Sandra Finley

Nov 212018
 
Those who contemplate the beauty of the earth find reserves of strength that will endure as long as life lasts –Rachel Carson

 

The article below is with thanks to

              DailyGood is a volunteer-run initiative that delivers “good news” to 244,448 subscribers.    (Free – – there is no cost.)

= = = = = = = = = = =

–by Thomas Berry, syndicated from thomasberry.org, Nov 21, 2018

This essay is published in   The Great Work: Our Way Into the Future, by Thomas Berry

I was a young person then, some twelve years old. My family was moving from a more settled part of a Southern town out to the edge of town where the new house was still being built. The house, not yet finished, was situated on a slight incline. Down below was a small creek and there across the creek was a meadow. It was an early afternoon in May when I first looked down over the scene and saw the meadow. The field was covered with lilies rising above the thick grass. A magic moment, this experience gave to my life something, I know not what, that seems to explain my life at a more profound level than almost any other experience I can remember.

It was not only the lilies. It was the singing of the crickets and the woodlands in the distance and the clouds in an otherwise clear sky. It was not something conscious that happened just then. I went on about my life as any young person might do. Perhaps it was not simply this moment that made such a deep impression upon me. Perhaps it was a sensitivity that was developed throughout my childhood. Yet, as the years pass, this moment returns to me, and whenever I think about my basic life attitude and the whole trend of my mind and the causes that I have given my efforts to, I seem to come back to this moment and the impact it has had on my feeling for what is real and worthwhile in life.

This early experience, it seems, has become normative for me throughout the range of my thinking. Whatever preserves and enhances this meadow in the natural cycles of its transformation is good; what is opposed to this meadow or negates it is not good. My life orientation is that simple. It is also that pervasive. It applies in economics and political orientation as well as in education and religion and whatever.

That is good in economics that fosters the natural processes of this meadow. That is bad in economics that diminishes the capacity of this meadow to renew itself each spring and to provide a setting in which crickets can sing and birds can feed. Such meadows, I would later learn, are themselves in a continuing process of transformation. Yet these evolving biosystems deserve the opportunity to be themselves and to express their own inner qualities. As in economics so in jurisprudence and law and political affairs: That is good which recognizes the rights of this meadow and the creek and the woodlands beyond to exist and flourish in their ever-renewing seasonal expression even while larger processes shape the bioregion in the larger sequence of transformations.

Religion too, it seems to me, takes its origin here in the deep mystery of this setting. The more a person thinks of the infinite number of interrelated activities taking place here the more mysterious it all becomes, the more meaning a person finds in the Maytime blooming of the lilies, the more awestruck a person might be in simply looking out over this little patch of meadowland. It had none of the majesty of the Appalachian or the Western mountains, none of the immensity or the power of oceans, nor even the harsh magnificence of desert country; yet in this little meadow the magnificence of life as celebration is manifested in a manner as profound and as impressive as any other place that I have known in these past many years.

It seems to me we all had such experiences before we entered into an industrial way of life. The universe as manifestation of some primordial grandeur was recognized as the ultimate referent*  in any human understanding of the wonderful yet fearsome world about us. Every being achieved its full identity by its alignment with the universe itself. With indigenous peoples of the North American continent every formal activity was first situated in relation to the six directions of the universe: the four cardinal directions combined with the heavens above and Earth below. Only thus could any human activity be fully validated.

(*  “referent”  – –  the thing that a word or phrase denotes or stands for.   ““the Morning Star” and “the Evening Star” have the same referent (the planet Venus)”)

The universe was the world of meaning in these earlier times, the basic referent in social order, in economic survival, in the healing of illness. In that wide ambiance the muses dwelled whence came the inspiration of poetry and art and music. The drum, heartbeat of the universe itself, established the rhythm of dance whereby humans entered into the very movement of the natural world. The numinous dimension of the universe impressed itself upon the mind through the vastness of the heavens and the power revealed in thunder and lightning, as well as through springtime renewal of life after the desolation of winter. Then, too, the general helplessness of the human before all the threats to survival revealed the intimate dependence of the human on the integral functioning of things. That the human had such intimate rapport with the surrounding universe was possible only because the universe itself had a prior intimate rapport with the human.

This experience we observe even now in the indigenous peoples of the world. They live in a universe, in a cosmological order, whereas we, the peoples of the industrial world, no longer live in a universe. We live in a political world, a nation, a business world, an economic order, a cultural tradition, in Disneyworld. We live in cities, in a world of concrete and steel, of wheels and wires, a world of business, of work. We no longer see the stars at night or the planets or the moon. Even in the day we do not experience the sun in any immediate or meaningful manner. Summer and winter are the same inside the mall. Ours is a world of highways, parking lots, shopping centers. We read books written with a strangely contrived alphabet. We no longer read the book of the universe.

Nor do we coordinate our world of human meaning with the meaning of our surroundings. We have disengaged from that profound interaction with our environment inherent in our very nature. Our children do not learn how to read the Great Book of Nature or how to interact creatively with the seasonal transformations of the planet. They seldom learn where their water comes from or where it goes. We no longer coordinate our human celebration with the great liturgy of the heavens.

We have indeed become strange beings so completely are we at odds with the planet that brought us into being. We dedicate enormous talent and knowledge and research to developing a human order disengaged from and even predatory on the very sources whence we came and upon which we depend at every moment of our existence. We initiate our children into an economic order based on exploitation of the natural life systems of the planet. A disconnection occurs quite simply since we ourselves have become insensitive toward the natural world and do not realize just what we are doing. Yet, if we observe our children closely in their early years and see how they are instinctively attracted to the experiences of the natural world about them, we will see how disorientated they become in the mechanistic and even toxic environment that we provide for them.

To recover an integral relation with the universe, planet Earth, and North America needs to be a primary concern for the peoples of this continent. While a new alignment of our government and all our institutions and professions with the continent itself in its deep structure and functioning cannot be achieved immediately, a beginning can be made throughout our educational programs. Especially in the earlier grades of elementary school new developments are possible. Such was the thought of Maria Montessori in the third decade of this century.

In speaking about the education of the six-year-old child, Maria notes in her book To Educate the Human Potential that only when the child is able to identify its own center with the center of the universe does education really begin. For the universe, she says, “is an imposing reality.” It is “an answer to all questions.” “We shall walk together on this path of life, for all things are part of the universe, and are connected with each other to form one whole unity.” This it is that enables “the mind of the child to become centered, to stop wandering in an aimless quest for knowledge.” Then the writer mentions how this experience of the universe creates in the child admiration and wonder and enables the child to unify its thinking. In this manner the child learns how all things are related and how the relationship of things to each other is so close that “No matter what we touch, an atom or a cell, we cannot explain it without knowledge of the wide universe.”

The difficulty is that with the rise of the modern sciences we began to think of the universe as a collection of objects rather than a communion of subjects. We frequently identify the loss of the interior spirit-world of the human mind and emotions with the rise of modern mechanistic sciences. The more significant thing, however, is that we have lost the universe itself. We achieved extensive control over the mechanistic and even the biological functioning of the natural world, but this control itself has produced deadly consequences. We have not only controlled the planet in much of its basic functioning; we have, to an extensive degree, extinguished the life systems themselves. We have silenced so many of those wonderful voices of the universe that once spoke to us of the grand mysteries of existence.

We no longer hear the voices of the rivers or the mountains, or the voices of the sea. The trees and meadows are no longer intimate modes of spirit presence. Everything about us has become an “it” rather than a “thou.” We continue to make music, write poetry, and do our painting and sculpture and architecture, but these activities easily become an aesthetic expression simply of the human and in time lose the intimacy and radiance and awesome qualities of the universe itself. We have, in the accepted universe of these times, little capacity for participating in mysteries celebrated in the earlier literary and artistic and religious modes of expression. For we could no longer live in the universe in which these were written. We could only look on, as it were.

Yet the universe is so bound into the aesthetic experience, into poetry and music and art and dance, that we cannot entirely avoid the implicit dimensions of the natural world, even when we think of art as “representational” or “impressionist” or “expressionist” or as “personal statement.” However we think of our art or literature, its power is there in the wonder communicated most directly by the meadow or the mountains or the sea or by the stars in the night.

Of special significance is our capacity for celebration which inevitably brings us into the rituals that coordinate human affairs with the great liturgy of the universe. Our national holidays, political events, heroic human deeds: These are all quite worthy of celebration, but ultimately, unless they are associated with some more comprehensive level of meaning, they tend toward the affected, the emotional, and the ephemeral. In the political and legal orders we have never been able to give up invocation of the more sublime dimensions of the universe to witness the truth of what we say. This we observe especially in court trials, in inaugural ceremonies, and in the assumption of public office at whatever level. We still have an instinctive awe and reverence and even a certain fear of the larger world that always lies outside the range of our human controls.

Even when we recognize the psychic world of the human we make everything referent to the human as the ultimate source of meaning and value, although this mode of thinking has led to catastrophe for ourselves as well as for a multitude of other beings. Yet in recent times we begin to recognize that the universe itself is, in the phenomenal order, the only self-referent mode of being. All other modes of being, including the human, in their existence and in their functioning are universe-referent. This fact has been recognized through the centuries in the rituals of the various traditions.

From paleolithic times humans have coordinated their ritual celebrations with various transformation moments of the natural world. Ultimately the universe, throughout its vast extent in space and its sequence of transformations in time, was seen as a single multiform celebratory expression. No other explanation is possible for the world we see around us. Birds fly and sing and perform their mating rituals. Flowers blossom. Rains nourish every living being. Each of the events in the natural world is a poem, a painting, a drama, a celebration.

Dawn and sunset are mystical moments of the diurnal cycle, moments when the numinous dimension of the universe reveals itself with special intimacy. Individually and in their relations with each other these are moments when the high meaning of existence is experienced. Whether in the gatherings of indigenous peoples in their tribal setting or in the more elaborate temples and cathedrals and spiritual centers throughout Earth these moments are celebrated with special observances. So, too, in the yearly cycle the springtime is celebrated as the time for renewal of the human in its proper alignment with the universal order of things.

The proposal has been made that no effective restoration of a viable mode of human presence on the planet will take place until such ritual rapport of the human with the Earth community and the entire functioning of the universe is reestablished on an extensive scale. Until this is done the alienation of the human will continue despite heroic efforts being made toward a more benign mode of human activity in relation to Earth. The source of Norden’s confidence that the present is not a time for desperation but for hopeful activity he finds in the writings of indigenous peoples such as James Welch, N. Scott Momaday, Leslie Silko, and David Seals, all authors with profound understanding of the ritual rapport of humans with the larger order of the universe.

