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?