This looks like gobbledygook to me. In the case of India, I understand it, but in the case of New Zealand it looks like the 21st century bending over to be nice to the 10th, but with catastrophic potential fallout, and not necessarily just in New Zealand. This might be the template for moves all over the common law world.

According to this article http://www.ecologise.in/2017/04/10/mean-river-rights/ an Indian High Court judge has given rivers such as the Ganges personal rights. In terms of pre-existing Indian culture this makes some sense.

But "the New Zealand Parliament passed into law the Te Awa Tupua Bill, which gives the Whanganui river and ecosystem legal personality, guaranteeing its ‘health and well-being’. That makes much less sense.

This information is courtesy of my correspondent Sarak Sarkar, who is different from me in politial outlook, but has reservations http://eco-socialist.blogspot.com.au/2017/04/rights-of-rivers-are-they-realizable.html.

Interested in what you all make of this.

It makes me think of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYt0ldmAlhA

With rights come obligations!

(A hydro-electric dam? that's a form of taxation!)

Were the rivers in question asked for their consent to be counted as legal subjects of the state?
Well just like the rest of us, the answer is 'No': it's the nature of states to brutally claim everyone found in "their" territory as their subject.

I don't know about New-Zealand Rivers, but the Uttarakhand judge was obviously bananas if he thought that goddesses like Ganga and Yamuna, who came down to purify the world, could not take care of themselves and require state-protection.

Hi Graham, it may be an alien concept to Europeans that a thing like a river could have a living personality, but it is natural to many indigenous peoples, including Maori that such is the reality.

In this case, Gerrard Albert, a spokesperson for the local Maori had this to say; "We (Maori) have always believed that the Whanganui River is an indivisible and living whole — Te Awa Tupua — which includes all its physical and spiritual elements from the mountains of the central North Island to the sea,"
Should we argue with this belief, previously Europeans would have viewed the river for its exploration value only, and nothing more. It is acceptable to me.

when people worship the creation rather than the Creator you come up with all sorts of foolish and irrational conclusions.

Paul, there is no argument for going back to the superstitious past in our civic arrangements. I thought you were one of those who are highly critical of Christianity on this forum. So how can you advocate for a primitive religion being made the law of the land? What happened to separation of church and state?

The fundamental purpose of law is protection of the individual. Taking it further, one can talk about law being based on the minimum interference and regulation of the individual by the (all powerful) State (that can easily find ways to limit, ban and compel, even gaol and kill).

- It is easy to understand why Americans have certain individual rights entrenched in their Constitution.

However there are those who believe that a human is only one very small part of Nature, should not have any particular right to exist and their extremists go further to say that humankind (apart from themselves presumably) should not exist on the Earth. To them humans are no better than noxious viruses and a threat the the 'living' world (Greens have a name for that).

However, no additional laws are needed anyhow, because as can be demonstrated where democracy wants and legislates for it, humans can be required not to (say) deface natural wonders, over-fish, or destroy.

If there is a risk of damage to a natural resource or a very big rock for example, it is not necessary to give the object 'rights', nor to give special rights to those who might claim ownership (and exclude or otherwise control others). It is simple to frame a regulation that will deter and punish known problemic behaviour. By way of example, there was a legal remedy for these religious activists, as they were to find in Court,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QNoy2gp_ic

Likewise, anyone (say) dumping into the environment or streams will be prosecuted, as another example.

While laws to give 'rights' to rivers and so on may appear 'nice' and 'green' and 'environmentally sensitive' to the feeble-minded 'New Age' and to vulnerable youth exercising their voting rights for the first time and usually lacking proper education in civics, such 'initiatives' are most usually the preserve of very nasty and manipulative authoritarians seeking to impose their will on others. They bob up everywhere, but especially where limiting freedom of speech, the fundamental right of the individual that they would limit, is concerned. Orwell knew them.

Hi Graham,

This is a very interesting legal development. One wonders why it is restricted to one river in NZ - why not to Tane Mahuta or some of the other magnificent kauri in NZ, and other trees as well ? Why not mountains like Taranaki, worshipped as they are in Mongolia (Genghiz Khan is supposed to have ordered a mountain flogged for not delivering him victory in battle: the down-side of worship) ?

Why not every natural wonder, such whole forests, river valleys, coast-lines, islands ? Of course, since they can't represent themselves in court, they would have to sign over power of attorney to some body. That body would have to take on all the responsibilities of protection and rehabilitation, and the task would be so huge that a large organisation would have to take it on, perhaps funded by governments.

Maybe they could call it 'The Department for the Environment'.

Wait a minute .........

Joe

Graham. I have spoken with a Maori person on this, and the way she understands it, the belief is that the river (awa) has been bequeathed to today's generation by the ancestors (tupua). Therefore the responsibility is incumbent on today's community (iwi) to respect and maintain the river as the tupua did in the past and then pass it on for future generations. This is a belief of most indigenous peoples, the world over. The difficulty is the European concept of ownership, and therefore the right to exploit natural resources, like rivers, to the nth degree, as opposed to the Indigenous concept of custody and the limitations that applies.
As an atheists I have a similar belief, and do not see it in religious terms, although the religious may somehow tie it to their god. the Maori may believe it all stems from Ranginui.

Interesting Paul. So if an atheist accepts a religious belief it ceases to be religious and can be integrated into secular society and our practices. But if a religious person accepts a religious belief it is not permissible to integrate it into the public realm, but only in the private?

Voodoo & primitive superstition have no place in the modern world, unless you are a Green parliamentarian, looking to buy a few ratbag votes.

There are far too many rights in this modern w3orld. The only thing that should be a right is access to the oxygen we breath. There after everything should have a price to be paid by those wanting access.

No one [including rivers] should expect access to food, housing, or medical attention, without incurring a debt to society that should have to be paid, in full, before further access is granted. The only exception to this should be something personally granted by another & personally paid for by that other.

Professor Christina Wood of the University of Oregon has written a book that covers most issues of this type.

The situation is probably best summarized by the statement, "We do not inherit the earth from our parents we borrow it from our children."
There is much controversy over the source of this saying but the contributors to the USA Constitution gave much consideration to the concept.