In alliance with such authors as these I would give a certain emphasis here on the need to understand the universe primarily as celebration. The human I would identify as that being in whom the universe celebrates itself and its numinous origins in a special mode of conscious self-awareness. That spontaneous forms of community ritual, such as the All Species Festivals inaugurated by John Seed, have already been developed gives promise for a future with the understanding, the power, the aesthetic grandeur, and the emotional fulfillment needed to heal the damage that has already been wrought upon the planet and to shape for Earth a viable future, a future with the entrancing qualities needed to endure the difficulties to be encountered and to evoke the creativity needed.

Here I would suggest that the work before us is the task, not simply of ourselves, but of the entire planet and all its component members. While the damage done is immediately the work of the human, the healing cannot be the work simply of the human any more than the illness of some one organ of the body can be healed simply through the efforts of that one organ. Every member of the body must bring its activity to the healing. So now the entire universe is involved in the healing of damaged Earth, more especially, of course, the forces of Earth with the assistance of the light and warmth of the sun. As Earth is, in a sense, a magic planet in the exquisite presence of its diverse members to each other, so this movement into the future must in some manner be brought about in ways ineffable to the human mind. We might think of a viable future for the planet less as the result of some scientific insight or as dependent on some socio-economic arrangement than as participation in a symphony or as renewed presence to the vast cosmic liturgy. This insight was perhaps something that I vaguely experienced in that first view of the lilies blooming in the meadow across the creek.

Thomas Berry
December 1993


Syndicated from the Thomas Berry Foundation website. The mission of the Thomas Berry Foundation is to carry out the Great Work of Thomas in enhancing the flourishing of the Earth community. Created in 1998 by Thomas Berry, Mary Evelyn Tucker, John Grim, Martin Kaplan, and Thomas’ sister, Margaret Berry, the Foundation has promoted Thomas’ ideas through publishing his essays and overseeing translations, initiating an archive at Harvard, and organizing the Thomas Berry Award and Lecture.

Nov 212018
 
Members of Deep Green Resistance denied entry to Canada on the way to a Chris Hedges’ lecture

Three members of the radical environmental organization Deep Green Resistance and two other individuals were detained for more than seven hours at the Peace Arch border crossing between Washington State and British Columbia on their way to Vancouver to attend a talk by author and activist Chris Hedges last Friday, September 25. They were questioned about the organizations they were involved in, their political affiliations, and their contacts in Canada before being turned away by Canadian border agents. Upon re-entering the United States they were then subjected to another round of questioning by US border agents. The car they were traveling in as well as their personal computers were searched.

Peace Arch and Trafficphoto by Greg Dunlap, on FlickrThe Peace Arch border crossing between British Columbia, Canada and Washington, USA

The interrogation comes on the heels of an FBI inquiry into Deep Green Resistance last fall in which more than a dozen members of the group were contacted and questioned by FBI agents. Several months later the group’s lawyer, Larry Hildes, was stopped at the same border crossing and asked specifically about one of his clients, Deanna Meyer, also a Deep Green Resistance member. During the 2014 visits, FBI and Department of Homeland Security agents showed up at members’ places of work, their homes, and contacted family members to find out more about the group. Meyer, who lives in Colorado, was asked by a DHS agent if she’d be interested in “forming a liaison.” The agent told her he wanted to, “head off any injuries or killing of people that could happen by people you know.” Two of the members detained at the border on Friday were also contacted by the FBI last fall.

Since Hildes was last held up at the Peace Arch border crossing in June he filed a complaint with the Department of Homeland Security’s Traveler Redress Inquiry Program. In August he received a letter from the DHS saying the agency “can neither confirm nor deny any information about you which may be within federal watchlists or reveal any law enforcement sensitive information.”

It’s not only Deep Green Resistance members who have had trouble getting across the border. Environmental activists who were part of a campaign in Texas opposing  the Keystone XL pipeline were the targets of an FBI investigation in 2012 and 2013 and have also been denied entry into Canada. At least one of those activists, Bradley Stroot, has been placed on a selective screening watchlist for domestic flights.

 

Nearly all of the activists involved are US citizens who have not had issues traveling to Canada in the past, leading them to believe that the recent FBI investigation and interest in their activities has landed them on some kind of federal watchlist. According to Peter Edelman, an immigration attorney in Vancouver, there are three broad categories under which Canadian border agents may deny entry to a foreign national: If they suspect you are entering Canada to work or study or you clearly don’t have the financial resources needed for the duration of the visit; if you pose a security threat to Canada or are a member of a terrorist or criminal organization; or if you’ve committed certain crimes. Edelman says that US citizens tend to get targeted more easily at the Canadian border because of the various information- sharing programs between the two countries. As soon as they scan your passport, border agents have access to a whole host of state and federal databases. Still, Edelman says, “Who gets targeted and who doesn’t is definitely an exercise in profiling.”

On Friday, September 25 Deep Green Resistance members Max Wilbert, Dillon Thomson, Rachel Ivey and two other individuals not affiliated with the group drove from Eugene, Oregon to attend the talk by Hedges, which was a collaboration with the Vancouver Rape Relief and Women’s Shelter and the Asian Women Coalition Ending Prostitution. They got to the border around 1 p.m., told the border agents where they were going, and that they’d be returning to Oregon the next day. They were then asked to exit their vehicle and enter the border control facility, where they assumed they would be held briefly before continuing on their way.

Instead, they ended up spending four hours on the Canadian side, each questioned separately. At one point, an agent came into the building carrying Wilbert’s computer and notebooks. He asked the agent what they were doing with the computer and was told they were searching for “child pornography and evidence that you’re intending to work in Canada.” The agent also said they were “not going to add or remove anything.”

According to Edelman the searching of computers and cell phones at the border has become standard procedure despite the fact that there are questions about whether a border search allows for such invasive measures. Border agents take the view that they are permitted to do so, but the legal picture remains murky. “The searching of computers is an issue of contention,” Edelman says.

After four hours of questioning, all but one of the travelers were told that they would not be allowed to enter Canada. Wilbert, who grew up in Seattle and has traveled to Canada many times without incident, including as recently as January 2015, was told that they were suspicious he was entering the country to work illegally. A professional photographer, he had volunteered to take pictures of the event, which he had openly told the agents. “It was pretty obvious they were grasping for straws,” Wilbert says. “Under that level of suspicion you wouldn’t let anybody into Canada.”

The other three individuals were told they had been denied entry for previous political protest-related arrests. Rachel Ivey, a Deep Green Resistance member arrested in 2012 during a protest near the Pine Ridge Oglala Sioux Reservation in South Dakota, had traveled to Canada in December 2014 without any problems. The one individual allowed entry had no prior arrest record or explicit affiliation with any political groups. (Interestingly, several Deep Green Resistance members traveling separately, including one of the group’s founders, Lierre Keith, were allowed to pass through the border and attend the event.)

After being denied entry to Canada, the group turned around and attempted to reenter the United States, at which point they were again pulled aside and told by US border agents to exit their car. The group was then subjected to a similar round of questioning that lasted three and a half hours. This time, US agents took three computers from the vehicle into the border control facility and kept them for the duration of the interrogation.

According to Wilbert, the questions on the American side were more obviously political. Agents wanted to know the names of the groups they were involved in, what kinds of activities they engage in, what they believe in, and who they were going to see.

“It seemed very clear on the US side that they had already come to conclusions about who we are and what we were doing,” Ivey says.

Around 8:30 p.m. they were told they could leave and that it had been nothing more than a routine inspection.

Wilbert doesn’t see it that way. Two days later he got a new computer and says he plans to get rid of the one seized by border agents. Despite assurances from the border officials that nothing was “added or removed” he says, “We feel like everything we do on those computers will never be private.”

“It was pretty clear to us that it was an information gathering excursion,” says Wilbert. “They had an opportunity to harass and intimidate and gather information from activists who they find threatening.”

Nov 202018
 

Derrick Jensen from What a Way to Go, Life at the End of Empire,   time – 1 hour, 50
This is the complete and slightly edited interview footage we shot with Derrick Jensen in 2005, in preparation for our feature-length documentary, What a Way to Go: Life at the End of Empire.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –
From the long list of Derrick’s Published works (at bottom), 2005 was in the time he was working on EndGame.  Age 45 (he was born in 1960.) 
Six years later,  2011,  the book  Deep Green Resistance:  Strategy to Save the Planet was published.  Age 51.
Too radical for some.
Canadian Border Services (CBS) turned back a car with people en route from Washington & Oregon to a presentation in Vancouver by Chris Hedges (2015).   Persons in the car were members of Jensen’s  Deep Green Resistance.   Border Services turned the car back.   Between Canadian and American Border Services,  the car was detained at the border for the equivalent of a day.  Computers were taken away at the beginning of interrogation by American Border Security, and returned after the 3.5 hours of interrogation.  These were people who live in the Pacific Northwest and had traveled many times back-and-forth across the border.   Of one person:

“Two days later he got a new computer and says he plans to get rid of the one seized by border agents. Despite assurances from the border officials that nothing was “added or removed” he says, “We feel like everything we do on those computers will never be private.”

“It was pretty clear to us that it was an information gathering excursion,” says Wilbert. “They had an opportunity to harass and intimidate and gather information from activists who they find threatening.”   Continue reading »

Nov 202018
 

I want to protect the existence of that tree;

I want to protect that water.

How?

Like these people in Australia did?

2018-04-01    It’s only natural: the push to give rivers, mountains and forests legal rights, The Guardian

How?  – –  or, maybe Derrick Jensen can answer the question:

Deep Green Resistance: Strategy to Save the Planet (Derrick Jensen, author of EndGame)

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Let’s get this right.   Can I protect that water or forest in some way that does not involve “legal rights”?   A serious question,  I am asking you.   Legal rights are embedded in a justice system that, as currently defined, requires lawyers, lots of money, and seemingly infinite time.  It defends “rights” of interests that should not have a particular “right”.  In my experience, it is a pretty dysfunctional system that in large measure might serve corporate and big government interests, but abysmally meets the needs of the society and the biosphere.  With tragic consequence.

Our job,  if we want to protect the Earth of which we are a part, includes transformation of jurisprudence (in the words of Thomas Berry).

