For those of you who
still don’t believe the legal field is being taken over by whacko woke
extremists, I submit the following: one new--
and rapidly growing-- legal field aims to establish rights for……inanimate
objects.
According
to thecollegefix.com, “one of the law schools leading the charge for
this novel legal theory is New York University School of Law, which in
2022 launched the More Than Human Life
Project, or MOTH, an initiative of the law school’s Earth Rights Research and
Action Clinic.” Alrighty then.
But
it is not just NYU Law leading this charge. Oh, no. Per The Fix, “Harvard
University will offer a course this fall titled ‘Rights of Nature’ that ‘will
examine this fast-growing field, assessing the origins, practice, and potential
of granting legal personhood to natural objects.’” Grant legal personhood to objects?
How about we grant legal personhood to young persons in the womb first?! Might
not an unborn child deserve “personhood” more than, say, a rock or a log? If we
answer that question with a “no,” what does that say about us—and our future?
The
flipside of rights is responsibilities. What responsibility does a rock or log
have? If you think about it, if everything has rights, nothing has
“rights.”
What
is really happening here is an attempt to replace our God-given Natural Rights
with the pseudo-rights of nature. Stunning. It is a blatant refutation of God’s
will as revealed in Genesis (1:26).
But
back to MOTH. César Rodriguez-Garavito, its founding director who chairs the
Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at NYU Law, stated that MOTH was inspired by a
2021 decision by the Constitutional Court of
Ecuador that found that mining operations in the Los Cedros forest had violated
the rights of Pacha Mama, a.k.a. “mother nature.” (Thank God the world’s courts
didn’t arrive at dumb-ass findings like that before humans discovered fire, engaged
in agriculture, built cities, extracted oil and gas, and invented heating and
air-conditioning.)
Unsurprisingly,
Rodriguez-Garavito has previously connected the election of President Donald
Trump to a “proliferation of populist governments and movements [that] creates
serious risks and challenges for human rights around the world.” A populist is
a person who strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns
are disregarded by established elite groups. Populism is not a “serious risk
and challenge” to “human rights around the world,” it is a vehicle for
achieving them in the face of elitist power…and woke insanity.
But insanity is the new
sanity, apparently. Know what’s a bigger challenge for human
rights? Conferring “rights” on non-living entities like rocks, moss, and hills.
No comments:
Post a Comment