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.