– – – – –

Some of the groundwork that has been done in the last 40+ years for the Rights of Nature.   I wonder who remembers?  Or knows?   A fellow from the U.S. speculated that he knew nothing because the U.S. was the only country to vote “No” to the Charter for Nature.  (Those who “abstained” from voting did the same, no?)

1982-10-28   United Nations “World Charter for Nature”

2000-03    The Earth Charter

2015-12-04   Third International Rights of Nature Tribunal, Paris

– – – –

What’s on F/B?  one of the groups:

Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature and Tribunal Story,   youtube:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPP-X02mdcc

In short,  I don’t want to stamp out fires.   I want to pursue actions that get at the root of the problem.  And I want to do it at the local or regional level.

= = = = = = = =  = =

IS it because Canada is vast, with a thin concentrated band of population along the 49th parallel,  otherwise thinly populated,  or is it Our general affluence?: 

If you look at how the Charters for Nature came into being (above),  you see lands laid waste and THEIR PEOPLE  rising in resistance, and then CREATING effective remedies.

Every bit as much, and more, of Canada has been laid waste.

2018-11-05    REMINDER: A tally, Canadians are on the hook for . . .

2010-05-21   Important collection of information on water and disease. Petrochemical industry.

2010-02-11   The problems we get into when we do not have a separation of powers between the state and commerce, Jane Jacobs.

= = = = = = = =

“I fear that we are being led to become morally lazy. Our affluence has given many of us almost immediate access to virtually anything we want. We have grown comfortable with indulgence, and we don’t want to feel guilty about it. Guilt prods us toward the hard work of changing. That’s why we want our heroes to be flawed like we are. They assure us that our weaknesses, addictions, moral lapses, and compromises are not unusual. Such heroes become mirrors reflecting a comfortable image that says, Hey, don’t get so uptight about your failures and lapses. We’re all like this.”
― Michael W Smith

= = = = = = = = = =

UPDATE, JULIAN ASSANGE    

Most people kind of knew that the U.S. had issued an indictment, a formal charge, against Assange.   Assange understood it.

2018-11 16   Justice Department mistakenly reveals indictment against Wikileaks’ Julian Assange

2018-11-20   Police challenged over refusal to disclose files on WikiLeaks staff, from Computer Weekly

= = = = = = = = = =

RE:  STATSCAN & PRIVACY OF PERSONAL INFORMATION
THE SET OF RECENT POSTINGS

(I don’t think you’ve seen the ones in hot pink):

2018-11-16   Surveillance Kills Freedom By Killing Experimentation, Bruce Schneier. from “The End of Trust”.

In my book Data and Goliath, I write about the value of privacy. I talk about how it is essential for political liberty and justice, and for commercial fairness and equality. I talk about how it increases personal freedom and individual autonomy, and how the lack of it makes us all less secure. But this is probably the most important argument as to why society as a whole must protect privacy: it allows society to progress.

We know that surveillance has a chilling effect on freedom. People change their behavior when they live their lives under surveillance. They are less likely to speak freely and act individually. They self-censor. They become conformist. This is obviously true for government surveillance, but is true for corporate surveillance as well. We simply aren’t as willing to be our individual selves when others are watching.   . . .

  2018-11-15 Nov issue of Crypto-Gram, by Bruce Schneier. A free monthly newsletter providing summaries, analyses, insights, and commentaries on security: computer and otherwise.

2018-11-16  the BLIND SPOT in Privacy Commissioner’s investigation of StatsCan (getting personal data from the private sector)

2018-11-13   POLL:  Canadians strongly oppose Statscan’s plan to obtain the banking records of 500,000 households. Globe & Mail.

2018-11-13  Blind men describing elephant: Reply to “I wish I could persuade you that everyone gains from what is being proposed” by StatsCan (collection of data from Banks)

2018-11-12    My reply to “StatsCan plan to scoop customer spending data from banks”

2018-11-11  The law that lets Europeans take back their data from big tech companies, CBS 60 Minutes.

2018-11-08  Senator ‘repelled’ by StatsCan plan to scoop customer spending data from banks, IT World Canada

2018-11-06   News Release from Senate of Canada: Senate committee to probe Statistics Canada’s request for Canadians’ banking data

2016-08-23  MK Ultra: CIA mind control program in Canada (1980) – The Fifth Estate   (“THEY wouldn’t do that!)

 = = = = = = = = = =

 

#FridaysForFuture #ClimateStrike Solidarity with our young people. SAVE THE DATE Friday, December 7, 2018 Climate Reality Canada, iMatter Canada and Citizens’ Climate Lobby Canada.

= = = = = = = = = =

2018-11-09 Federal judge blocks Keystone XL pipeline, saying Trump administration review ignored ‘inconvenient’ climate change facts

= = = = = = = = = =

2018-10-21 US Navy Ship (US Southern Command) Lands On Ecuador’s Shore to Give Free Medical Care

2018-11-06 Background for “US Navy Ship (US Southern Command) Lands On Ecuador’s Shore to Give Free Medical Care”

= = = = = = = = = =

2018-11-11 Monsanto (Bayer), Roundup: ‘Troubling allegations’ prompt Health Canada review of studies used to approve popular weed-killer, CBC

(Shout out:  A review by Health Canada (the PMRA) is mockery.   The PMRA serves its clients, the industry. 

The only potentially credible review will be by an independent, third party, NOT lined up by Health Canada.  Between the PMRA and CropLife Canada,  be assured, there will be conniving to ensure an industry-friendly Reviewer.)

Nov 202018
 
NOTE:  Normally,  I would only post the OUTCOME of this challenge.   But there’s good background, and a timeline under the last heading:  Journalists’ battle to secure answers on WikiLeaksNOTE:   “Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)”  refers to LONDON.

– – – – – – – – – – – –

https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252452830/Police-challenged-over-refusal-to-disclose-files-on-WikiLeaks-staff

Lawyers will challenge the Metropolitan Police Service today to confirm or deny whether it holds correspondence with US law enforcement about three WikiLeaks staff in a freedom of information tribunal
The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) faces a legal challenge over its refusal to confirm or deny whether it has shared correspondence with US law enforcement agencies about three prominent members of WikiLeaks staff, including two British citizens, whose personal emails were secretly disclosed to US prosecutors.Stefania Maurizi, an investigative journalist for La Repubblica, will argue at an appeal tribunal today that it is in the public interest for the police force to reveal whether it has exchanged information about the current and former WikiLeaks employees with the US.

The case comes only days after it emerged that a US prosecutor had mistakenly revealed that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange had been charged with crimes in the US, after apparently mistakenly cutting and pasting Assange’s name into an indictment on an unrelated case.

Assange took refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy in 2012, after losing his appeal against extradition to Sweden following allegations of sexual assault by two Swedish women. He remains there still. The allegations were dropped in 2016.

The police spent at least £13m policing the embassy between June 2012 and June 2015, when it ended 24-hour physical surveillance of the embassy, in favour of cheaper “overt and covert” tactics to arrest Assange, who fears extradition to the US if he leaves the embassy.

Maurizi is using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to seek disclosure of information held by the Metropolitan Police on former investigations editor Sarah Harrison and two current staff – section editor Joseph Farrell, and editor in chief Kristinn Hrafnsson.

The WikiLeaks employees learned in 2014 that a court in East Virginia had ordered Google to disclose their personal emails, contacts, calendar entries and log-in IP addresses to the US government, as part of an investigation into alleged violations of US federal laws, including the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the US Espionage Act.

Jennifer Robinson, a human rights lawyer acting for WikiLeaks and Maurizi, said the hearing raised significant questions about the jurisdiction the US has over British journalists and editors.

“We want to know what role the British government and the British police are playing in that process, now that we know that information subpoenaed from these British journalists and editors likely contributed to the criminal investigation in the US and the indictment of Julian Assange,” she said.

In this interview, investigative journalist Stefania Maurizi talks about her use of FoI requests to gain information about Julian Assange’s extradition case (filming by Niels Ladefoged)

Row over consent to disclose personal data

One of the issues under dispute in the current case is whether Maurizi had secured adequate consent from the three journalists for the Metropolitan Police to disclose their personal data to the wider public.

Maurizi obtained letters, and later signed witness statements, from each journalist, giving permission for the Met Police to release their personal information to Maurizi to use in her reporting on WikiLeaks.

But the police service argued that it could not be certain that the journalists had “explicitly and freely given their materially informed consent to the disclosure of personal data” – a decision upheld by the information commissioner.

The witness statements would need to be confirmed as genuine, and it would be unreasonable to expect a public authority, such as the Metropolitan Police Service, to undertake to do so, the commissioner held following a tribunal ruling in March 2018.

Robinson, representing Maurizi, said: “We are challenging the fact that they [MPS] are using the personal data exemption in circumstances where the journalists and editors have given their consent to the release of that information.”

Kafka is ‘alive and well’

Hrafnsson and Farrell are expected to give evidence in person at the East London Tribunal Centre today, confirming that they gave full consent to Maurizi to ask the Metropolitan Police to release any personal data they held on them.

Farrell wrote in a tweet in June: “What a bizarre state of affairs that I have to go to court and testify to get MY OWN data released to MYSELF. Kafka is alive and well it seems.”

Hrafnsson said in written evidence to the tribunal that it was made “abundantly” clear to him that Maurizi would use any personal data released about him by the Metropolitan Police “in her capacity as an investigative journalist and would be publishing stories based on the information she received”.

He said he gave consent in the “full knowledge” of how Maurizi intended to use the “relevant personal data about me that would be released to her”.

The WikiLeaks journalists and editors

Kristinn Hrafnsson

Kristinn Hrafnsson is currently the WikiLeaks editor in chief, after having worked for WikiLeaks as a spokesman since 2010. A well-established Icelandic investigative journalist, Hrafnsson has worked on high-profile disclosures with WikiLeaks.

Hrafnsson has helped Julian Assange and his team to handle some of the most sensitive publications, such as the US secret documents of the Afghan and Iraq wars, the US diplomacy cables, the Guantanamo files, and many other high-profile revelations.

In September 2018, Julian Assange made Hrafnsson editor in chief of WikiLeaks, when the Ecuadorian government denied Assange any internet and phone communications and any access to visitors, except his lawyers, from March 2018 onwards.

Sarah Harrison, former investigations editor at WikiLeaks

Sarah Harrison is described as one of the most crucial WikiLeaks journalists. She has handled some of the most sensitive publications, contributing to verifying whether the files were genuine, coordinating the media partners and training them in encryption.

