Rivers are Now People

[Bodi]

Bad ideas must be killed, where ever they are found.

If that isn't the antithesis of Taoism then nothing is... :lol:

 

[soylentgreen]

With as much as you degrade Americans

A truth from you at last. You have no understanding of the people or country you talk about nor any interest in finding out about them. So this probably is your true motivation. Humorous that you pick the subject of rivers to do that. I, personally am hoping someone has read a newly published book in order to pick on my country.

maybe it is time for you to provide an explanation..... however my comments in this thread mostly revolve around my identity as a Western Man trained in Eastern Ways, not as an American. In many ways I am an outsider in my own own society, which is evident in my postings here.

I do not know you well enough to make any such assumption. I have been providing explanations all along.

 

[soylentgreen]

The unwillingness to stand up for the precepts of Western Civilization is evident, and while I do not condemn outright what appears to be the opinion that these people consider themselves themselves to be the trailblazers for a new way combining the newer ways with the old when this is done with shoddy law I object. Also, while I have long claimed that we moderns rejected ancient wisdom at the cost of degraded modern civilization I seriously doubt that there is anything profitable to be mined from the primatives practice of personifying nature.

We can do better, and the inferior must be condemned.

Right you can do better

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/29/dakota-access-pipeline-native-american-protesters

“They treat us like we’re not human beings,” said Russell Eagle Bear, a member of the Rosebud Sioux, who was one of 141 people arrested on Thursday when protesters tried to block pipeline construction. “We’re simply numbers to them.”

In tears, Caro Gonzales, a member of the Chemehuevi tribe who was one of the first arrested, said police temporarily detained her and three other women in a large cage that she described as a “dog kennel”.

“We were all crying in pain, saying we needed medical attention,” said Gonzales, 26, who also goes by the name Guarding Red Tarantula Woman.

This is doing better is it?

 

[soylentgreen]

This is clearly an effort to twist existing law to do what is wanted, without doing the work to craft the law correctly, there is no need to be an expert in NZ law before objecting to the poor work, it's shoddy quality is evident on the surface. .

Given what we see in this thread and in Australia there is clearly a problem in that part of the world with recognizing free minds and free speech, all of this effort put into casting down heresy, shutting up the trouble makers, by dismissing our human rights.

If I am wrong prove it .

It is very much true that all you have done is look at the surface. This is why your opinion is rejected.

Your argument sounds as bad as the christians arguing that gay marriage somehow trespasses on their marriage rights. Do explain how nz law is dismissing your human rights.

As for twisted, even though i know you will not bother to educate yourself i will still give you the link that demonstrates the effort and reasoning that has gone into creating this law.
Te Urewera Act 2014 No 51, Public Act Contents ? New Zealand Legislation

 

[Visbek]

This is clearly an effort to twist existing law to do what is wanted, without doing the work to craft the law correctly, there is no need to be an expert in NZ law before objecting to the poor work, it's shoddy quality is evident on the surface.

I'd like to point out that reaching a settlement took years. By some accounts, the conflict over this river goes back 140 years.

Even a casual glance at the Te Urewera Act of 2014 (the previous instance of this type of legal step) should demonstrate that this was not "shoddy work." It settles a long-standing dispute; it satisfies an important constituency; it provides protection for the river, in a way that gives both the government and Maori a say.

Your view of the law is, to put it mildly, naive. It's routine to try to work around the existing system to get what you want done. That's been the case pretty much throughout the history of the law.

And again, it seems pretty clear that you mostly object to the idea of assigning the status of "legal personhood" mostly because it's got the word "person" in it.

Last but not least, it is patently absurd to suggest that this in any way abridges your rights.

 

[Hawkeye10]

I'd like to point out that reaching a settlement took years. By some accounts, the conflict over this river goes back 140 years.

Even a casual glance at the Te Urewera Act of 2014 (the previous instance of this type of legal step) should demonstrate that this was not "shoddy work." It settles a long-standing dispute; it satisfies an important constituency; it provides protection for the river, in a way that gives both the government and Maori a say.

Your view of the law is, to put it mildly, naive. It's routine to try to work around the existing system to get what you want done. That's been the case pretty much throughout the history of the law.

