For the destruction of the environment as a crime against humanity. It seems odd--the environment and humanity are two distinct things, the environment and business are thought of as opposites, and business is central to our way of life. But if humanity is a part of the environment, than isn't any "crime" against the environment a crime against humanity.
Destruction of the environment is not considered a crime against humanity, but should it be?
Crimes against humanity are usually seen as repeated offenses or "policy" toward one group of people along some sort of lines (ethnic, religious, national, etc). Examples include: mass murder, genocide, slavery, indefinite imprisonment without trial, torture, rape, forced pregnancy, and disappearances. The common theme seems to be the violation of "inaleanable human rights" of life and liberty (property/the pursuit of happiness...less so). Anything that willfully, maliciously, and without due cause harms a group of people. With Earth's population being a group of people, this seems to fit the bill.
Destroying natural rescources and starving/sickening populations has been wartime strategy since the dawn of man, but now is merely a side effect of environmental destruction to be visited all over the world. Even so, the idea of "environmental destruction" seems tame in the age of Iraq and the oh so lurking threat of terrorism.
Not that classifying environmental destruction as a crime against humanity would make much difference--it would simply racket up the propaganda. But isn't this needed? Scare tactics WORK, harsh language WORKS, gut responses get action. All the proof of global warming and pollution is great (I like the quote "global warming is a 'theory' like the 'theory' of evolution or the 'theory' of gravity"), but the language is clearly failing us. "An Inconvinient Truth" and movies like "The Day After Tommorow" are good for part of the job, but it seems like we need a massive overhaul of terms to make the destruction of the environment not merely "something to be concerned about" but rather "the most serious threat to humanity, America, democracy, and YOU." Fighting fire with fire...
A couple other things I found interesting: The Geneva Convention holds NO mention of the word "murder." Torture via radical temperature changes, sleep deprivation, starvation, and other physical discomfort (ala Chinese water torture) can be more effective than pulling out fingernails, put is not as of yet strictly classified as torture. It seems several definitions need updating...
If you read this, respond! I know you have information and insights that I do not, and I'd like this blog to be something of a forum for discussion as well as a cutesy "my diary." Take two seconds and share an idea.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Interesting idea. To the extent that a "crime against humanity" is an act or acts that harms many innocent people, it would work. But legally I think the term is limited to war crimes or the intentional infliction of harm against a group, as in the case of genocide. This would mean that environmental destruction for the purpose of profit would not be such a crime, while the salting of the ground to destroy farming and create hunger during a war would be. Of course, new legal theories are born all the time, so maybe this is one!
Post a Comment