In 2013, Harrison travelled to Hong Kong to assist Edward Snowden as he sought political asylum. She spent 40 days with Snowden while he remained in a Moscow airport, before being granted asylum by Russia. She later spent four months with Snowden in Moscow.

Joseph Farrell, WikiLeaks section editor

Joseph Farrell is a British journalist who has collaborated with Julian Assange and WikiLeaks from a early stage. He has always kept a low profile, he has assisted WikiLeaks in handling some of its most sensitive assignments, and has maintained contact with WikiLeaks supporters. Together with Sarah Harrison, Farrell acted as one of the securities to help Assange secure bail.

Source: Stefania Maurizi

The information commissioner and the Metropolitan Police claim that the time for the journalists to give consent was in Maurizi’s initial freedom of information application, rather than in a later appeal. Both bodies argue that the three journalists were not alerted to the fact that they could have obtained the same data through a “more appropriate” route, a subject access request under the Data Protection Act.

Lawyers for Maurizi argue that there is nothing in law to prevent personal data being accessed through the Freedom of Information Act with the consent of the data subjects. They accuse the Met of failing in its statutory duty to assist Maurizi by specifying what it would regard as an acceptable form of consent from the three journalists.

Swedish FOIA requests reveal UK tactics

Maurizi began using the Freedom of Information Act to request public-interest information on WikiLeaks in 2015.

In 2017, she obtained correspondence between the Swedish Prosecution Authority (SPA) and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), which shed light on discussions between the UK and Sweden over allegations made against Assange by two Swedish women.

Documents released under Swedish freedom of information laws revealed that the CPS had advised the SPA not to agree to Assange’s request for Swedish investigators to interview Assange in the UK, but to pursue Assange’s extradition.

The then Crown Prosecution lawyer, Paul Close, wrote to his counterparts Ola Lofgren and Marianne Ny in Sweden in 2011 repeating his earlier advice that “in my view it would not be prudent for the Swedish authorities to try to interview the defendant in the UK”.

CPS lawyers offer Swedes a Christmas present

In an email to Ny, dated 29 November 2012, Close went on to say that the UK authorities would not allow Assange to leave the Embassy of Ecuador to seek medical treatment, despite reports on the BBC World Service about his deteriorating health.

“There is no question of him being allowed outside of the Ecuadorian embassy, treated and then being allowed to go back. He would be arrested as soon as appropriate,” he wrote.

Close suggested he was optimistic that Assange could be extradited before Christmas, writing to Ny: “I am sure you can guess what I would just love to send you as a Christmas present.”

In a previous email to the SPA on 13 January 2011, Close suggested that Assange’s extradition was being handled differently to other extradition cases. “Please do not think that the case is being dealt with as just another extradition request,” he wrote.

UK delays kept Assange in Ecuadorian embassy

Maurizi said she suspected that the disclosure of the CPS emails to the US would show that the UK played a significant role in delaying Sweden’s failure to progress the investigation against Assange – which effectively kept him in arbitrary detention in the Ecuadorian embassy.

The fact that a US court subpoenaed information from Google from the email accounts of journalists as part of an investigation under the US Espionage Act raises significant public interest concerns about the reach of government warrants, privacy and free speech, she said.

“It is a matter of substantial public interest to understand whether or not the UK authorities are communicating or cooperating with the US in an investigation of this nature”

Stefania Maurizi, investigative journalist

The Espionage Act, originally intended to prosecute spies, has been increasingly used by presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump against journalists and their sources.

The act has been used to punish some of the most important journalistic sources of the past 50 years, including Chelsea Manning and Reality Winner, who was sentenced to five years after leaking a secret document showing alleged attempts by Russia to hack the American voting system.

Maurizi has established that the SPA holds 34 lever arch files on Assange, totalling between 7,200 and 9,000 pages of correspondence. In two years, she has managed to obtain only 27 emails from the CPS and the SPA, reinforcing, she said, just how little transparency there has been on the Assange case.

“It is a matter of substantial public interest to understand whether or not the UK authorities are communicating or cooperating with the US in an investigation of this nature into individuals who are British citizens or are working with journalists in the UK and Europe,” she said.

Met Police ‘failed to consider public interest’

Estelle Duhan, a public law barrister representing Maurizi said the Metropolitan Police had failed to consider whether there was any public interest in disclosing information about the case.

“What the Metropolitan Police did was actually a failure to consider the substantial public interest in the case at all, and in fact, we say this is a failure that continues because none of the evidence that has been put forward before the tribunal by the Metropolitan Police deals with the substantive public interest.”

Maurizi said it has long been suspected that the US authorities are running a secret investigation into WikiLeaks under the Espionage Act, and if the UK is running a similar investigation, this poses serious questions for press freedom in the US and the UK.

“As journalists we have to acquire factual information. We have to ask for documents from the UK, the US, Swedish and Ecuadorian authorities to try to understand what went wrong with the Assange case, because clearly something went wrong,” she said. “You cannot accept a man sitting in an embassy and no one is doing anything. That is unacceptable to me.”

Journalists’ battle to secure answers on WikiLeaks

2009: Italian investigative journalist Stefania Maurizi starts a partnership with WikiLeaks. During the partnership, she verifies secret and restricted documents, and looks for angles and stories that would make the documents accessible to the public.

2010: Sarah Harrison becomes investigations editor for WikiLeaks, and Kristinn Hrafnsson becomes a spokesman for WikiLeaks.

2010: A US grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, opens an investigation after WikiLeaks publishes a series of secret files, including the Afgan and Iraq war logs, US diplomatic papers and the Guantanamo files.

19 April 2011: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange asks Google’s chief executive Eric Schimdt to press for the disclosure of any search and seizure warrants issued by Google for information on WikiLeaks or its staff. Assange tells Schmidt that Twitter had argued for the release of warrants seeking records during early court hearings. Schmidt tells Assange he will pass the request on to Google’s general counsel.

June 2012: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange takes refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, after facing possible extradition to Sweden. The Swedish case has since been dropped.

2013: Sarah Harrison travels to Hong Kong to assist Edward Snowden as he seeks political asylum. She spends 40 days with Snowden while he remains in a Moscow airport, before being granted asylum by Russia, and later spends four months with Snowden in Moscow.

22 March 2012: Judge John Anderson signs secret warrants in the US District Court for the Easter District of Columbia, ordering the disclosure of all data and email content held by Google on three WikiLeaks staff – Sarah Harrison, investigations editor; Joseph Farrell, section editor; and Kristinn Hrafnsson, spokesman – within two weeks. Separately, Anderson went on to issue an arrest warrant for Edward Snowden, on 14 June 2013.

23 December  2014: Google sends notifications to three journalists and editors at WikiLeaks – Sarah Harrison, Kristinn Hrafnsson and Joseph Farrell. The notifications reveal that Google has provided US federal law enforcement with the entire content of their Google emails, subscriber information and other content. The notifications reveal a US investigation into charges including espionage, conspiracy to commit espionage, theft of US government property, breaches of the US Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and conspiracy and the Espionage Act. It is unclear whether the US investigation is targeting the three WikiLeaks staff named, WikiLeaks as an organisation, or its founder, Julian Assange.

26 January 2015: The Centre for Constitutional Rights, representing WikiLeaks, writes to Google chairman Eric Schmidt expressing its “astonishment” that Google waited two-and-a-half years to release details of the order and failed to provide the three WikiLeaks staff with details of the material it provided to US law enforcement authorities. The American Council for Civil Liberties (ACLU) raises concerns about the “shockingly broad” wording of the warrants and the First Amendment concerns raised by handing over information from the accounts of WikiLeaks journalists and employees.

2015: Sarah Harrison is awarded the Willy Brandt prize for political courage for her work with WikiLeaks and helping Edward Snowden to win political asylum.

22 May 2017: Investigative journalist Stefania Maurizi files a freedom of information request with the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) for information relating to Julian Assange. The Met refuses the application on the grounds that “the correspondence would form part of a live police investigation”.

29 May 2017: Maurizi files a freedom of information request to the Metropolitan Police Service for information relating to WikiLeaks journalists Sarah Harrison, Kristinn Hrafnsson and Joseph Farrell.

8 June 2017: The Metropolitan Police Service initially refuses Maurizi’s freedom of information request on the grounds that it would not be possible to respond to the request without exceeding the cost threshold. It asks Maurizi to “specify exactly what documents you are after”.

29 June 2017: Maurizi narrows her freedom of information request to copies of correspondence between the US Department of Justice and the Metropolitan Police Service, relating to the three WikiLeaks journalists, between June 2013 and June 2017.

11 August 2017: The MPS refuses to confirm or deny that it possesses correspondence on the WikiLeaks journalists on the grounds that it constitutes personal information, citing Section 40 (5) of the Freedom of Information Act. Maurizi then contacts the three WikiLeaks journalists, who provide witness statements agreeing to the release of their personal information to Maurizi to use in her reporting on WikiLeaks and the investigation into the three members of staff.

14 September 2017: Maurizi asks the Metropolitan Police Service to review its decision to neither confirm nor deny that it held any correspondence on the WikiLeaks staff, on the grounds that there was a strong public interest in “shedding light” on the ongoing investigation into the individuals. She encloses a signed witness statement from the individuals giving their permission to release the information, providing contact details for each individual.

19 September 2017: The Metropolitan Police Service upholds its original decision not to confirm or deny that it holds correspondence on the three WikiLeaks journalists.

21 December 2017: Maurizi files a complaint with the UK information commissioner. She argues that the MPS’s argument that there would be a breach of the Data Protection Act by releasing information on the three WikiLeaks journalists is misplaced, as each has given consent for their personal data to be disclosed.

3 March 2018: The information commissioner upholds the Metropolitan Police’s decision not to confirm or deny that it holds correspondence relating to the three WikiLeaks journalists. The information commissioner holds that the witness statements do not amount to adequate consent to release their data to the public. She argues that the individuals’ identities would need to be confirmed and that it would be unreasonable to expect a public authority, such as the Metropolitan Police Service, to take that step.

March 2018: The Ecuadorian embassy denies Julian Assange internet and phone communications and access to visitors.

September 2018: Kristinn Hrafnsson is named editor in chief of WikiLeaks, after the Ecuadorian embassy denied Assange internet and phone communications and access to visitors.

22 October 2018: The MPS makes written submissions to the tribunal, in part to avoid sending a representative to defend its position.