And again, it seems pretty clear that you mostly object to the idea of assigning the status of "legal personhood" mostly because it's got the word "person" in it.

Last but not least, it is patently absurd to suggest that this in any way abridges your rights.

When we are trying to do something as outside the box of what the law was intended to do as giving nature rights new law must be created to carry the program over the long haul, there is no way to avoid it. You dont build on a bad foundation, anyone with any sense knows that much.

Yes all parties seem to be happy with this deal, now had they done the work to create honest and sturdy law to carry the deal I would cheer them on, but that is not what happened.

There will almost certainly be massive negative unintended consequences down the life as a direct result of failure to do this work correctly.

 

[Hawkeye10]

HOW FAR CAN THE TE AWA TUPUA (WHANGANUI RIVER) PROPOSAL BE SAID TO REFLECT THE RIGHTS OF NATURE IN NEW ZEALAND?

The point is that personhood and standing in themselves confer nothing except procedural access and capability in terms of Stone’s three criteria. I suggest that this is why it can be used so readily in the Treaty settlement context – “like a company” or a trust, it is a relatively empty form that does not declare allegiances between either party.257

pg 47
http://www.otago.ac.nz/law/research/journals/otago065278.pdf

Would the primatives, who say such things as "The river owns its self now" agree? Would the Crown which panders to even the personalization of the rapids agree? No I say, names matter, and a river is not a person, a distinction which the law must respect.

Tutohu Whakatupua appears to anticipate TAT bringing a law suit through its conferral of standing, for damage to its own interests regardless of its instrumental value for human use, and that any remedy from the Court would be for TAT’s benefit and can be held in its name by Te Pou Tupua

pg 46

No **** Sherlock, and why humans are running systems where the best interests of humans dont matter is beyond me, it is treason in my books.

 

[Visbek]

When we are trying to do something as outside the box of what the law was intended to do as giving nature rights new law must be created to carry the program over the long haul, there is no way to avoid it. You dont build on a bad foundation, anyone with any sense knows that much.

And yet, there is actually no proof whatsoever of what you're saying. You have not demonstrated how:

• Setting up the river as a legal entity, with limited rights and responsibilities, will cause any harm

• Doing this in 2014 for a national park resulted in some sort of disaster

• How this type of creative use of the law is routine

For example: The Constitutional Convention in 1787, and the ratification of the Constitution it produced, was unauthorized and illegal under the then-present Articles of Confederation. Did this doom the United States? Why doesn't that qualify as a "bad foundation?"

Yes all parties seem to be happy with this deal, now had they done the work to create honest and sturdy law to carry the deal I would cheer them on, but that is not what happened.

Yeah, I don't think you have any understanding of the work that went into it.

There will almost certainly be massive negative unintended consequences down the life as a direct result of failure to do this work correctly.

Oh? And what consequences are those?

Will people in New Zealand suddenly decide that there is no rule of law? Seems unlikely, especially to the degree that they accept the law.

Will the river demand to vote? Seems unlikely.

Will the concept of human rights change? Nope. After all, we are talking about legal personhood, which is not the same thing as "being human."

Your vague fear-mongering is not particularly persuasive.

 

[Ikari]

I suppose if corporations can be people, than anything can as well. Though it seems rather silly to me.

 

[Hawkeye10]

For anyone who thinks that I might be blind to the degrading Earth I have been an environmentalist since 7th grade when I became a very active member for years. Jack Armstrong, who now runs the park district, taught Earth Sciences and whatever at Marsh Middle School. He used to pack up his VW Bus with kids and take us up for the Week-End to Eagle Valley, where we burned prairie and helped with bird/eagle counts mostly, but other things too, and we had a blast doing it.

I am pretty sure male teachers dont do that kinda thing anymore.

Liability and other such things, important things.

Which really sucks.

 

[Bodi]

For anyone who thinks that I might be blind to the degrading Earth I have been an environmentalist since 7th grade when I became a very active member for years. Jack Armstrong, who now runs the park district, taught Earth Sciences and whatever at Marsh Middle School. He used to pack up his VW Bus with kids and take us up for the Week-End to Eagle Valley, where we burned prairie and helped with bird/eagle counts mostly, but other things too, and we had a blast doing it.

I am pretty sure male teachers dont do that kinda thing anymore.