Spinoza believed in God, but it was not the God of what he called the narrative religions such as Judaism and Christianity nor did he see a difference between creation and creation. His God was coterminous with nature itself. I think he would see no difference between a right of any part of nature and a right of any other part of nature such as a human being. Certain human beings such as children or demented people cannot speak for themselves so attorneys are appointed to speak for them. Spinoza's God could manifest itself in a river as well as a human being.

However, I don't believe in Spinoza's God or any other kind of God. I wrote the above to point out that giving a river a right is consistent with a particular western religious view.

I do believe that our economy and well-being is supported by care for the environment. If that care can be furthered by giving natural features rights then I favour giving natural features rights.

All over the world and especially in the less
developed societies, the pressure of the human
population and its technologies is devastating
natural ecosystems. This pressure takes many
forms - urbanisation and highway construction;
transformation of virgin land into farmland;
chemical pollution of fresh water; dredging and
landfill in coastal areas; uncontrolled hunting
and poaching, especially African wildlife; deliberate
and accidental poisoning of wildlife with pesticides;
disruption of natural predator-prey relationships;
strangulation of millions of birds and fish with
discarded styrofoam pellets, plastic bags, and other
synthetic flotsam; dam construction and irrigation;
and massive deforestation.

To some observers, the destruction of life on our
planet as a result of human activity is a matter of
no particular consequence. To others, it represents the
height of human hubris in that we are making ourselves
the ultimate arbiters of what may survive and what may
be obliterated.

To me the breathtaking diversity of our planet has
evolved in a delicate and precarious balance over many
millions of years. Many of the plants, animals, rivers,
and our natural environment with which we share the
earth have been here a great deal longer than we have.

For a fleeting moment in planetary history, our technology
has given us domain over them. In awe, respect, and
humility, we might just let them be.

So yes, a river can have "rights".

Dear David,

«If that care can be furthered by giving natural features rights then I favour giving natural features rights.»

But "rights" always come hand-in-hand with obligations.

This holds even for non-humans: dogs for example have a right to be euthanased without pain, but if they keep biting humans, then the law demands that they must in fact be euthanased.

Are we then to legislate that natural features must always be benevolent to human society? Are we going to drag storms, killer-lightenings, earthquakes and stray rivers that caused flooding to court, then lock them up in prison?

Then what if those natural features attack one another? perhaps beavers who block rivers, rivers who wash away top-soils, blue-green algae who poison dolphins and the sun who steals water from lakes and dams? Oh, dragging the sun into a court-room would be quite a sight!

Yet if you can sue God, why not a river...?

http://www.berdichev.org/god_on_trial.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/restraining-order-against-god_us_572b9557e4b0bc9cb04611a2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawsuits_against_God

Foxy, "So yes, a river can have 'rights'".

How can passing redundant laws prevent offending?

What is needed is reasonable certainty of being caught and the knowledge that having been caught, the judge will give a suitable sentence to deter any recurrence of offending.

So the remedy lies in allocating the resources to policing and the public and their politicians supporting them, not trying to let favoured ones off with a slap on the wrist.

I happened to travel in a nice tram today. The difference between the old and the young was stark: for many of the second group had their dirty track shoes up on the seat in front and some of them left rubbish where they sat, after illegally consuming food on the tram. Yes the driver does monitor the cameras but they know s/he is limited by all sorts of regs and it isn't worth the aggro and paperwork.

In the well maintained parklands adjoining the beach two young women carefully folded their food wrappers and stuffed them into the varnished timber slat seats. The plastic bags had blown down the dunes. They probably considered themselves smart that they had let them go with perfect timing.

Maybe give 'rights' to the chairs, trams and the sand dunes?

So what is the remedy? More laws where laws already exist and more security cameras (there are many)? Or some plain clothes police to make arrests or give on the spot fines? If the miscreants were apprehended, the court would let them off and the ridiculous liberals would cry 'police State' or similar foolishness.

I reckon that it is far too easy to talk about 'big business' and 'government' doing 'something', but some of the really big pollution problems come from individuals who just don't care and know they can get away with it.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You wrote: "But "rights" always come hand-in-hand with obligations."

Babies have a right not to be harmed. What obligation does a baby have?

The following link explains why New Zealand is granting
rivers and forests the same rights as citizens:

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/sundayextra/new-zealand-granting-rivers-and-forests-same-rights-as-citizens/7816456

There a lot of logic in all this. In India, clearly cows should be recognised as persons, or even as something superior to persons. Similarly sharks in many Pacific Island nations. Trees in Ireland could also gain personhood on the same principle.

Logic is not the same as common sense, as I'm sure A. J. would agree. A person is a sentient being, or potentially so, an entity capable of understanding rights and obligations, and capable of being sued.

I look forward to seeing a cow brought into court for treading on someone's foot, or a bull for goring some bloke in Pamplona, or a tree for dropping one of its branches on some unlucky camper. If they are to have rights, then they also would have obligations, particularly the obligation not to harm someone else.

This could raise all sorts of interesting legal problems: a flooded river could be sued for drowning someone; a forest could be sued for catching fire and burning people to death. A dog could be sued for ripping off the face of a baby. A brick could be sued for coming violently into contact with some bloke's face. That sort of thing. Courts are idle places, they need a bit more action.

Then there's common sense.

Joe

Next the river will get the vote and a welfare cheque.

Not only that Shadow Minister, they will become some sort of deity, develop a priesthood to stand for them, & which will extract millions from the mere mortals.

But don't worry, the Muslim take over will get rid of all this bulldust, probably by beheading.

You mean the First Australians as Custodians of the River get their sit down payments + other entitlements + fees for river use + the right to throw their weight around over newly discovered secret river business.

On a more serious level, some here may be aware that the 'Big State' Greens hope to extend the reach of federal national parks rangers to assume responsibilities that have traditionally been the preserve of State and local government, and more. To cut to the chase, that could for instance require trucks and travellers to obtain paid permits for any 'camping' stops along highways and reserves that are presently 'unregulated' public land. It would be a monster department with far-reaching powers.

Who says the Greens don't have policies to overcome unemployment?

Those who propose new 'rights' laws for in animate objects fully intend to limit the individual's and the public's rights. It is all about control, think about it.