15 November 2018: It emerges US prosecutors have inadvertently revealed that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been charged following a cut and paste error in an unrelated case in the Eastern District of Virginia. The case had been unsealed in early September.

Read more on Privacy and data

Nov 192018
 

Scroll down to  THE EARTH CHARTER   PRINCIPLES.

 

HISTORY

 

In 1987 The World Commission on Environment and Development (known as “the Brundtland Commission”) launched Our Common Future Report with a call for a “new charter” to set “new norms” to guide the transition to sustainable development.

Following that discussion about an Earth Charter took place in the process leading to the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, but the time for such a declaration was not right. The Rio Declaration became the statement of the achievable consensus at that time.

In 1994, Maurice Strong (Secretary-General of the Rio Summit) and Mikhail Gorbachev, working through organizations they each founded (Earth Council and Green Cross International respectively), launched an initiative (with the support from the Dutch Government) to develop an Earth Charter as a civil society initiative. The initial drafting and consultation process drew on hundreds of international documents.

An independent Earth Charter Commission was formed in 1997 to oversee the development of the text, analyze the outcomes of a world-wide consultation process and to come to agreement on a global consensus document.

In March 1997 at the Rio+5 Forum, a first Benchmark Draft of the Earth Charter is released as a “document in progress”. Ongoing international consultations were encouraged and organized.   Please see “Influences shaping the Earth Charter”.

In April 1999 a Benchmark Draft II of the Earth Charter is released and international consultations continue particularly through Earth Charter National Committees and international dialogues..

After numerous drafts and after considering the input of people from all regions of the world, the Earth Charter Commission came to consensus on the Earth Charter in March, 2000, at a meeting held at UNESCO headquarters in Paris. The Earth Charter was later formally launched in ceremonies at The Peace Palace in The Hague.

The Earth Charter is now increasingly recognized as a global consensus statement on the meaning of sustainability, the challenge and vision of sustainable development, and the principles by which sustainable development is to be achieved. It is used as a basis for peace negotiations, as a reference document in the development of global standards and codes of ethics, as resource for governance and legislative processes, as a community development tool, as an educational framework for sustainable development, and in many other contexts. The Charter was also an important influence on the Plan of Implementation for the UNESCO Decade for Education on Sustainable Development.

LINK FOR MORE DETAILED HISTORY:

Earth Charter+10

Video – Earth Charter Initiative at Glance 2000 – 2010

Earth Charter Initiative brief presentation 2005

The Earth Charter

Preamble

We stand at a critical moment in Earth’s history, a time when humanity must choose its future. As the world becomes increasingly interdependent and fragile, the future at once holds great peril and great promise. To move forward we must recognize that in the midst of a magnificent diversity of cultures and life forms we are one human family and one Earth community with a common destiny. We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace. Towards this end, it is imperative that we, the peoples of Earth, declare our responsibility to one another, to the greater community of life, and to future generations.

Earth, Our Home

Humanity is part of a vast evolving universe. Earth, our home, is alive with a unique community of life. The forces of nature make existence a demanding and uncertain adventure, but Earth has provided the conditions essential to life’s evolution. The resilience of the community of life and the well-being of humanity depend upon preserving a healthy biosphere with all its ecological systems, a rich variety of plants and animals, fertile soils, pure waters, and clean air. The global environment with its finite resources is a common concern of all peoples. The protection of Earth’s vitality, diversity, and beauty is a sacred trust.

The Global Situation

The dominant patterns of production and consumption are causing environmental devastation, the depletion of resources, and a massive extinction of species. Communities are being undermined. The benefits of development are not shared equitably and the gap between rich and poor is widening. Injustice, poverty, ignorance, and violent conflict are widespread and the cause of great suffering. An unprecedented rise in human population has overburdened ecological and social systems. The foundations of global security are threatened. These trends are perilous—but not inevitable.

The Challenges Ahead

The choice is ours: form a global partnership to care for Earth and one another or risk the destruction of ourselves and the diversity of life. Fundamental changes are needed in our values, institutions, and ways of living. We must realize that when basic needs have been met, human development is primarily about being more, not having more. We have the knowledge and technology to provide for all and to reduce our impacts on the environment. The emergence of a global civil society is creating new opportunities to build a democratic and humane world. Our environmental, economic, political, social, and spiritual challenges are interconnected, and together we can forge inclusive solutions.

Universal Responsibility

To realize these aspirations, we must decide to live with a sense of universal responsibility, identifying ourselves with the whole Earth community as well as our local communities. We are at once citizens of different nations and of one world in which the local and global are linked. Everyone shares responsibility for the present and future well-being of the human family and the larger living world. The spirit of human solidarity and kinship with all life is strengthened when we live with reverence for the mystery of being, gratitude for the gift of life, and humility regarding the human place in nature.

We urgently need a shared vision of basic values to provide an ethical foundation for the emerging world community. Therefore, together in hope we affirm the following interdependent principles for a sustainable way of life as a common standard by which the conduct of all individuals, organizations, businesses, governments, and transnational institutions is to be guided and assessed.

Principles

I. Respect and Care for the Community of Life

  1. Respect Earth and life in all its diversity.
    1. Recognize that all beings are interdependent and every form of life has value regardless of its worth to human beings.
    2. Affirm faith in the inherent dignity of all human beings and in the intellectual, artistic, ethical, and spiritual potential of humanity.
  2. Care for the community of life with understanding, compassion, and love.
    1. Accept that with the right to own, manage, and use natural resources comes the duty to prevent environmental harm and to protect the rights of people.
    2. Affirm that with increased freedom, knowledge, and power comes increased responsibility to promote the common good.
  3. Build democratic societies that are just, participatory, sustainable, and peaceful.
    1. Ensure that communities at all levels guarantee human rights and fundamental freedoms and provide everyone an opportunity to realize his or her full potential.
    2. Promote social and economic justice, enabling all to achieve a secure and meaningful livelihood that is ecologically responsible.
  4. Secure Earth’s bounty and beauty for present and future generations.
    1. Recognize that the freedom of action of each generation is qualified by the needs of future generations.
    2. Transmit to future generations values, traditions, and institutions that support the long-term flourishing of Earth’s human and ecological communities.

In order to fulfill these four broad commitments, it is necessary to:

II. Ecological Integrity

  1. Protect and restore the integrity of Earth’s ecological systems, with special concern for biological diversity and the natural processes that sustain life.
    1. Adopt at all levels sustainable development plans and regulations that make environmental conservation and rehabilitation integral to all development initiatives.
    2. Establish and safeguard viable nature and biosphere reserves, including wild lands and marine areas, to protect Earth’s life support systems, maintain biodiversity, and preserve our natural heritage.
    3. Promote the recovery of endangered species and ecosystems.
    4. Control and eradicate non-native or genetically modified organisms harmful to native species and the environment, and prevent introduction of such harmful organisms.
    5. Manage the use of renewable resources such as water, soil, forest products, and marine life in ways that do not exceed rates of regeneration and that protect the health of ecosystems.
    6. Manage the extraction and use of non-renewable resources such as minerals and fossil fuels in ways that minimize depletion and cause no serious environmental damage.
  2. Prevent harm as the best method of environmental protection and, when knowledge is limited, apply a precautionary approach.
    1. Take action to avoid the possibility of serious or irreversible environmental harm even when scientific knowledge is incomplete or inconclusive.
    2. Place the burden of proof on those who argue that a proposed activity will not cause significant harm, and make the responsible parties liable for environmental harm.
    3. Ensure that decision making addresses the cumulative, long-term, indirect, long distance, and global consequences of human activities.
    4. Prevent pollution of any part of the environment and allow no build-up of radioactive, toxic, or other hazardous substances.
    5. Avoid military activities damaging to the environment.
  3. Adopt patterns of production, consumption, and reproduction that safeguard Earth’s regenerative capacities, human rights, and community well-being.
    1. Reduce, reuse, and recycle the materials used in production and consumption systems, and ensure that residual waste can be assimilated by ecological systems.
    2. Act with restraint and efficiency when using energy, and rely increasingly on renewable energy sources such as solar and wind.
    3. Promote the development, adoption, and equitable transfer of environmentally sound technologies.
    4. Internalize the full environmental and social costs of goods and services in the selling price, and enable consumers to identify products that meet the highest social and environmental standards.
    5. Ensure universal access to health care that fosters reproductive health and responsible reproduction.
    6. Adopt lifestyles that emphasize the quality of life and material sufficiency in a finite world.
  4. Advance the study of ecological sustainability and promote the open exchange and wide application of the knowledge acquired.
    1. Support international scientific and technical cooperation on sustainability, with special attention to the needs of developing nations.
    2. Recognize and preserve the traditional knowledge and spiritual wisdom in all cultures that contribute to environmental protection and human well-being.
    3. Ensure that information of vital importance to human health and environmental protection, including genetic information, remains available in the public domain.

III. Social and Economic Justice

  1. Eradicate poverty as an ethical, social, and environmental imperative.
    1. Guarantee the right to potable water, clean air, food security, uncontaminated soil, shelter, and safe sanitation, allocating the national and international resources required.
    2. Empower every human being with the education and resources to secure a sustainable livelihood, and provide social security and safety nets for those who are unable to support themselves.
    3. Recognize the ignored, protect the vulnerable, serve those who suffer, and enable them to develop their capacities and to pursue their aspirations.
  2. Ensure that economic activities and institutions at all levels promote human development in an equitable and sustainable manner.
    1. Promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations.
    2. Enhance the intellectual, financial, technical, and social resources of developing nations, and relieve them of onerous international debt.
    3. Ensure that all trade supports sustainable resource use, environmental protection, and progressive labor standards.
    4. Require multinational corporations and international financial organizations to act transparently in the public good, and hold them accountable for the consequences of their activities.
  3. Affirm gender equality and equity as prerequisites to sustainable development and ensure universal access to education, health care, and economic opportunity.
    1. Secure the human rights of women and girls and end all violence against them.
    2. Promote the active participation of women in all aspects of economic, political, civil, social, and cultural life as full and equal partners, decision makers, leaders, and beneficiaries.
    3. Strengthen families and ensure the safety and loving nurture of all family members.
  4. Uphold the right of all, without discrimination, to a natural and social environment supportive of human dignity, bodily health, and spiritual well-being, with special attention to the rights of indigenous peoples and minorities.
    1. Eliminate discrimination in all its forms, such as that based on race, color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, language, and national, ethnic or social origin.
    2. Affirm the right of indigenous peoples to their spirituality, knowledge, lands and resources and to their related practice of sustainable livelihoods.
    3. Honor and support the young people of our communities, enabling them to fulfill their essential role in creating sustainable societies.
    4. Protect and restore outstanding places of cultural and spiritual significance.

