This post is an SOS - call for help. If you can help can you please respond by writing to greenfaithmelb (at) gmail (dot) com
This is what I need some help with - and there is wisdom in many heads dwelling on the topic.
GreenFaith Australia - of which I am Secretary - is working on a submission on Human Rights, Climate Change and The Environment to go to the Australian Government's Human Rights Consultation. As part of of our homework on this we have listened to PILCH, VCOSS, the Environment Defenders Office, the Human Rights Law Resource Centre, and The Hon Catherine Branson - President of the Australian Human Rights Commission.
One of the things we have been thinking about - and which we will probably make a preamble to actual human rights bullet points - is the current regime model which is largely known through the United Nations human rights instruments.
We are concerned that this model is largely derived from a dominant Western voice which has a tendency to separate humanity from the environment or make the environment unduly subservient to humanity. This does not seem to be the framework in which indigenous societies, including Australia's Aboriginal nations, see themselves nor do large numbers of non-Western societies. For a significant part of humanity - if not the majority - humanity is inseparable from the environment and life lived with other species.
To these thoughts could be added the language. Rights? Should we speaking more of well-being and happiness? Happiness, these days, is now a subject of the academy.
In addition to working on a relevant and intelligent preamble, what are the points we wish to include on our human rights and the environment wish list? The Environment Defenders Office has advised inclusion of participatory rights - freedom of speech, assembly etc - on the basis that if we get our wishlist up we need to be able to argue and lobby freely for their implementation.
So it is over to you, dear Reader.
Please let GreenFaith Australia know what you think should be included before the ink dries. Once the ink dries and the Board approves, the document will then be submitted to a certain distinguished person for his vetting, and then we will be looking for support. PILCH says that it is a numbers game to get one's ideas up. The more people suggesting the same idea or writing in support of someone else's the more likely that idea is to get up.
Hi Miss Eagle
ReplyDeleteI wonder if the American formula will help us?
There are so many value-based adjectives "Healthy Environment", "Clean Water" in there that any Lawyer could tie you up in knots with your lack of definitions.
On another subject, I think you ought stress the inequality of access to potable water (surely there are definitions of that) for ALL Australians. Drinking water is not a problem for most Australians, but the people at Wadeye and other remote communities do not seem to have the same access as the rest of us. That is surely an issue? I suggest focus on equality of access as THE issue.
Cheers
Denis
Denis, I don't what your reference to an "American formula" relates to.
ReplyDeleteIf it is to the picture at the top of a post, please do not use that as indicative of any position by GFA on Human Rights, Climate Change and the Environment. It is there as simply an appropriate picture. I have also included the source link.
The reason for the link is acknowledgment of the picture source but also because it is the first site I have come across of a community organisation who makes the link from human rights to environment. (Please note: I except Australian Water Network because its focus is solely on Water)
There are environmental organisations in this country who will not be making any submissions to the Human Rights Consultation. My experience in discussion with many is that the connection between human rights and the environment is not readily identifiable by them.
Now, even if the first instinct is to connect say human rights and refugees, I would have thought one might have - at the very least - made the connection with climate change refugees.
And of course, you and I are in agreement about access to water.
I hope the GreenFaith Australia document will be easy to read and understand.
My own view is that a rights or well-being document should go beyond the purview of lawyers and academics. It should be accessible in language and thought processes to all of us - after all rights/well-being is the province of all of us and we ought to be able to converse intelligibly with each other on the topic.