Clearly, since people/'persons' are entitled to vote, to be represented in parliament, and to stand for election, and if non-humans can be recognised as 'persons', then this extends to a multitude of 'persons' hitherto called by potamophobes, dendrophobes and petrophobes 'objects'. Bastards.

I guess we could start with Uluru, but if a rock that I'm quite fond of is recognised as a person, can it give me power of attorney to vote for it ? I have learnt a lot from this rock as a child (it's on Port Hacking), so if it gets 'person' rights, I would like to nominate it for the next federal election.

Indians worship cows, I'm told, but I don't think they are silly enough to elect them to their parliament - which, of course, would be one of their rights if they were 'persons'.

Bugger it, let's get real: yes, we should protect the environment. Yes, rivers and coastlines should be cleaned up and kept free of pollution. State and Federal Departments of the Environment should be strengthened and they should do their job. Move on. There's already enough bullsh!t in the world.

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

Are you sure there's enough bullsh!t in this world? What is your basis for that statement?

Well there are precedents. Under US law a company is a person.
The company has the rights of a person.

Once again the rabid right start running off at the mouth, claims by the Abbott Rabbit that "Next the river will get the vote and a welfare cheque". But wait there's more Hassy not to be out done claims "they will become some sort of deity, develop a priesthood to stand for them, & which will extract millions from the mere mortals." The Unterfuhrer needing his daily dose of Green bashing has discovered to his angst, and all through his minds eye, that there could be for instance a requirement that trucks and travellers obtain a paid permits for any 'camping' stops along highways and reserves that are presently 'unregulated' public land. It would be a monster department with far-reaching powers." Just thumping the rostrum to warm up ah Leo

Hi Paul,

Improve environmental protection laws and increase funding for Departments of the Environment. End of.

Now back to the real world.

Joe

Bazz, under any law that recognises companies, companies have the rights of persons to some extent. But companies are just groups of people, and so they have intention. They consciously do things to other things, and have things done to them, and can be forced to change what they do, again on an intentional basis. None of this applies to natural objects which are inanimate. The idea that something inanimate can have rights is wrong.

Seems to me we are now living in a pagan polytheistic age, where atheism rather than having banished religion, by concentrating its firepower on monotheism, has allowed a thousand weeds to bloom. Ironically, it appears the only religion that has to be separate from the state, is the one that gave rise to secularism in the first place - Christianity. All others, no matter how primitive, and/or half-baked, are welcome.

Paul1405,

The topic awaits you.

Plainly my and most Australians concept of the democratic, freedom-valuing Small State where the fundamental purpose of law is protection of the individual and where there is absolutely minimal State (and law) interference in individual lives and affairs, is completely anathema to you and the Greens as Statists in favour of the Big State and 'Open Door' immigration, the last mentioned simply and cynically to suck far left votes from Labor.

But then I also favour as most do, the distribution of political power among several levels of government as we presently enjoy and has served us well. Besides, a Big State supporter must have very short memories if they learned nothing from the Rudd insulation mess and the deaths. Obviously government and bureaucrats that are closer to the grassroots should be better advised than that.

It astonishes me that some, not many, people such as yourself put their allegiance to a political party, in your case the highly controversial ginger group of the NSW Greens, ahead of their own judgement and are so willing to let others make their minds up for them.

Instead of taking the easy way of passing more laws where laws already exist and the system is already self-correcting through other means - an example in this case being the ethical investment that is a consideration of large superannuation funds - politicians should be putting their shoulders into the original, fundamental purposes for which government was thought of and established in the first place.

Frankly I do not see much worth and only waste of Parliament's time and resources in the Greens acting as a protest party and just to put already entitled middle class elite into Senate seats so they can be disruptive (annoying the mainstream is such fun, eh?) and live in clover forever after.

Giving legal rights to inaminate objects is simply more attention-seeking and an opportunity for serial activists such as the Greens protest party to throw their weight around with no care and no interest in coordinating policy across the whole rage of government responsibilities.

Paul,

GY has neatly pinned your rampant hypocrisy. This legalistic fantasy is purely a sop to a minority religion that probably holds no more sway over the Maori population than Aesop's fables holds over western society.

Bazz,

All companies in the US Aus, etc are considered Juristic persons. This is to enable them to own property and form contracts, and separates the business from the shareholders that own it. This is very different from a river that owns itself.

I wonder if a person injures himself in the river who would he sue, the river or the state that used to own it?

There is something that is correct in a river having rights. now the rivers are looked after by parks, EPA. Unless the perpetrators of a crime against a river are caught red handed, its a hard task for a rivers carers to take action.

When you have a river like the Murray: in SA property owners own to the middle of the river. In NSW property owners own to the waters edge. In VIC property owners own to 60 ft back from the high water level.

This is an ongoing argument when someone drowns or someone is caught doing the wrong thing to the river. Who pays the cost of clean up or whose court will be used.

Massive blues are continually ongoing as to navigation or mooring on the waterways. All due to inconsistency of rules, which are largely made on the spot, which does not suite landholders or river users. Not to mention inconsistency of river police who do not know who made what rules for where.

If the river had national rules as to its use or abuse arguments that have existed since the existence of white man would subside.

NSW police will not cross the bridge. and VIC police say the murray belongs to NSW. NSW fisheries patrol the river but can not come ashore on the VIC side to apprehend. They have to get VIC police to apprehend an offender. Vic police can not enter the river because that is NSW territory.

Dear David,

You are right. Babies at present receive rights without obligations.
While I believe that to be wrong, this does not excuse my mistake.
I take back my statement, in which I failed to take into account the realities of the current age-of-entitlement.

I still find it scary for humans to be appointed "guardians" and have the power-of-attorney on behalf of rivers, as if they had even a clue what a river wants, what hurts it and what doesn't!

Don't you find this attitude towards rivers and treating them like babies, a bit patronising?

---

Dear Graham,

«Ironically, it appears the only religion that has to be separate from the state, is the one that gave rise to secularism in the first place - Christianity. All others, no matter how primitive, and/or half-baked, are welcome.»

Being separate from the state is a blessing, not a punishment. By nature, every religion is eventually corrupted, but when a religion has contact with the state, it corrupts much faster. As a Hindu, I always cringe when I see government funds "aiding" the local Hindu temple.