IV. Democracy, Nonviolence, and Peace

  1. Strengthen democratic institutions at all levels, and provide transparency and accountability in governance, inclusive participation in decision making, and access to justice.
    1. Uphold the right of everyone to receive clear and timely information on environmental matters and all development plans and activities which are likely to affect them or in which they have an interest.
    2. Support local, regional and global civil society, and promote the meaningful participation of all interested individuals and organizations in decision making.
    3. Protect the rights to freedom of opinion, expression, peaceful assembly, association, and dissent.
    4. Institute effective and efficient access to administrative and independent judicial procedures, including remedies and redress for environmental harm and the threat of such harm.
    5. Eliminate corruption in all public and private institutions.
    6. Strengthen local communities, enabling them to care for their environments, and assign environmental responsibilities to the levels of government where they can be carried out most effectively.
  2. Integrate into formal education and life-long learning the knowledge, values, and skills needed for a sustainable way of life.
    1. Provide all, especially children and youth, with educational opportunities that empower them to contribute actively to sustainable development.
    2. Promote the contribution of the arts and humanities as well as the sciences in sustainability education.
    3. Enhance the role of the mass media in raising awareness of ecological and social challenges.
    4. Recognize the importance of moral and spiritual education for sustainable living.
  3. Treat all living beings with respect and consideration.
    1. Prevent cruelty to animals kept in human societies and protect them from suffering.
    2. Protect wild animals from methods of hunting, trapping, and fishing that cause extreme, prolonged, or avoidable suffering.
    3. Avoid or eliminate to the full extent possible the taking or destruction of non-targeted species.
  4. Promote a culture of tolerance, nonviolence, and peace.
    1. Encourage and support mutual understanding, solidarity, and cooperation among all peoples and within and among nations.
    2. Implement comprehensive strategies to prevent violent conflict and use collaborative problem solving to manage and resolve environmental conflicts and other disputes.
    3. Demilitarize national security systems to the level of a non-provocative defense posture, and convert military resources to peaceful purposes, including ecological restoration.
    4. Eliminate nuclear, biological, and toxic weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.
    5. Ensure that the use of orbital and outer space supports environmental protection and peace.
    6. Recognize that peace is the wholeness created by right relationships with oneself, other persons, other cultures, other life, Earth, and the larger whole of which all are a part.

The Way Forward

As never before in history, common destiny beckons us to seek a new beginning. Such renewal is the promise of these Earth Charter principles. To fulfill this promise, we must commit ourselves to adopt and promote the values and objectives of the Charter.

This requires a change of mind and heart. It requires a new sense of global interdependence and universal responsibility. We must imaginatively develop and apply the vision of a sustainable way of life locally, nationally, regionally, and globally. Our cultural diversity is a precious heritage and different cultures will find their own distinctive ways to realize the vision. We must deepen and expand the global dialogue that generated the Earth Charter, for we have much to learn from the ongoing collaborative search for truth and wisdom.

Life often involves tensions between important values. This can mean difficult choices. However, we must find ways to harmonize diversity with unity, the exercise of freedom with the common good, short-term objectives with long-term goals. Every individual, family, organization, and community has a vital role to play. The arts, sciences, religions, educational institutions, media, businesses, nongovernmental organizations, and governments are all called to offer creative leadership. The partnership of government, civil society, and business is essential for effective governance.

In order to build a sustainable global community, the nations of the world must renew their commitment to the United Nations, fulfill their obligations under existing international agreements, and support the implementation of Earth Charter principles with an international legally binding instrument on environment and development.

Let ours be a time remembered for the awakening of a new reverence for life, the firm resolve to achieve sustainability, the quickening of the struggle for justice and peace, and the joyful celebration of life.

Nov 192018
 

It seems logical to grant protection to nature by treating it as a living entity.

And the law might be catching up.

The mouth of the Margaret river in Western Australia
The mouth of the Margaret river in Western Australia. Photograph: ajupp/Getty Images

On 20 March a community rally on the Margaret river south of Perth called for the river to be recognised as a legal entity with the local council as its custodian. Under the banner “Is it time to give our river rights?”, more than 100 people discussed ways of protecting the river, prompted by plans for a mountain-bike and walking track along the foreshore. A river advocate, Ray Swarts, says a rights-of-nature approach has majority support in the council.

The emerging international rights-of-nature movement aims to address the way western legal systems treat nature as property, making the living world invisible to the law. It uses western legal constructs, such as personhood and rights-based approaches, to shift the status of nature from property to a subject in law in an effort to protect the natural world.

This new approach to environmental law was introduced in the US by the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, whose first success came in 2006 when it helped to defend a Pennsylvania community’s right to reject sludge being dumped in their borough.

In just over a decade the rights-of-nature movement has grown from one law adopted in a small community in the US to a movement which has seen countries enact laws, even constitutional protections, recognising the rights of nature, says the fund’s co-founder, Margi Margil.

In 2008 Ecuador became the first country to enshrine the rights of nature in its constitution. Margil helped draft the legislation and says that during the process: “Indigenous members of Ecuador’s constitutional assembly told us that codifying the rights of nature would expand their collective rights as Indigenous peoples.”

New Zealand granted legal personhood to the Te Uruwera forest in 2014, and to the Whanganui river and Mount Taranaki in 2017. An Indian court granted legal personhood to the Ganges and Yamuna rivers in 2017, citing the Whanganui Act, and soon after Colombia awarded rights to the Atrato river.

‘We love our river.’ The community rally on the Margaret river on 20 March
 ‘We love our river.’ The community rally on the Margaret river on 20 March. Photograph: Ben Parker

In a significant shift, in an August 2017 report on Australia’s national environmental governance system, the Australian panel of experts on environmental law recommended exploring legal frameworks that shift the focus of law from human subjects to a “rights of nature” approach.

 

Traditional owners along the Kimberley’s Fitzroy river are also looking at ways to create legal personhood for their river. Their 2016 Fitzroy river declaration recognises the river as a living ancestral being with a right to life, and includes traditional owners’ obligation to protect the river for current and future generations. A traditional custodian and scientist, Dr Anne Poelina, says it’s “the first time in Australia that both first law and the inherent rights of nature have been explicitly recognised in a negotiated instrument”. This month community members urged the new Labor state government to uphold their pre-election commitment to the declaration.

Rights for nature were first proposed by Christopher Stone in his 1972 article “Should trees have standing?” and were famously endorsed by Justice William O Douglas’s dissenting judgment in Sierra Club v Morton, in which he argued that trees should be granted personhood and have the ability to sue for their own protection, effectively blocking the development of Walt Disney ski resort inside the Sequoia national park. Stone argued that leaving behind the enlightenment view of nature as a collection of “useful senseless objects” would not only help to solve the planet’s material problems but would encourage a heightened awareness of nature.

“Any system that puts no value on the life around us is wrong, it’s as simple as that,” says Dr Michelle Maloney, who co-founded the Australian Earth Laws Alliance in 2012 to promote rights-of-nature law in Australia. She says rights of nature is inspired and led by Indigenous traditions of Earth-centred law and culture, but it’s also “whitefellas talking back to the white system”.

“It’s looking back to the western legal governance system and going, ‘What kind of culture develops the systems we have now that created such devastation? Can rights of nature be a bridge into a different, Earth-centred way of being?’”

It was Maloney who introduced rights-of-nature thinking to the Margaret river. She says the alliance’s recommendation that rights of nature be explored in Australia is “huge for the legal community here”. She’s now working with communities along the Great Barrier Reef and this month addressed a gathering in Katoomba about rights of nature for the Blue Mountains.

Maloney says it’s powerful “because it can capture your imagination and encourage you to think differently. To all non-lawyers, it seems logical.” Ray Swarts concurs: “I think rights-of-nature law helps us personalise and reframe our relationship with nature. It puts it in a different context and starts to tell a story.”

Stories were vital in developing Australia’s first legislation with a rights-of-nature component, the Yarra River Protection (Wilip-gin Birrarung murron) Act 2017. The act affirms the river’s intrinsic and human values, and recognises the river and lands as a living and integrated system.

In doing so it acknowledges the wisdom of its traditional owners, the Wurundjeri people, who introduced the bill into the Victorian parliament with the planning minister, Richard Wynne, last June. Wynne said the legislation was part of a broader movement in government to recognise Aboriginal rights to land.

More than 100 people at the river rally discussed ways to protect it
 More than 100 people at the river rally discussed ways to protect it. Photograph: Ben Parker

In her address to the parliament, the Wurundjeri elder Alice Kolasa said: “The state now recognises something that we, as the First People have always known, that the Birrarung is one integrated living entity.” She said the journey to this structural inclusion began from the moment of first contact.

The act recognises “the intrinsic connection of the traditional owners to the Yarra river and its country” and their role “as the custodians of the land and waterway which they call Birrarung”. It includes their Woi-wurrung language, making it the first legislation in Victoria to use the language of traditional owners. Its title contains the Woi-wurrung for “Keep the Birrarung alive” and its preamble includes a statement in Woi-wurrung about the Birrarung’s significance.

Conceiving the Yarra river and its lands as a single system is critical for its ecological health. In 2004 the Yarra Riverkeeper Association was formed to tell the river’s story and monitor its health. Before the 2014 state election it proposed a policy to protect the Yarra with consistent planning laws along the river. The then opposition Labor party committed to the plan and won the election.

A Yarra riverkeeper, Andrew Kelly, worked with a lawyer, Bruce Lindsay, from Environmental Justice Australia, to keep Labor to its promise and help develop the Yarra river protection act, with extensive community consultation. Lindsay saw it as a good opportunity for law reform, especially concerning water.

Kelly says the plan surfed a wave of enthusiasm: “It was a really fortunate conjunction of the stars that allowed this to happen.” The long-term Yarra strategic plan was critical for Kelly and Lindsay: “We didn’t want to plan for five years. We wanted to plan for 50 years. That’s what you’ve got to start thinking about when you’re dealing with ecological units, landscapes.”

Some people think the act is about the water, Kelly says. “But it’s really more about the banks. It’s as much about the birds as it is about the fish. It’s about connecting the length of the waterway and the riverine corridor.”

