B8

Stumble Upon

del.icio.us

Digg

Facebook

Print

Email

1 Comment(s)

Two weeks ago, firefighters responded to a call at a Fredericton residence and called the police.

Enlarge Photo

AP

Three eleven week old Siberian Tiger cubs, Sayan, Altai, and Altay with mum Nika at Howletts Wild Animal Park in Bekesbourne, England, Thursday, Oct. 23, 2008. Siberian tigers feature in the top 10 of the world's most endangered creatures. The three cubs have been named after mountain ranges in Siberia.

The backyard barbecue was on and the body of a slain raccoon placed on the grill. Another raccoon was found dead on the hood of a car in the driveway.

When we hear of such things we might think, "What's the world coming to ... who would do such a thing?" And we empathize with the victims, the people who have their property damaged, the people who feel threatened, the victims of random violence.

But imagine if our first thought was for the raccoons.

Who would do such a thing to an innocent animal? It's like hurting a child. A child is protected against abuse, neglect and violence. Criminal law and provincial welfare legislation all protect the child. Social workers, the ombudsman and guardians all speak for the child. A child's rights are inherent in being human.

But who speaks for animals? We extend limited rights to animals, such as freedom from cruelty, but these laws began in protecting agricultural property. The police won't be charging anyone with statute 182 of the criminal code, offering an indignity to a dead body, which is subject to a prison term of five years.

Furthermore, we don't call what happened the murder of a raccoon. It isn't an 'animacide.' It was vandalism against the property of the owners.

But what if nature and all its creatures had rights? Imagine if animals, birds and fish, even whole ecosystems were legal 'persons' with legal rights. An institutional body such as a university or city has rights, but a real body, such as a raccoon or beaver, does not.

Some might say we have environmental protection laws, but they are too easily compromised by the needs of commercial development. Some might also say we have wildlife laws, but they are designed for the protection of a resource for consumption.

In an essay called Should Trees Have Standing? Towards Legal Rights for Natural Objects, author Christopher Stone explains how rights have gradually been extended to different groups over the centuries. Now, he says, we can extend our recognition of rights to nature.

In 2008, Spain's parliament passed a resolution to adopt legal protections for great apes, which marks the first time a national legislature has called for recognition of any nonhuman's right to life and freedom.

Stone warns, "...each time there is a movement to confer rights onto some new 'entity,' the proposal is bound to sound odd or frightening or laughable "¦ because until the right-less thing receives its rights, we cannot see it as anything but a thing for the use of 'us'."

Imagine the unthinkable idea that wild law embodies the inherent rights of nature and all its creatures to be free from violence. Under "wild law" polar bears could sue the government for failing to act on global warming which has resulted in the thawing of the ice floes from which they hunt. The lawsuit, based on destruction of property and thwarting enjoyment of said property, would be won with costs.

Imagine amphibians suing industry for using chemicals which result in birth defects and physical deformities. The lawsuit, based on injury to past and future generations, would be won with damages, and an order to clean up the environment.

We would have to come face to face with the fact that we saddle our descendants with the debt of our lifestyles.

If we 'personified' the environment, it would be possible to calculate the damage of human activity. We would have to confront the full costs that our activities are imposing on society.

And finally, imagine a class action suit on behalf of those creatures facing extinction because of the holocaust unleashed by humans.

The trial would be for crimes against nature, and with over a quarter of all mammals threatened with extinction by faunacide, the courts would be busy.

It would be the day of judgment.

Chris McCormick teaches criminology at St. Thomas University. His column on crime and criminal justice appears every second Thursday.