Gawd, it must be the week before the budget as it appears that there
is nothing to argue about !

Hi again Paul,

This might be extremely presumptuous of me (so whenever has that stopped me, you might say), but wouldn't it a sort of sacrilege to Maori traditions to reduce the gods and spirits in the rivers and trees and mountains to mere 'persons' ? Wouldn't they have to belong to particular iwi, hapu and whanau ? How could they be totally without relations, as persons ? Maybe they are rahui or tapu to everybody ? Or, of course, to get around it all, could they be adopted by a particularly important whanau, who speak for them ?

Just trying to tease it all out :)

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Bazz,

What's that budget of government got to do with us?
Don't you have your own life?
Why argue about things we cannot change anyway?
Just fork out your jizyah and get on with making the best with what you have left!

Oh Yuyutsu, surely you are waiting with bated breadth for our illustrious
treasurer to send down the tablets on which are inscribed all our future wealth ?

I thought why there is there a deathly silence except for someone telling fairy tales !

Hi Joe, what we have here is Europeans trying to rationalize an alien concept in purely European terms. This is not a religious issue, at all, like some here are trying to make out to be. it is similar to the way Aboriginal people see themselves in relation to the land. No Maori gathering can take place without first acknowledging the ancestors, which is called the Whakapapa.

http://maori.otago.ac.nz/reo-tikanga-treaty/te-reo/mihi

Not something Europeans find easy to understand, in fact become very dismissive off, as you can see from some of the posts on here. Don't understand it, therefore it can't be any good.

Hi Paul,

That was partly my point, that Maori and Aboriginal people may respect, revere and love their land and its significant features, as something more than human, but therefore not as a 'person'. In Aboriginal society, that 'person' would immediately have to be slotted into family relationships, perhaps as an ancestor in the indeterminate past. What I'm suggesting is that to declare a revered natural feature, like the Whanganui River or Uluru, to be just a 'person' like other people, would be demeaning it ?

But it does make good news :)

Cheers,

Joe

It is religious Paul. The fact that you don't want to admit that is worrying. Aboriginal peoples tended to see the supernatural in just about everything. They are animists. We've moved on from that, and it is a condition of modern life that we do. No one is stopping them from worshipping the land as their ancestors did, but I would insist that it remain in the private realm, not be part of public policy.

I don't misunderstand primitive religion, I just accept that it has to give way to modernity.

Dear Graham Y,

You said that tribal religion has to give way to modernity. Shouldn't that also apply to your religion? There is no evidence for miracles or supernatural beings whether animist, polytheist or theist.

Hi Graham,

There is a fascinating series of articles by Pedersen, Descola and Viveiros de Castro teasing out the differences between totemism, animism and 'naturalism'; this is good starting point, Pedersen's Sept 2001 article in the Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9655.00070/full

As I dimly understand it, in totemist societies, people perceive themselves and their clan group to be akin to animal species and to other natural features (such as the rain), and therefore fundamentally different from other clan groups: nature is reproduced in society, as separate and hostile groups.

In animist societies, people perceive that nature works just like human societies, wolves have their hierarchies and villages and marriage relations, mountains have their human-like ways of operaing. Mountains marry, deer go to war against neighbouring deer villages. In other words, nature reproduces human society and can be 'controlled' by the sorts of tributes and entreaties one might offer .

Viveiros's notion of 'naturalism', I'm still trying to get my head around, but I think he is suggesting that animals etc. are actually humans in animals' skins, thinking and acting like humans.

So Aboriginal groups here were/are totemist (my wife's 'ngatjis' were bush turkey, talkundji, and swamp wallaby, toolache: no, I don't know how groups can have more than one totem, wouldn't that defeat the notion of a single society-nature relationship ?). Most Native American and Siberian and Mongolian groups are animists.

But maybe Maori religion is more animist than totemist ? After all, there is no particular reason why different Indigenous cultural and religious notions should be in any way similar.

Joe

Hi Graham, I am told it is a cultural issue and not a religious issue, can one have a cultural belief and not be religious. or are all cultural beliefs religious? The Whanganui River is not crown land, it never has been, it may have been illegally classified as such under The New Zealand Settlement Act 1863.

Hi Joe, interesting distinctions. But I don't think they change the basic argument. On whatever reading of the landscape and animals they have, inanimate objects can't have rights. It's a kind of category confusion, in that the rights we are talking about only apply to sentient and self-aware organisms. By definition it doesn't cover objects, or religious artefacts, and to apply it to them degrades the concept of rights.

I understand why people might do it - they want to be empathetic. But empathy, without allowing for any other factors, is a very dangerous emotion.

David, the thing with my religion is that while it claims an exclusive understanding of what is true, it allows individuals free will. It doesn't insist that you believe.

I think that is superior - don't you? And my religion has created the modern world which gives us all so many benefits. When you have a clash between philosophies, and where it is on an issue where the views being contended are mutually exclusive, then only one can win. So we have to assess claims of superiority.

Dear Graham,

Your religion did not create the modern world. Your religion created the Dark Ages which interrupted the progress from superstition that was being made by the classical world. The Renaissance and the Enlightenment were movements from the Dark Ages sparked by questioning Christianity. In the modern world most accept freedom of religion. No religion has to give way any more than any other religion.

Hi Graham,
You said "I (GY) thought you (Paul1405) were one of those who are highly critical of Christianity on this forum."

I am not over critical of Christianity as such, generally its basic tenets seem reasonable. What I do take exception to is the institutions and some within those institutions that claim to represent Christianity, particularly the Catholic Church, its past history and the impact it has had on society, some has been for the good, I cannot deny that, but some of the influence of the Church has been to the determent of mankind.

Can I assume that without institutions and the associated structure, a religion cannot exists? If this is the case, then there is no pagan style religion as such associated with Maori, and the Whanganui River, only cultural belief. Marae are not religious places or places of worship,. nor are there any "priests" and alike, that I know of, associated with any Maori pagan religion.