Lindsay hopes the act’s powerful bicultural element will lead to a bicultural understanding of the river. A water lawyer, Erin O’Donnell, also stresses its importance as a piece of bilingual legislation. She emphasises the symbolic value of creating an inclusive Birrarung council that has the power to genuinely provide a voice for the Yarra river. “If through the Birrarung council First Nations and all Yarra river stakeholders can come together, this could be a powerful model for the rest of Australia … It can be used as a genuine move towards reconciliation. It’s a pathway to legitimacy for holistic views of the river and acknowledgment of First Nations.”

From the Fitzroy river, Poelina says she’s inspired by the Yarra river protection act and fully endorses “the Yarra river’s right to life as a legal precedent for new laws to protect our Australian rivers which are the arteries of our nation. As my elders constantly remind me: no river, no people, no life!”

Nov 182018
 

 

The current ecological crisis requires that we transform our international and domestic legal systems to nurture, rather than allow the destruction of the Earth community.  

 

The third International Rights of Nature Tribunal was held concurrently with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC COP 21) at Maison des Métallos in Paris, France. Hosted by the Global Alliance of the Rights of Nature in partnership with End Ecocide on Earth, NatureRights & Attac France, the panel of judges consisting of internationally renowned lawyers and leaders for planetary justice heard evidence and pronounced judgments on 4 cases after the first day and 4 cases on day 2.

End Ecocide On EarthThe Tribunal is a unique, citizen-created initiative that relies on the mandate granted to it through the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth. It gives people from all around the world the opportunity to testify publicly as to the destruction of the Earth. The Tribunal provides a systemic alternative to environmental protection, acknowledging that ecosystems have the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate their vital cycles.

The Tribunal features internationally renowned lawyers and leaders for planetary justice, who hear cases addressing issues such as climate change, GMOs, fracking, extractive industries and other environmental violations. The Tribunal offered judgments and recommendations for the Earth’s protection and restoration based on the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth. Among other things, the Declaration binds us to respect the integrity of the vital ecological processes of the Earth. tribunal-convening-kwAccordingly, the Declaration also helps advance proposed amendments to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court to recognize the crime of Ecocide. The Tribunal has a strong focus on enabling indigenous peoples and local communities to share their unique concerns and solutions about land, water and culture with the global community.

International Rights of Nature Convening Ceremony

The Tribunal opened on December 4 with a formal signing of the Tribunal Convention by Tribunal delegates and Indigenous Leaders from around the world. Shown here is the signing by Chief Raoni of the Kayapo people of the Brazilian Amazon and Tribunal Officiates.

Click for President’s Closing Statement

Click for Paris Tribunal Press Release  PDF

 

Please go to the URL to see Canadian participants.  And the list of prosecutions.

http://therightsofnature.org/rights-of-nature-tribunal-paris/

 

CLOSURE was by: young Ta’kaiya Blaney 

– – you may remember her at 11 years of age – – pretty amazing:

Shallow waters, song by Ta’Kaiya Blaney “. . . If we do nothing it will all be gone.”

Here she is at the Third Tribunal:

If you want to turn the world around, you need to turn it upside down …

Ta’kaiya Blaney, from the Tla’Amin First Nation in British Columbia

Nov 182018
 

With the “World Charter for Nature” on 28 October 1982, the United Nations developed a code of conduct for the protection and preservation of global natural habitats and resources. The code established five “principles of conservation” by which all human conduct affecting nature should be guided and judged. It further emphasized that social and economic development cannot be considered without taking natural systems into account.

The document was adopted by United Nations member states in 1982.  “The vote was 111 for, one against (United States), 18 abstentions.”

(You might just scroll down to I.  GENERAL PRINCIPLES)

http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/37/a37r007.htm


United Nations

A/RES/37/7


General Assembly

Distr. GENERAL

28 October 1982

ORIGINAL:
ENGLISH


A/RES/37/7 48th plenary meeting 28 October 1982 37/7. World Charter for Nature The General Assembly, Having considered the report of the Secretary-General on the revised draft World Charter for Nature, Recalling that, in its resolution 35/7 of 30 October 1980, it expressed its conviction that the benefits which could be obtained from nature depended on the maintenance of natural processes and on the diversity of life forms and that those benefits were jeopardized by the excessive exploitation and the destruction of natural habitats, Further recalling that, in the same resolution, it recognized the need for appropriate measures at the national and international levels to protect nature and promote international co-operation in that field, Recalling that, in its resolution 36/6 of 27 October 1981, it again expressed its awareness of the crucial importance attached by the international community to the promotion and development of co-operation aimed at protecting and safeguarding the balance and quality of nature and invited the Secretary-General to transmit to Member States the text of the revised version of the draft World Charter for Nature contained in the report of the Ad Hoc Group of Experts on the draft World Charter for Nature, as well as any further observations by States, with a view to appropriate consideration by the General Assembly at its thirty-seventh session, Conscious of the spirit and terms of its resolutions 35/7 and 36/6, in which it solemnly invited Member States, in the exercise of their permanent sovereignty over their natural resources, to conduct their activities in recognition of the supreme importance of protecting natural systems, maintaining the balance and quality of nature and conserving natural resources, in the interests of present and future generations, Having considered the supplementary report of the Secretary-General, Expressing its gratitude to the Ad Hoc Group of Experts which, through its work, has assembled the necessary elements for the General Assembly to be able to complete the consideration of and adopt the revised draft World Charter for Nature at its thirty-seventh session, as it had previously recommended, Adopts and solemnly proclaims the World Charter for Nature contained in the annex to the present resolution. ANNEX World Charter for Nature The General Assembly, Reaffirming the fundamental purposes of the United Nations, in particular the maintenance of international peace and security, the development of friendly relations among nations and the achievement of international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, technical, intellectual or humanitarian character, Aware that: (a) Mankind is a part of nature and life depends on the uninterrupted functioning of natural systems which ensure the supply of energy and nutrients, (b) Civilization is rooted in nature, which has shaped human culture and influenced all artistic and scientific achievement, and living in harmony with nature gives man the best opportunities for the development of his creativity, and for rest and recreation, Convinced that: (a) Every form of life is unique, warranting respect regardless of its worth to man, and, to accord other organisms such recognition, man must be guided by a moral code of action, (b) Man can alter nature and exhaust natural resources by his action or its consequences and, therefore, must fully recognize the urgency of maintaining the stability and quality of nature and of conserving natural resources, Persuaded that: (a) Lasting benefits from nature depend upon the maintenance of essential ecological processes and life support systems, and upon the diversity of life forms, which are jeopardized through excessive exploitation and habitat destruction by man, (b) The degradation of natural systems owing to excessive consumption and misuse of natural resources, as well as to failure to establish an appropriate economic order among peoples and among States, leads to the breakdown of the economic, social and political framework of civilization, (c) Competition for scarce resources creates conflicts, whereas the conservation of nature and natural resources contributes to justice and the maintenance of peace and cannot be achieved until mankind learns to live in peace and to forsake war and armaments, Reaffirming that man must acquire the knowledge to maintain and enhance his ability to use natural resources in a manner which ensures the preservation of the species and ecosystems for the benefit of present and future generations, Firmly convinced of the need for appropriate measures, at the national and international, individual and collective, and private and public levels, to protect nature and promote international co-operation in this field, Adopts, to these ends, the present World Charter for Nature, which proclaims the following principles of conservation by which all human conduct affecting nature is to be guided and judged. I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES 1. Nature shall be respected and its essential processes shall not be impaired. 2. The genetic viability on the earth shall not be compromised; the population levels of all life forms, wild and domesticated, must be at least sufficient for their survival, and to this end necessary habitats shall be safeguarded. 3. All areas of the earth, both land and sea, shall be subject to these principles of conservation; special protection shall be given to unique areas, to representative samples of all the different types of ecosystems and to the habitats of rare or endangered species. 4. Ecosystems and organisms, as well as the land, marine and atmospheric resources that are utilized by man, shall be managed to achieve and maintain optimum sustainable productivity, but not in such a way as to endanger the integrity of those other ecosystems or species with which they coexist. 5. Nature shall be secured against degradation caused by warfare or other hostile activities. II. FUNCTIONS 6. In the decision-making process it shall be recognized that man’s needs can be met only by ensuring the proper functioning of natural systems and by respecting the principles set forth in the present Charter. 7. In the planning and implementation of social and economic development activities, due account shall be taken of the fact that the conservation of nature is an integral part of those activities. 8. In formulating long-term plans for economic development, population growth and the improvement of standards of living, due account shall be taken of the long-term capacity of natural systems to ensure the subsistence and settlement of the populations concerned, recognizing that this capacity may be enhanced through science and technology. 9. The allocation of areas of the earth to various uses shall be planned, and due account shall be taken of the physical constraints, the biological productivity and diversity and the natural beauty of the areas concerned. 10. Natural resources shall not be wasted, but used with a restraint appropriate to the principles set forth in the present Charter, in accordance with the following rules: (a) Living resources shall not be utilized in excess of their natural capacity for regeneration; (b) The productivity of soils shall be maintained or enhanced through measures which safeguard their long-term fertility and the process of organic decomposition, and prevent erosion and all other forms of degradation; (c) Resources, including water, which are not consumed as they are used shall be reused or recycled; (d) Non-renewable resources which are consumed as they are used shall be exploited with restraint, taking into account their abundance, the rational possibilities of converting them for consumption, and the compatibility of their exploitation with the functioning of natural systems. 11. Activities which might have an impact on nature shall be controlled, and the best available technologies that minimize significant risks to nature or other adverse effects shall be used; in particular: (a) Activities which are likely to cause irreversible damage to nature shall be avoided; (b) Activities which are likely to pose a significant risk to nature shall be preceded by an exhaustive examination; their proponents shall demonstrate that expected benefits outweigh potential damage to nature, and where potential adverse effects are not fully understood, the activities should not proceed; (c) Activities which may disturb nature shall be preceded by assessment of their consequences, and environmental impact studies of development projects shall be conducted sufficiently in advance, and if they are to be undertaken, such activities shall be planned and carried out so as to minimize potential adverse effects; (d) Agriculture, grazing, forestry and fisheries practices shall be adapted to the natural characteristics and constraints of given areas; (e) Areas degraded by human activities shall be rehabilitated for purposes in accord with their natural potential and compatible with the well-being of affected populations. 12. Discharge of pollutants into natural systems shall be avoided and: (a) Where this is not feasible, such pollutants shall be treated at the source, using the best practicable means available; (b) Special precautions shall be taken to prevent discharge of radioactive or toxic wastes. 13. Measures intended to prevent, control or limit natural disasters, infestations and diseases shall be specifically directed to the causes of these scourges and shall avoid adverse side-effects on nature. III. IMPLEMENTATION 14. The principles set forth in the present Charter shall be reflected in the law and practice of each State, as well as at the international level. 15. Knowledge of nature shall be broadly disseminated by all possible means, particularly by ecological education as an integral part of general education. 16. All planning shall include, among its essential elements, the formulation of strategies for the conservation of nature, the establishment of inventories of ecosystems and assessments of the effects on nature of proposed policies and activities; all of these elements shall be disclosed to the public by appropriate means in time to permit effective consultation and participation. 17. Funds, programmes and administrative structures necessary to achieve the objective of the conservation of nature shall be provided. 18. Constant efforts shall be made to increase knowledge of nature by scientific research and to disseminate such knowledge unimpeded by restrictions of any kind. 19. The status of natural processes, ecosystems and species shall be closely monitored to enable early detection of degradation or threat, ensure timely intervention and facilitate the evaluation of conservation policies and methods. 20. Military activities damaging to nature shall be avoided. 21. States and, to the extent they are able, other public authorities, international organizations, individuals, groups and corporations shall: (a) Co-operate in the task of conserving nature through common activities and other relevant actions, including information exchange and consultations; (b) Establish standards for products and manufacturing processes that may have adverse effects on nature, as well as agreed methodologies for assessing these effects; (c) Implement the applicable international legal provisions for the conservation of nature and the protection of the environment; (d) Ensure that activities within their jurisdictions or control do not cause damage to the natural systems located within other States or in the areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction; (e) Safeguard and conserve nature in areas beyond national jurisdiction. 22. Taking fully into account the sovereignty of States over their natural resources, each State shall give effect to the provisions of the present Charter through its competent organs and in co-operation with other States. 23. All persons, in accordance with their national legislation, shall have the opportunity to participate, individually or with others, in the formulation of decisions of direct concern to their environment, and shall have access to means of redress when their environment has suffered damage or degradation. 24. Each person has a duty to act in accordance with the provisions of the present Charter; acting individually, in association with others or through participation in the political process, each person shall strive to ensure that the objectives and requirements of the present Charter are met.
Nov 182018
 

