fact that we're destroying the wildlife on our planet at an nonrenewable rate. Some of the greatest people I know are people who devote their lives to conservation, and I can assure you that they are far from being "tree huggers". That label paints such a broad interpretation of people who fight just to save what small pockets of wildlife habitat as they can. My grandfather has fought his whole life, with the utmost research, intellect and intelligence, for wildlife that are irreplaceable, and defenseless to human habitation.

By the way, I no where even stated that I was aware of any of the details of this particular plan, let alone defend it. Just defending people who have valid concerns about the Earth's wildlife. Really not even an opinion. Just a fact, for me.
 
Back
Top