Interesting, the number of laws that have been passed in Australia that favor religions, taxation laws freeing them of that impost, laws providing finance to religious schools etc. Politicians invoking god and attending religious institutions (church service) while representing the people.

david f,
The dark ages were not as you assume them to be. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography)

Dear Aidan,

I went to the article. There is nothing in the article that contradicts what I assume about the Dark Ages. I assume the beginning of the Dark Ages were coincident with the adoption of Christianity by the Roman Empire and were a product of that event. The article does not challenge that assumption.

"it allows individuals free will. It doesn't insist that you believe." Graham I find that interesting, my own experience with the Catholic religion was somewhat different, there was an insistence that one believes without question, for example you could not question the existence of God, unless one was prepared for eternal damnation. If one was to inform the priest that you are now an atheist. would he allow you to continue as a member of his church. I recall in the past where homosexual Christians were told to leave the church. The Pope is considered infallible on religious matters, there is no room to question the doctrine of the Pope. Of course the beliefs of Christians are as varied as there are denominations.

There is a difference between between ethical beliefs and religious ones, but there can also be elements that lead to outcomes based on a range of principles or religious beliefs.

Using the word "culture", to set the word apart from "religion" is simplistic and denies culture to exist in its truest forms. It has been used by some to see Aboriginal people living in Australia not subject to criticism, which is a form of protectionism, which is not fair.

For example if one is to have a belief which sees them as individuals attend a church, a temple or a mosque for example they are considered "religious" in some way (and may be personally attacked), but if they take on Aboriginal beliefs, this by some is considered "cultural", with no questioning in place.

To put this into perspective, one of my relatives (who has a multiple pieced name), is part Aborignal. I have been told the reasons behind their name, and the reasons to why the full name, should not be spoken in full by others, and the reasons behind that. The reasons are very serious, and whilst I do not mention the full name to others, I respect the principles behind the naming principles, not because it's something I can deeply connect with.

Humans in principle are extremely anthropocentric. Many humans take a view, that that they own planet Earth, despite the fact humans did not create it. Many take the view they have they have a right to continually destroy its natural features and conveniently with Australia ignore the fact that plant and animal species were here first, with the land taken over by humans!

Finally, a river does not have rights (legal or non legal), and that is why the environmental movement has developed over time, to protect all of its elements.

Anyway, to get back to topic somehow: revered natural features as 'persons'.

In many traditional societies, natural features are believed to be more than that, to be invested with some form of supernatural qualities, or even to be divine. In Western societies, natural features are to be admired, protected by law, and promoted as part of a nation's natural beauty.

One question is: is it appropriate for traditional beliefs to be enshrined in the legal systems of modern nations ?

Another question: in practice, who will represent the Whanganui River in its inevitable interactions with the Department for the Environment, with any infrastructure project such as bridges or roads, and their maintenance ? If it lies within, or crosses, the boundaries of local councils, who will represent its interests at council meetings ?

Clearly, a local Maori group will have all of those powers. They will speak for it. So, the burning question is: will it ask, through them, for funds to maintain its pristine condition ? Or for the necessary administrative facilities ? Will it demand, through them, some access to ministers ?

These are important issues. A thousand Indigenous organisations here in Australia are closely watching any developments around this issue, and their far-reaching implications.

Joe

Hi Joe,

When it comes to the Whanganui River in Aotearoa, the Pakeha Government of New Zealand, acting in the name of the British Crown has the same legal authority to pass laws affecting the river as it does to pass laws affecting Mount Everest. None what so ever! Maybe the government of Botswana should pass a law ceding the Murray River to Kazakhstan, since so many people are willing to accept these sorts of rulings without question.

Just got back from a Cook Islander beach side wedding, my partners son-in-laws brother, fantastic time was had by all, put on a great show of island dancing, by the girls and boys. The Cook Islanders are similar people to Tahitians, plenty to eat and drink, pig on a spit etc, those "pagans" sure know how to enjoy themselves. When the crew of the 'Bounty' landed in Tahiti you can see why they didn't want to leave. Me thinks they were all about to turn pagan! Sure beats getting flogged by Captain Bligh, seven days a week!

Paul1405, 'you can see why they didn't want to leave'

You are talking about the Cook Islanders who migrated to Australia via New Zealand. They sure were lucky, but more canny one has to admit and yes, for some it probably has been one long party. From the 1980s New Zealand's lacklustre economy made Australia the better target.

Perhaps the ABC could do without its economic experts and use migration to predict economic conditions. The migrants are better at it.

However these stories are just the magician's (and salesman's) tricks to occupy the target while he is being relieved of his wallet.

As a child playing with indigenous friends, there were many places they could not go through their tribal superstition. As for going about in the dusk or dark, forget it! I don't know how all of the new secret business got going - I have suspicions it is all due to the encouraged Cargo Cult mentality and too many with humanities degrees and no jobs except in government. But back then (and not so long ago) indigenous life was limited and hampered by animist superstition and the 'known' malevolence of many inanimate objects.

It is 'Whitey' who should be charging for being the saviour and protector against the dark eddies of the waters, those threatening places and the night.

Thousands of stories and more being 'discovered' every day, but where is that 'fact checker' when it is needed?

Rather than allowing the serial activist nuisances such as the woeful NSW Greens to drive in more wedges in society, we should be celebrating the rich inheritance of myth as myth, interesting yarns to spin by the fire, when the red is uncorked.

http://theconversation.com/dreamings-and-place-aboriginal-monsters-and-their-meanings-25606

Holy Ireland ! It's the German fatherland and Holy Mother Russia putting the fear of gods into Mussies.
"Pope Francis has criticised the naming of the US military's largest non-nuclear explosive ever used in combat as "the mother of all bombs".
"I was ashamed when I heard the name," the pontiff told an audience of students at the Vatican.
"A mother gives life and this one gives death, and we call this device a mother. What is going on?" he asked."

what's going on? The bomb had 18,700 lbs explosive but it's daddy had 21,000 lbs.
".. attempt to deliver 21,000lb of explosives into a Nazi military base.. JFK Library and Museum website ... the ‘drone’, under the control of the mother planes, was to proceed on the mission which was to culminate in a crash dive on the target.”
-
The base had the V 3 cannon the mother of US mass shootings.

Leoj,

"You (Paul1405) are talking about the Cook Islanders who migrated to Australia via New Zealand. They sure were lucky, but more canny one has to admit and yes, for some it probably has been one long party. From the 1980s New Zealand's lacklustre economy made Australia the better target.

