What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

New Zealand Takes the Cake

by Tony M.

Good news for all you tree-huggers out there: New Zealand has just extended the framework of law beyond any rational perspective, to include within the expression “person” the Whanganui River. Henceforward, the river will be accorded personhood status, with rights pertinent thereto. Based on an agreement between the Crown and the Iwi tribal entity, the River will be a “person” before the law.

As many of you know from past discussions, talking about what “personhood” means for purposes of law is not easy, and it is not intuitive. There are lots of ways to make mistakes. One way is to assume that granting personhood under law means treating the entity as a person for ALL purposes. It just ain’t so. Most laws that call non-human entities as “persons” do so in a framework that explicitly recognizes them as persons for certain purposes and explicitly denies them the same rights granted to human beings for other purposes. Just to take one area, under tax law the term “person” generally includes both human beings and corporations, and also a number of other things, like associations, trusts, and estates. The term “individual” is reserved for human persons. And under tax law, non-human “persons” have certain rights, whereas individual human persons have considerably more rights – for example, only human beings can sign a Power of Attorney form and be the authorized representative for a pension plan.

Some people, both conservatives and liberals I believe, have stated grave misgivings for allowing corporations and other entities to be called (and treated as) persons in law. Their intuition rightly leads them to be worried that an entity should be called by that term we hold in especial reserve for the highest of natural beings, those with rational natures. But many object not just to the term, but the notion of granting rights to non-human entities. I have argued for the opposite angle: within certain limits, it is absolutely inevitable that non-human entities be treated under law as objects directly subject to law, and if subject to law then we need to have an expression that includes them as such. This is not just really worthwhile, it is fundamentally necessary in any ordered society. Men by nature have a right to associate – and this is recognized in the First Amendment. Once a group associates by some sort of formal act (usually adopting a statement of purpose and an organizational form), it MUST have the capacity to do things that carry out the purpose of associating, as distinct from the individuals doing so on their own: agree to contracts, have bank accounts, hire employees, make public statements, etc. All of these things come under the law in various ways, and the law must be capable of discerning the difference between Bob hiring an employee for his own purposes and Bob the chairman hiring an employee for the association. The law has to be able to treat the association distinctly from the members thereof.

It’s OK to use the term “person” to categorize entities subject to the law if in doing so you carefully delineate how far you mean that these entities are to be granted rights before the law. If, on the other hand, we find it virtually impossible to stay within those careful boundaries, then it is more reasonable o use a different term, and I would be fine with that too. What I am not fine with is throwing out the First Amendment because of squeamishness over a semantic issue.

Getting back to the W River, apparently (at least according to numerous reports, though I have been unable to find the actual agreement) the River is being accorded a kind of “juridic” or legal personhood status, similar to that of corporations. "[I]n the same way a company is, which will give it rights and interests". At least, that’s the meme being disseminated. However, right off the bat, this meme is a bit of a deception in some sense. The River’s rights and privileges are under the protection of 2 appointed people, one a member of the Iwi, the other a Crown official. It is almost like the River is going to be a ward of the state, with 2 assigned protectors. The second problem is that generally juridic persons are accorded legal personhood status because that protects KNOWN and discernible interests of known human beings. The W River’s so-called “interests” are yet to be discovered, yet to be enunciated, the River will not be a participant in doing so, and there is simply no knowing what humans’ interests will be involved in those of the River. Thirdly, in cases of corporations and other non-human “persons”, the entity has obligations and can be punished in certain ways. I doubt that we are going to find the 2 protectors locating responsibilities for the River, and assigning liabilities under any theoretical wrongdoing. Are they going to fine it if it floods some spring? Take away its water as punishment? Lastly, the meme of corporate personhood is given the lie directly by the very basis under which the Iwi sued for the river’s protection: in their religious perspective, “I am the river, the river is me.” The Maori apparently have some pretty strong pantheistic tendencies, and they are busy asserting the river’s personhood to endorse that religious view. Not even slightly unrelated, other New Zealanders are perfectly willing to speak of preventing “ecocide” as the reason for this move. Well, nobody thinks of the demise of a corporation as “corporocide”, and rightly so.

So New Zealand takes it all much too far. There are reasons to object to this measure both on general principles of rights law as such and on the basis of defining entities before the law. Western societies have made mincemeat of what might have been (at some point in the past) valid concerns under the notion “rights”, but this goes beyond mere poor judgment into farce. The basic reason for wanting to assign rights to non-human entities is to further HUMAN rights, goods, interests, and flourishing. Associations are accorded rights in order to further human rights, not because associations have them naturally. The fact that they weren’t even able to state the specific interests that belong to the river at the outset suggests that they will intentionally expand the scope of such interests to magnify the claims of “the river” whenever they imagine something might be gained BY SOMEBODY, including (for starters) the Iwi, and the appointed 2 protectors (who will be busy expanding their new bureaucratic empire). Since the river will never object to that, they can assert whatever needs, desires, rights and privileges they want that any other person – natural or artificial – might want. And there is no way to distinguish between a “need” and a mere whim, because of course the river doesn’t have either really. Since a river doesn’t really have true interests, it will be up to humans to impose on the river their own views of what it “wants”. Talk about anthropomorphic projectionism!

In some tribal traditions , humans changed into birds, fish and other creatures. There are also many examples where people identified the human body with features of the landscape. All of these traditions show an intimate experience of nature. Anthropologists have described it as a mystical involvement with the natural world.

