United Nations Document Would Give 'Mother Earth' Same Rights as Humans

[FrankRep]

United Nations Document Would Give 'Mother Earth' Same Rights as Humans

Postmedia News
April 11, 2011

UNITED NATIONS — Bolivia will this month table a draft United Nations treaty giving "Mother Earth" the same rights as humans — having just passed a domestic law that does the same for bugs, trees and all other natural things in the South American country.

The bid aims to have the UN recognize the Earth as a living entity that humans have sought to "dominate and exploit" — to the point that the "well-being and existence of many beings" is now threatened.

The wording may yet evolve, but the general structure is meant to mirror Bolivia's Law of the Rights of Mother Earth, which Bolivian President Evo Morales enacted in January.

SOURCE:
http://www.canada.com/news/world/doc...840/story.html



============



Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

As the United Nations officially began its first major climate-change conference of the year in Bangkok, Thailand, on April 5, UN climate chief Christiana Figueres warned of dire consequences if governments refuse to back ever-greater cuts in carbon-dioxide emissions with a new global-warming treaty to succeed the Kyoto Protocol.

United Nations Climate Conference Seeks New Global Treaty


Alex Newman | The New American
05 April 2011


====


Related Articles:

Cancun: Global Hysteria, Wealth Redistribution

A global one-child policy along the lines of China's and rationing similar to that implemented during WWII were just a couple of the recommendations at Cancun.

WikiLeaks Reveals U.S. & EU Climate Bullying, Bribery, Espionage

A series of secret U.S. diplomatic cables released in recent days by the whistle-blower group WikiLeaks shows the American and European governments resorted to bribery, threats, and even espionage to advance their “climate” agenda at the COP15 global warming summit in Copenhagen last year and beyond. By Alex Newman

Global-warming Alarmism Dying a Slow Death

Promoters of global warming alarmism have falsified data and smeared contrarian scientists, but even though they have no scientific credibility, they won't go away soon. By Alex Newman

Environmentalist: Cuts Mean No Climate Benefits for 1000 Years

The head of Australia's Climate Change Commission admits that draconian cuts in industry and energy would not have a measurable effect on global temperatures for “over 1000 years.” By James Heiser

The Link Between Eugenics & Global Warming Hype

John Holdren, President Obama's science czar, is one of many environmental extremists linking eugenics and the global warming ideology. By James Heiser

[Kelly.]

is this a bad thing?

[Zippyjuan]

If Mother Earth has the same rights as a human, can you sue her for any damages she causes? Then can Mother Earth sue humans for the same thing?

[heavenlyboy34]

The UN-$#@!ing things up for everyone for about 75 years.

[FrankRep]

2002 Video: Indoctrinating Our Youth in Earth Worship
http://www.libertynewsnetwork.tv/?p=784

This 2002 video demonstrates how some of the world’s elites are pushing a pagan, earth-worshiping religion at young people, preparing them to embrace the idea of a global citizenship. Produced by the John Birch Society

===========

Bolivia’s ambassador to the UN, Pablo Salon, will be presenting a treaty to the UN with the goal of pushing the United Nations to adopt a treaty recognizes the rights of nature.

====


Bolivia Pushes for Equal Rights for Mother Earth


James Heiser | The New American
13 April 2011


The Plurinational State of Bolivia is presenting a message to the world via the United Nations: Nature should have just as many rights as human beings do. Air has a right to be clean. Water has a right to be pure. And nature has “the right to balance.” Bolivia’s ambassador to the UN, Pablo Salon, will be presenting a treaty to the UN with the goal of codifying these sentiments into international law.

Although the phenomena of environmentalists proving themselves to be “watermelons” (that is, “Green” on the outside and “Red” on the inside) is nothing new, some of socialist President Evo Morales’ (photo, left) anti-Capitalist rhetoric sounds like the stale boilerplate from the Cold War. As President Morales declared in a 2009 interview with Amy Goodman for DemocracyNow.org: “Capitalism is the worst enemy of humanity.” And Morales does not mean “enemy” in some sort of nebulous fashion: he wants a put the evil capitalist polluters on trial. Goodman specifically addressed this point with Morales:

My last question is: you’ve called for a climate tribunal; what do you mean?