What you say is somewhat true, but I don't know about being "one long party" most have worked hard to establish a life for themselves and their families in Australia, just like many native born have. Not being a Nationalist I don't have a problem with people who have done that, I say good luck to them. What New Zealand does offer to many Australians these days is "lifestyle", and there is a growing number of Aussie's migrating to NZ, some to take up jobs, others for retirement. Many Kiwi's are now giving up on Australia, some after living here for 20 years or more, and returning home. Maybe that is an indicator of the Australian economy.

When BHP injures a river she can take him to court.

"For a typical example of the concept of legal person in a civil law jurisdiction, under the General Principles of Civil Law of the People's Republic of China, Chapter III, Article 36., "A legal person shall be an organization that has capacity for civil rights and capacity for civil conduct and independently enjoys civil rights and assumes civil obligations in accordance with the law."[

In part based on the principle that legal persons are simply organizations of natural persons, and in part based on the history of statutory interpretation of the word "person", the US Supreme Court has repeatedly held that certain constitutional rights protect legal persons (such as corporations and other organizations)."

NNN, don't you know BHP is the Big Australian, bigger than Clive Palmer, and also claims to be a good corporate CITIZEN as well. If I was to go down to BHP and steal a lump of coal, I could be charged with stealing company property etc etc. BHP the company has the same rights as any other human being.
How about them Buddhists, they seem to have a different slant on religion altogether, and there is about half a billion of them in the world.

Hi Paul,

Pe'ea koe ? Meitaki ?

I would have thought that even in the definition of a company in any Corporations Act as a 'person', the limits on what that meant would be pretty tight: only that it had rights as an entity to carry on business as a company, issue shares, etc., and which could be sued in court for infringements to the Act, it could be bought and sold, it had the power to appoint officers, etc.

Yeah, I was a bit browned off by criticisms of Cook Islanders too: I worked with some really great people in NZ, mainly from the northern islands, hard workers, almost always happy and full of life. I'm sure they would be making many positive contributions to Australia right now. Their kids would be fantastic to teach.

Cheers,

Joe

Paul1405,

What I said was, "for SOME it probably has been one long party".

Given that the participation of Cook Islands-born in employment is markedly below the Australian population, but thankfully and to their credit well above that of some migrants preferred by your SHY and Greens' 'Open Door' immigration, 'some' is a very fair qualifier. The lower employment rate of Cook Islanders could be linked to their lower education (participation and relevance of that education).

I am not tempted to automatically apply the air-brush of political correctness to all that I say or think. Otherwise, why have the government census and statisticians at all?

So, trying to wedge me as 'stereotyping' Cook Islanders should be seen for what it is, which is a distraction away from the rest of my post that is obviously not so convenient where your support of rights for inanimate objects is concerned and it follows, indigenous being regarded as the logical and rightful (that word again!) custodians.

Buddhists get cranky if you blow up their temple or don't pay a subsidy to rice farmers.
BHP is in trouble if its receptionist pushes a lump of coal down your throat or is a nuisance in the river .

Although a tort may also amount to a crime, claims in torts are civil claims brought by the individual concerned, who seeks compensation from the tortfeasor for injury or loss. Torts may be committed by individuals, corporate entities or public authorities, including government departments or agencies. Tort liability includes both personal liability and vicarious liability (for torts committed by employees or agents).

Torts include assault, battery, false imprisonment, trespass to land or goods, conversion of goods, private and public nuisance, intimidation, deceit, and the very expansive tort of negligence. Negligence occurs in many different social contexts, including on the roads, in the workplace, or through negligent medical care or professional services."

A river doesn't pay GST ,taxes or water rates. Like a murder victim it can't commit an offence . However offences against a river or un-alive person are serious :
"Have you been charged with Offence to Interfere With Corpse of A Human Being?

If so, you must engage the services of a law firm that specialises in criminal law.

This offence is serious. If found guilty, you could face 5 years in prison. Some questions you will need to carefully consider with your lawyer include:

Can the prosecution make out their case? Did you intend to interfere with a human corpse? Did you commit an indecent act with the corpse? Did you remove any body parts from the corpse? Did you act alone?

more information on this charge.

Section 34B of the Crimes Act 1958.

The prosecution must prove:

The defendant intentionally interfered with or committed an indecent act with the corpse of a human being; or

The defendant unlawfully removed body parts from the corpse of human being."

Victorian rivers also have a case against pirate abuse :
"CRIMES ACT 1958 - SECT 70D

Being found on board piratical vessel and unable to prove non‑complicity

(1) Any person who is found in Victoria on board any vessel equipped for the purposes of piracy shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction upon indictment to level 6 imprisonment (5 years maximum).

(2) It shall be a defence to a charge under subsection (1) if the person charged proves—

(a) that he was not on board the vessel willingly; or

(b) that he did not know that the vessel was equipped for the purposes of piracy."
which is just playing political football , politicians are pirates and anyone knows what a pirate ship looks like.

Dear Graham,

An interesting topic.

I know part of the push for environmental flows here in Victoria was to place the river and its dependent species on an equal footing with other users. What had been happening was that water authorities were increasing the amount of water they were extracting as were irrigators, groundwater users and farmers putting in more dams.

The net result was overallocation of some rivers to such an extent that over 90% of the flow was withdrawn from them in summer months. This is despite an acknowledgment that anything over 25% was going to have an ecological impact.

So what the government did was to secure environmental allocations for many of Victoria's rivers. This put the river and the needs of its dependent flora and fauna on an equal footing with these other groups.

The Victorian Environmental Water Holder is in charge of environmental allocations and determining the best flow regimes to get the most out of the water under their control.

In a very real sense this system also gives the river rights equal to those other human users but in a way that might not disturb your obvious aversion to viewing this in any spiritual fashion.

That's denying the river is a person. Ships are Christian and are baptised for all who sail in her . Kate was pregnant at the time.