Bruce Schneier   is an internationally renowned security technologist. He teaches at the Harvard Kennedy School, and serves as special advisor to IBM Security. His new book is called Click Here to Kill Everybody: Security and Survival in a Hyper-Connected World.

 

Years ago I contacted Bruce Schneier because of Lockheed Martin’s role at Statistics Canada (Census Bureaux).   The name “Schneier” appears whenever there are questions about the security of data bases.

A skim of his November Newsletter (free subscription) reflects the Privacy issue:

2018-11-15    Nov issue of Crypto-Gram, by Bruce Schneier. A free monthly newsletter providing summaries, analyses, insights, and commentaries on security: computer and otherwise.

Schneier is a quoted authority in these postings:

2015-03-17   Bill C-51, Elephant in the Room, the U.S.A. (includes info re “Five Eyes”, FVEY)

2014-04-09   CRA halts e-filing amid fears of global data breach

E-voting in Canada: Online Voting and Hostile Deployment Environments by Christopher Parsons

2011-09-03   Election fraud in the U.S., “Murder, Spies & Voting Lies”. E-voting in Canada.

– – – – – – – – – – –

With thanks to “Wired“:

Surveillance Kills Freedom By Killing Experimentation, by Bruce Schneier

Excerpted from the upcoming issue of McSweeney’s, “The End of Trust,” a collection featuring more than 30 writers investigating surveillance, technology, and privacy.
NASA

In my book Data and Goliath, I write about the value of privacy. I talk about how it is essential for political liberty and justice, and for commercial fairness and equality. I talk about how it increases personal freedom and individual autonomy, and how the lack of it makes us all less secure. But this is probably the most important argument as to why society as a whole must protect privacy: it allows society to progress.

We know that surveillance has a chilling effect on freedom. People change their behavior when they live their lives under surveillance. They are less likely to speak freely and act individually. They self-censor. They become conformist. This is obviously true for government surveillance, but is true for corporate surveillance as well. We simply aren’t as willing to be our individual selves when others are watching.

 

Let’s take an example: hearing that parents and children are being separated as they cross the U.S. border, you want to learn more. You visit the website of an international immigrants’ rights group, a fact that is available to the government through mass internet surveillance. You sign up for the group’s mailing list, another fact that is potentially available to the government. The group then calls or emails to invite you to a local meeting. Same. Your license plates can be collected as you drive to the meeting; your face can be scanned and identified as you walk into and out of the meeting. If instead of visiting the website you visit the group’s Facebook page, Facebook knows that you did and that feeds into its profile of you, available to advertisers and political activists alike. Ditto if you like their page, share a link with your friends, or just post about the issue.

Maybe you are an immigrant yourself, documented or not. Or maybe some of your family is. Or maybe you have friends or coworkers who are. How likely are you to get involved if you know that your interest and concern can be gathered and used by government and corporate actors? What if the issue you are interested in is pro- or anti-gun control, anti-police violence or in support of the police? Does that make a difference?

Maybe the issue doesn’t matter, and you would never be afraid to be identified and tracked based on your political or social interests. But even if you are so fearless, you probably know someone who has more to lose, and thus more to fear, from their personal, sexual, or political beliefs being exposed.

This isn’t just hypothetical. In the months and years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, many of us censored what we spoke about on social media or what we searched on the internet. We know from a 2013 PEN study that writers in the United States self-censored their browsing habits out of fear the government was watching. And this isn’t exclusively an American event; internet self-censorship is prevalent across the globe, China being a prime example.

It’s easy to imagine the more conservative among us getting enough power to make illegal what they would otherwise be forced to witness. In this way, privacy helps protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

Ultimately, this fear stagnates society in two ways. The first is that the presence of surveillance means society cannot experiment with new things without fear of reprisal, and that means those experiments—if found to be inoffensive or even essential to society—cannot slowly become commonplace, moral, and then legal. If surveillance nips that process in the bud, change never happens. All social progress—from ending slavery to fighting for women’s rights—began as ideas that were, quite literally, dangerous to assert. Yet without the ability to safely develop, discuss, and eventually act on those assertions, our society would not have been able to further its democratic values in the way that it has.

Consider the decades-long fight for gay rights around the world. Within our lifetimes we have made enormous strides to combat homophobia and increase acceptance of queer folks’ right to marry. Queer relationships slowly progressed from being viewed as immoral and illegal, to being viewed as somewhat moral and tolerated, to finally being accepted as moral and legal.

In the end it was the public nature of those activities that eventually slayed the bigoted beast, but the ability to act in private was essential in the beginning for the early experimentation, community building, and organizing.

Marijuana legalization is going through the same process: it’s currently sitting between somewhat moral, and—depending on the state or country in question—tolerated and legal. But, again, for this to have happened, someone decades ago had to try pot and realize that it wasn’t really harmful, either to themselves or to those around them. Then it had to become a counterculture, and finally a social and political movement. If pervasive surveillance meant that those early pot smokers would have been arrested for doing something illegal, the movement would have been squashed before inception. Of course the story is more complicated than that, but the ability for members of society to privately smoke weed was essential for putting it on the path to legalization.

We don’t yet know which subversive ideas and illegal acts of today will become political causes and positive social change tomorrow, but they’re around. And they require privacy to germinate. Take away that privacy, and we’ll have a much harder time breaking down our inherited moral assumptions.

The second way surveillance hurts our democratic values is that it encourages society to make more things illegal. Consider the things you do—the different things each of us does—that portions of society find immoral. Not just recreational drugs and gay sex, but gambling, dancing, public displays of affection. All of us do things that are deemed immoral by some groups, but are not illegal because they don’t harm anyone. But it’s important that these things can be done out of the disapproving gaze of those who would otherwise rally against such practices.

If there is no privacy, there will be pressure to change. Some people will recognize that their morality isn’t necessarily the morality of everyone—and that that’s okay. But others will start demanding legislative change, or using less legal and more violent means, to force others to match their idea of morality.

It’s easy to imagine the more conservative (in the small-c sense, not in the sense of the named political party) among us getting enough power to make illegal what they would otherwise be forced to witness. In this way, privacy helps protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

This is how we got Prohibition in the 1920s, and if we had had today’s surveillance capabilities in the 1920s it would have been far more effectively enforced. Recipes for making your own spirits would have been much harder to distribute. Speakeasies would have been impossible to keep secret. The criminal trade in illegal alcohol would also have been more effectively suppressed. There would have been less discussion about the harms of Prohibition, less “what if we didn’t…” thinking. Political organizing might have been difficult. In that world, the law might have stuck to this day.

China serves as a cautionary tale. The country has long been a world leader in the ubiquitous surveillance of its citizens, with the goal not of crime prevention but of social control. They are about to further enhance their system, giving every citizen a “social credit” rating. The details are yet unclear, but the general concept is that people will be rated based on their activities, both online and off. Their political comments, their friends and associates, and everything else will be assessed and scored. Those who are conforming, obedient, and apolitical will be given high scores. People without those scores will be denied privileges like access to certain schools and foreign travel. If the program is half as far-reaching as early reports indicate, the subsequent pressure to conform will be enormous. This social surveillance system is precisely the sort of surveillance designed to maintain the status quo.

For social norms to change, people need to deviate from these inherited norms. People need the space to try alternate ways of living without risking arrest or social ostracization. People need to be able to read critiques of those norms without anyone’s knowledge, discuss them without their opinions being recorded, and write about their experiences without their names attached to their words. People need to be able to do things that others find distasteful, or even immoral. The minority needs protection from the tyranny of the majority.

Privacy makes all of this possible. Privacy encourages social progress by giving the few room to experiment free from the watchful eye of the many. Even if you are not personally chilled by ubiquitous surveillance, the society you live in is, and the personal costs are unequivocal.

From The End of Trust (McSweeney’s 54), out November 20th, a collection featuring over thirty writers investigating surveillance, technology, and privacy, with special advisors The Electronic Frontier Foundation. Wired readers can take 10% off the issue, or a full subscription, with the code WIRED.