Liability and other such things, important things.

Which really sucks.

Personal data is a bad idea.

 

[Bodi]

And yet, there is actually no proof whatsoever of what you're saying. You have not demonstrated how:

• Setting up the river as a legal entity, with limited rights and responsibilities, will cause any harm

• Doing this in 2014 for a national park resulted in some sort of disaster

• How this type of creative use of the law is routine

For example: The Constitutional Convention in 1787, and the ratification of the Constitution it produced, was unauthorized and illegal under the then-present Articles of Confederation. Did this doom the United States? Why doesn't that qualify as a "bad foundation?"



Yeah, I don't think you have any understanding of the work that went into it.



Oh? And what consequences are those?

Will people in New Zealand suddenly decide that there is no rule of law? Seems unlikely, especially to the degree that they accept the law.

Will the river demand to vote? Seems unlikely.

Will the concept of human rights change? Nope. After all, we are talking about legal personhood, which is not the same thing as "being human."

Your vague fear-mongering is not particularly persuasive.

He has been told this and refuses to say anything other than the law is shoddy... he then tells us that he is an environmentalist and Taoist zen master as if that has anything to do with New Zealand Law.

 

[Moot]

If the river drowns someone, can the river be get convicted of 1st degree murder and executed?

They could put walls and fences around it.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Personal data is a bad idea.

Honesty and conversations are both good ideas.

 

[Hawkeye10]

He has been told this and refuses to say anything other than the law is shoddy... he then tells us that he is an environmentalist and Taoist zen master as if that has anything to do with New Zealand Law.

The law being shoddy is a very major problem, so that is more than enough.

 

[Bodi]

The law being shoddy is a very major problem, so that is more than enough.

Yes. Shoddy. Great argument. Wonderful evidence. Terrific work. You get a Star.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Yes. Shoddy. Great argument. Wonderful evidence. Terrific work. You get a Star.

My case is just fine, and I have little doubt but that in the not too distant future it will be the majority opinion, which will be the case first and foremost because of global liberalism overreach and shoddy work (Like the EU project just as one example of the profound failure of the elite to get the collectives work done well).

My Take: The NZ River law and its like is/are poorly constructed through laziness primarily with a likely side of lack of imagination, it is dishonest, it betrays the human race and there for nature law must be massively reformed, the sooner the better because they nuttiness is getting thick.

 

[Bodi]

My case is just fine, and I have little doubt but that in the not too distant future it will be the majority opinion, which will be the case first and foremost because of global liberalism overreach and shoddy work (Like the EU project just as one example of the profound failure of the elite to get the collectives work done well).

My Take: The NZ River law and its like is/are poorly constructed through laziness primarily with a likely side of lack of imagination, it is dishonest, it betrays the human race and there for nature law must be massively reformed, the sooner the better because they nuttiness is getting thick.

Go to Court and lead with that one... the NZ River Law "Betrays the human race"... :lol:

 

[Hawkeye10]

Go to Court and lead with that one... the NZ River Law "Betrays the human race"... :lol:

Having already claimed that the law is faulty you will see no such appeals to current law from me.

 

[Bodi]

Having already claimed that the law is faulty you will see no such appeals to current law from me.

Claims are worthless... facts and proof are what matter.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Claims are worthless... facts and proof are what matter.

The great thing about free minds is everyone gets to decide for themselves what their standards are, what they want to listen to, and what they want to think on.

You speak for yourself only.

I have different ideas.

You need to respect that.

 

[Bodi]

The great thing about free minds is everyone gets to decide for themselves what their standards are, what they want to listen to, and what they want to think on.

You speak for yourself only.

I have different ideas.

You need to respect that.

If I am free to decide for myself then why are you telling me what I need to respect?

 

[Hawkeye10]

If I am free to decide for myself then why are you telling me what I need to respect?

Because when you enter my space you get told.

 

[Bodi]

Because when you enter my space you get told.

Why would I give a crap about "getting told" by you when you just contradicted yourself?

Please bury yourself further... :lol:

 

[Hawkeye10]

Why would I give a crap about "getting told" by you when you just contradicted yourself?

Please bury yourself further... :lol:

Notice how you dont come up on topic over and over again.

That's a problem.