Kate Middleton to follow Princess Diana, Thatcher as ship godmother ...
articles.latimes.com › Collections › Kate Middleton
Apr 10, 2013 - Kate Middleton, the Duchess of Cambridge, will christen the new Royal Princess cruise ship in Southampton, Britain, on June 13,

Joe kei te teah koe, I hope you are as good as me. My Maori is rather basic, my partner spent many years as a teacher of the lingo at night school, said Europeans actually were often the best students, keen to learn a new language. Unfortunately I am not one of her best students.

A bit of history about companies to discuss, the most interesting company that was more than just a business, human or inhuman, depending on how you want to look at it, was Britain's 'The East India Company' now that was a strange beast, it become a sort of private government.

SteeleRedux, "In a very real sense this system also gives the river rights equal to those other human users .."

No it doesn't. There is no similarity at all and saying there is doesn't make it so.

//the thing with my religion is that while it claims an exclusive understanding of what is true, it allows individuals free will. It doesn't insist that you believe.//

To celebrate the release of 'American Gods' on TV (Yay!!), I've decided to start worshipping the Norse pantheon. It claims an exclusive understanding of what is true, including the bit about the gods slaying the giant Ymir and creating the earthly realm from his remains. A far more satisfying and plausible tale than Yahweh just pulling it out of his fundament.

It doesn't insist that you believe, either: Ragnarok will come whether you believe or not.

Unfortunately, my religion did not create the modern world which gives us all so many benefits, because it's all just fairytales and superstition. No, it was science that created the modern world.

Still, it's nice to have some pleasant stories to go along with your science and it doesn't really hurt anyone as long as you remember that they are just stories.

Hi Toni, for Christians what you just posted is all superstitious buck, they on the other hand have the fair dinkum lowdown on all this twaddle including Adam and Eve, Noah and the six dwarfs, sorry got it wrong, seven dwarfs forgot Daffy.

I considered Graham an intelligent person, wouldn't run this web site if he wasn't but to say "And my religion has created the modern world which gives us all so many benefits". A bit like Einstein ditching his 'Theory of Relativity' in favor of his 'Theory of Fairies at the Bottom of the Garden', we would lock him up.

Paul1405,

You just don't understand what Graham meant by that. And you would not want to find out.

The problem you and some ors have is that you exist in your own bubble and get your information from the far leftist echo chamber which is you censoring your own sources of information to an already closed mind.

Worse, Mr Google and ors have implemented preferential searches, which compound the effect.

The cave already exists for the far leftist Greens and sadly they know and welcome their gaoler. Mental rigidity and hello there to increased risk of dementia. Your choice and all to get your jollies confirming your deep prejudices against 'Whites' from the UK and Europe. You'd irrationally hate the US with a passion too though.

While I might not always agree with Christianity or other religions, although Christianity with a blend of Buddhism seems reasonable (there is considerable flexibility, but not in your mind of course, not if your schoolboy bias is to be fed), I am not inclined to be judgemental about their choices for attempting transcendency in their lives.

If a concept of God helps, great and I am sure that the Christian and most other congregations do a lot of good for the good citizens and through compassionate outreach for others, such as amateur funnyman yourself. BTW, how is Mr T? Just as vocal in enthusiastically confirming your view and going several hundred metres further as usual? How comforting for you, no angst there at all.

and the god deniers believe we are evolving to be more clever. Pleeeeease!

Hi Paul,

That was Cook Islands 'Maori'. When we lived in Auckland around 1970, I went a bit crazy and reversed Savage's 'Cook Islands Maori-English Dictionary' to English-Cook Islands Maori - pen and paper in these days - and sent it off to the Crocombes at the USP.

You might be over-reacting to the false notion that Graham is suggesting that modern knowledge springs directly from the pages of the Bible: I don't think for a moment that Graham is suggesting that. Instead, if you think (from, say, Marx's point of view) that ideas spring originally, way back, hundreds of years ago, from that conflict between bitter experience and existing ideologies, to produce 'better' interpretations of reality, over and over again as experience tests those new ideas - in Marx's (well, Aristotle's really) process of thesis - antithesis - synthesis.

That long and bitter struggle may well have been against conventional Christian beliefs, but its origins were embedded in them. One factor that helped all those bitterly-fought processes along was the divided political nature of Europe, whereby thinkers could test their hypotheses in their own circumstances, and compare those of others in different circumstances - there was no single over-arching imperialist power (such as afflicted the Muslim world for so long), especially once the power of the Catholic Church was broken in the early sixteenth century.

Not that the established powers, Church and State, didn't try to violently suppress new ideas with which they disagreed - it would be no fun being drawn and quartered. But ideas are difficult to suppress and destroy, so out of all those difficulties, over hundreds of years, modern science was born and eventually thrived. But it must have been touch and go, as the absence of any advanced science in Muslim societies attests: imperialism and reaction often do work quite effectively, and efficiently.

Of course, the printing press helped all that along as well: knowledge could be translated and shared across Europe. The first printing press in the Muslim world was set up in Constantinople in 1824, 400 years after Gutenberg.

Cheers,

Joe

This may be of interest:

http://www.muslimheritage.com/article/muslim-printing-gutenberg

The all knowing, all seeing LeoW, how does a committed Hansonite and retired member of the 'White Shoe Brigade', who is now loafing on the beach become a pseudo Christian/Buddists, do you have to believe Jesus Christ has reincarnated as the Lovely Pauline or some such thing.
The only one here with a morbid hatred of anything, is The Greens fixated Leo. Every post of yours contains some rancid rant about the Greens.
I note your oft quoted beacon of the Labor Party, and once political wannabe, Mark Latam has been given the royal order of the boot by Labor, smart move I would say, what was Labor thinking when they gave such a pathetic loser the leadership.

Hi Joe, I don't want to be seen as defending Islam, today it is as regressive as Christianity once was. However there was a period in history during the Dark/Middle Ages of Western Europe, about 800-1200 AD, when Western learning was at a low ebb. During that period it was in the Islamic world that advances in the sciences were still being made.
It is interesting that the first book published by Gutenberg in about 1455 was the Bible printed in Latin, it had an equivalent value of about $5,000 in today's money, so not for the average poor illiterate. All early books were religious publications, the Koran was first printed in Venice in 1530. The first printing was most likely done in China around the eighth century. I am not surprised that the first printing press did not appear in the Ottoman world until 1824, although some claim it was more likely in about 1720. The Ottoman sultans were fearful of religious interference by printers. However they did not apply the same restrictions to Christian and Hebrew religious text, which were freely available without restriction. There was printing in the Middle East from earlier times, but like that of European printing it seems to have been mostly religious text and little else. With few being able to read, printing was for most of no value. Pamphlet printing which helped to spread modern thinking did not come into common practice until the 1700's, by the time of the French Revolution political pamphlets were in wide circulation.
Is religious thinking compatible with modern realities? Or are the two always going to be diametrically opposed for ever. One being based on blind faith, while the other requires evidence of proof. How do the religious rationalized both as being acceptable.