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] Those who do damage to planet earth and those who do damage need to be judged. Those who do not fulfill the terms of the Kyoto Protocol should also be judged. And for those ends, we have to organize a tribunal for climate justice in the United Nations.

However, given the fact that the political party which Morales’ leads is called “The Movement for Socialism-Political Instrument for the Sovereignty of the Peoples,” (or MAS-IPSP) was instrumental in changing the definition of the government of Bolivia from a republic to a “Social Unitarian State.”

[K466]

Wow, pure insanity, makes me sick to think 'adults' out there really believe this crap...

[Mini-Me]

is this a bad thing?

If you believe in individual human rights, or if you believe that industrialization has been a net benefit to humanity, then yes, this is a very bad thing. The obvious target is industry; there are some in the UN who quite openly seek to send us back to a preindustrialized existence (i.e. painful and death-filled subsistence) in the name of the planet. (Of course, I'm sure some modicum of industry would eventually be deemed "acceptable," i.e. just enough to keep life cushy for the elites.) However, that's not where it ends. The goals are so fuzzy that they would "justify" any and every encroachment on individual rights. If there's anything you do - like breathing out carbon dioxide - which could possibly be construed to harm some powerful idiot's idea of environmental integrity, said powerful idiot can use horrifying principles like this as a club against you.

Evo Morales is basically blowback for the effects of US imperialism on Bolivia, but...the only logical explanation for UN people pushing something like this is malice. They cannot seriously believe in this, in which case it can only be a pretext for subjugation.

I honestly doubt these kind of proposals will ever gain serious traction, but people in the past probably thought the same of a lot of policies that are ubiquitous today.

[Kelly.]

If you believe in individual human rights, or if you believe that industrialization has been a net benefit to humanity, then yes, this is a very bad thing. The obvious target is industry; there are some in the UN who quite openly seek to send us back to a preindustrialized existence (i.e. painful and death-filled subsistence) in the name of the planet. (Of course, I'm sure some modicum of industry would eventually be deemed "acceptable," i.e. just enough to keep life cushy for the elites.) However, that's not where it ends. The goals are so fuzzy that they would "justify" any and every encroachment on individual rights. If there's anything you do - like breathing out carbon dioxide - which could possibly be construed to harm some powerful idiot's idea of environmental integrity, said powerful idiot can use horrifying principles like this as a club against you.

Evo Morales is basically blowback for the effects of US imperialism on Bolivia, but...the only logical explanation for UN people pushing something like this is malice. They cannot seriously believe in this, in which case it can only be a pretext for subjugation.

I honestly doubt these kind of proposals will ever gain serious traction, but people in the past probably thought the same of a lot of policies that are ubiquitous today.

is the alternative to continue to allow polluting/explotation of the planet for quick profits with no regard for future generations?

[Mini-Me]

is the alternative to continue to allow polluting/explotation of the planet for quick profits with no regard for future generations?

No, of course not.* The alternative is to clearly enforce property rights. If someone's pollution seriously and adversely affects your air, your water, your land, or your health, they should be in deep crap.** For instance, chemical dumping should result in the complete bankruptcy of unscrupulous companies...and there should be no corporate veil protecting the personal fortunes of shareholders or officers of the company. This doesn't happen though, because government regulations have "allowable" limits that companies can stay within, regardless of demonstrable harm. The regulations end up becoming a shield for corporations. Keep in mind though that corporations are not even the biggest polluters; the biggest polluters are the very governments that seek to regulate us.

"Exploitation" is different from pollution though, and it's pretty vaguely defined. For instance, you're exploiting the land every time you grow something on it.

* That said, pollution and radioactive three-headed babies with hooves are still preferable alternatives to unlimited government in my book.
** As an exception, it should only count if you could reasonably expect their pollution to affect any other person similarly. If you have some rare condition where you have zero tolerance for some common substance and explode on contact with it, all bets are off.