GOVERNMENTS NOW EXTENDING “HUMAN RIGHTS” TO RIVERS

[4/23/17]  As if the United Nations and its largely autocratic member regimes had not yet sufficiently perverted the concept of “human rights,” now “human rights” and “personhood” are being bestowed on rivers and other inanimate elements of creation by governments. Animals are next in line for “human rights.” Meanwhile, the UN and most of its member governments continue to trample on the actual human rights of actual humans — and especially the smallest, most innocent, and most vulnerable humans. The legal and religious implications of the developments are enormous.

“Human rights” for rivers, nature, mountains, and even “Mother Earth” are being sought from New Zealand and India to the United Kingdom, Latin America, and even the United States. And despite claims of “environmental protection,” the real agenda is as clear as it is dangerous: the devaluing of human life and real human rights while imposing totalitarianism under the guise of lifting up nature. Some critics have even chastised the new pagan or pantheistic “green religion” as a dangerous and potentially deadly cult.

While the agenda to anthropomorphize and even deify creation has been with humanity via pagan religions for millennia, last month marked a major turning point. On March 15, the Parliament of New Zealand passed what was dubbed the “Awa Tupua” legislation purporting to grant “personhood” and “human rights” to the Whanganui River (shown). The decision was part of a settlement with the native Maori people, whose traditional religions prior to European settlement included the worship of many gods, communication with “spirits,” human sacrifice, and even cannibalism — along with the notion that they are “one” with the river.

The latest decision goes back to the Maoris’ traditional religious views. “The reason we have taken this approach is because we consider the river an ancestor and always have,” Whanganui iwi tribe lead negotiator Gerrard Albert was quoted as saying by the U.K. Guardian. “From our perspective, treating the river as a living entity is the correct way to approach it, as an indivisible whole, instead of the traditional model for the last 100 years of treating it from a perspective of ownership and management.”

Illustrating the absurdity of the designation were the comments from the officials responsible for the scheme, which was passed into law under ostensibly “conservative” politicians. “Te Awa Tupua will have its own legal identity with all the corresponding rights, duties and liabilities of a legal person,” said New Zealand Treaty Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson, without elaborating on how an inanimate object such as a river could possibly have a right or a duty. “The approach of granting legal personality to a river is unique.”

Other advocates of the plot also elaborated on its significance. “It means that the river itself has the right not to be polluted, it has the right not to be degraded, it has the right not to be overdrawn before it can replenish itself,” said Green Party co-leader James Shaw, one of the lead advocates for what he called the “radical” measure, who for years has pursued “legal personhood” for “natural features” while advocating against rights for unborn people. “And that is an extraordinary idea — that the river has that right, in and of itself…. It is going to be fascinating to see how this idea of legal personhood actually plays out in New Zealand.” He also called the scheme a “gift” for “the world.”

Meanwhile, actual humans continue to have their actual human rights, including the most fundamental of all, the right to life, systematically destroyed, often at taxpayer expense. In the United States, for example, more than 50 million humans have been killed in the womb under the guise of “choice.” In Communist China, the UN Population Fund has been aiding and abetting a monstrous government program of coercive abortion designed to help enforce Beijing’s population-control regime. In Sweden, a court recently ruled against the human right of a midwife not to murder a pre-born baby in violation of the child’s human rights. And the UN has been exploiting every conceivable pretext to demand an end to laws protecting human rights by prohibiting the murder of unborn children.