Paul1405,

I am only responding to your posts, of which there are many and you do tout for the NSW Greens Watermelons. So, naturally enough they do rate a mention. But you already know that and you are just playing silly forum games.

Labor, other political Parties too, should value the canaries like Latham (and Hanson too for another opposing view but a similar reflection of what is wrong with the major parties), for they are early predictors of problems. Just like the canaries in the mines and meaning no disrespect.

Business and especially entrepreneurs learned to value, not disregard, the critical customer, for his contribution to continuous improvement. But alas, the political parties simply ape what they see 'works' (and later somehow fails) overseas, while having no regard for feedback in their own electorates, or where they do it is from their own 'soldiers'. Then they express surprise at an 'unkind' electorate that throws them out of office on their ear.

You do need to pull your head out of that echo chamber though Paul1405 and who knows, you might just find that those wealthy greens elite are just serving themselves and you will always be out there in the cold, while they have their travel, rooftop gardens and so on, courtesy of you too if you are a taxpayer.

It is time the Greens was more than a protest party, or continue to fade away.

Leo, I at least credit Latham with a degree of intelligence, compliments of the Labor Party. No doubt the bloke still harbors political ambition, seeing himself as the future Senator Latham. Unfortunately for him, as one of Labor's failures of yesterday no such opportunity existed within. Latham jumps ship onto the deck of the phony, and deceitful, not so liberal, not so democratic, Liberal Democrats, who will offer a chance of a cushy senate seat. His pious platitudes will soon give way to reveal nothing more than personal ambition.

Hanson, lacks the necessary intelligence required for leadership. As previously shown the woman is easily manipulated by others of the radical right for political gain. The so called leader of the out and out protest party One Nation offers nothing more than an acceptable face, with her somewhat homespun persona, only to be manipulated by her ever present puppet masters. Like so many other lemmings you are charging headlong on that monetary wave of populism. Sorry to disappoint, but when you wake up to find that you have been duped by yet another false messiah, it maybe too late and the demagogues have actually taken over. On the other hand you may feel good if that should happen, then you could see us Greens and others of the left, center and conservative right, dealt with just how you would like.

p/s; "canaries like Latham (and Hanson" more like a pair of galah's,
"wealthy greens elite" you should look at Hanson and her wroughting of the electoral system for financial gain, a past master. Then there are the liberal elite like Turnbull who profit from their positions in society. Leo you are the one being duped.

Hi Paul,

This is getting well away from the topic, but I have to question whether or not the touted bloom of Islamic science etc. ever happened - or whether it was a matter of Jewish and Christian scholars in Spain borrowing and copying the ancient works already being copied in Christian monasteries especially around Byzantium/Constantinople.

I wish someone would outline a single innovation by Moorish 'scientists' in Spain, just one, which didn't have an obvious Greek or Indian thumb-print.

Yes, there were advances in mathematics under the Muslims, but (this is probably getting a bit picky) they seemed to come from scholars in central Asia (al-Khorazm, for instance) or from India, rather than from the heartland of Islam.

And please don't talk about Moorish architecture: all authoritarian regimes, from the Nazis to Stalin to North Korea, go on about their amazing architecture, they love it. The Catalan historian Vicens Vives suggests that the Moors had fifty thousand slaves, from all corners of Europe and north Africa, to do all that in Spain.

BTT: how is the elevation of the Whanganui River to personhood playing out in NZ ?

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Joe, and thanks for a most interesting discussion. I will admit, a little off topic at times. The Ottoman sultans probably didn't give a lot of thought to the Whanganui River in New Zealand, but if they had known about it they would have, I'm sure of that.

There is no evidence that Religion of any description has had any bearing on the development of modern thinking what so ever. In fact the opposite is the case. Take for example the great astronomer Galileo Galilei was forced to defend Heliocentrism, a concept even the most ardent Biblicalist accepts today as fact, some may not. The Roman Inquisition found that the belief that the Earth and other planets revolved around the Sun was; "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture." Galileo was tried by the Inquisition and suspected of heresy, and barely escaped with his life.

Tell me where is the good in religion? When the religious point to the good charitable works performed in the name of Christianity, and I assume other faiths do as well. I counter that with... Yeah! and the Nazis also set up soup kitchens for the needy, so what! .

Hi Paul,

Perhaps the Greeks knew about the earth orbiting the Sun a couple of thousand years earlier ? Some took for granted that the Earth was more or less a sphere, about forty thousand kilometres around, roughly 150 million kilometres from the Sun, give or take.

I wonder when people trapped in other religions/ideologies ventured to suggest that the Earth wasn't flat, that it revolved around the Sun like other planets in our solar system. Perhaps the Indian astronomers were familiar with those ideas more than a couple of thousand years ago, but adherents of backward religions may not have been able to bring themselves to admit these principles until very recently. Perhaps there is a hadith from the late nineteenth century exploring these possibilities - there is an interesting Surah concerning the moon (No. 54):

54:1 The hour drew nigh and the moon was rent in twain.

54:2 And if they behold a portent they turn away and say: Prolonged illusion.

54:3 They denied (the Truth) and followed their own lusts. Yet everything will come to a decision

54:4 And surely there hath come unto them news whereof the purport should deter,

54:5 Effective wisdom; but warnings avail not.

I think that clarifies their astronomical position pretty thoroughly.

Of course, it can't be expected that societies will possess detailed scientific knowledge if the technology for its understanding is not available: so before telescopes, all sorts of naïve theories about the universe; before microscopes, all sorts of naïve theories about disease. The growth of knowledge depends on both the available technology of knowledge, specialised expertise and prolonged observation.

Cheers,

Joe