And of course the concept of a river being an entity legally enforceable is stuff and nonsense anyway. New Zealanders will wake up to find out that the entity they have so foolishly created isn’t really a river, it’s a whole watershed. Then they will find out that it is anything and everything IN the watershed that affects water movement – including people. Then they will discern that it includes all the factors that affect the rainfall in the watershed region, including things that are not physically in the watershed itself, such as actions and conditions in surrounding regions. But aside from all this, the whole concept makes a mish-mash of what we intend by law and who law is for. Here’s a telling quote :

If we accept that all things have agency, not just human beings, this legal recognition of the personhood of a river, developed from the indigenous knowledge tradition and by the Whanganui River Iwi, is incredibly important.

To give a river (or presumably a mountain, valley or island) this status of personhood is important because it repositions us, human beings, within the environment, rather than over it.

If humans are not over the environment, but merely bit parts thereof, the on what basis do we even make law that affects the environment? If we are not in charge, well, let the environment take charge, let it make the rules and enforce them. But it can’t, can it? It’s sheer insanity, driven by the kind of loony-bin evil that ties man’s immense, and immensely sinful, pride that he can make reality what he wants of it, with fruitcake liberals’ whimsy that man is nothing more than the animals, plants, rivers, mountains, etc. Next week we will see some fruitcakery eco freak suing because rocks and air have rights too! How dare you breathe in oxygen and combine it with carbon to make carbon dioxide! You’re harming the oxygen, which had no intention of becoming carbon dioxide!

Comments (39)

I imagine this crazy decision to give a river the legal status of a 'person' has been taken in order to show 'respect' for the animistic traditions of a Maori tribe. Presumably anyone discovered polluting the Whanganui River could be charged with an assault against it.

I don't know of any, but I would not be surprised to hear that similar attempts to pander to the animism of North American Indians have been made in the United States.

Good point about the river being treated as a ward of the state.

Has anyone ever heard of a case in law where a corporation had people appointed to represent its "best interests," as if it were a minor child? "Best interests" in American law is a pretty important technical term that comes up specifically in family law and guardianship cases for legally incompetent persons. Courts and guardians are supposed to determine and carry out what is in the best interests of the child or incompetent person. It was inevitable that this would be the model for making animals and ecosystems "legal persons," but AFAIK this ward-ship model does not apply to corporations.

Excellent point about its not having liability and not being able to be sued. Again, this is a huge disanalogy to the corporation model. In a sense the whole "legal personhood" doctrine for corporations has as one of its major purposes allowing the corporation to be held liable. No such here.

As for the animism, that's very interesting. I imagine New Zealand has some kind of "separation of church and state" doctrine, yet here they seem to be expressly enshrining Maori religion in law. Some may remember my putting up a post about people not being allowed to stand or eat on the top of a mountain in NZ because the Maori think it's a person. Tip of the camel's nose?

"Tip of the camel's nose?"

Excellent point. Next thing you know some will claim there's a sky god who chooses to favor some human tribe with perceptual title in fee simple to some section of this planet and others will claim that humans can become gods, each with their own planet. Where will this ever end?

(We humans are wired to resonate to stories and truth has always been a secondary factor. I would note that the heathen Maori took their grievances to court while the various factions of the One True God have repeatedly resorted to slaughtering each other.)

You are way over analyzing this - break it down and we have a water rights case using language and concepts of the local culture and an 1840 treaty. Once it was decided that the river had been wrongly taken some solution was needed that was agreeable to the parties involved - maybe this works, likely much tweaking will be needed. When the American West was settled, water rights were somewhat undeveloped so the law needed to evolve. Our own treaties (you know, the ones we mostly broke) with those we invaded in these parts also often used language and concepts meaningful to both sides. Likely the net effects will be akin to things like our own Colorado River Compact.

"1.14 Among other things, the Tribunal found that:
1.14.1 to Whanganui Iwi the Whanganui River was a single and indivisible entity, inclusive of the water and all those things that gave the river its essential life;
1.14.2 Whanganui Iwi possessed, and held rangatiratanga over, the Whanganui River and never sold those interests;
1.14.3 expropriation of the bed of the Whanganui River was effected by the Coal-mines Amendment Act 1903, which effectively vested the bed of all navigable rivers, including the Whanganui River, in the Crown without consultation or compensation;
1.14.4 the Crown vested authority and control of the Whanganui River in local authorities through the Resource Management Act 1991;
RECORD OF UNDERSTANDING
1.14.5 the acts of the Crown in removing Whanganui Iwi’s possession and control of the Whanganui River and its tributaries, and its omission to protect the rangatiratanga of Whanganui Iwi in and over the River were and are contrary to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi; and
1.14.6 Whanganui Iwi continue to be prejudiced as a result of the Crown’s actions"

http://nz01.terabyte.co.nz/ots/DocumentLibrary%5CWhanganuiRiverROU.pdf

This is but one claim out of many,

http://www.recreationaccess.org.nz/files/treaty_claims_register.html

Yeah, because water rights cases really need to be framed in terms of rivers as persons which are minor wards of the state. There is obviously no other good legal way to handle the issues in question.

Al, if this were 1890 or 1920 in the US west, water rights would indeed be "all" that this is about. But you are really reaching here. Why not quote the other, more interesting parts of the Agreement (thanks for the link):

an indivisible whole incorporating its tributaries and all its physical and metaphysical elements from the mountains to the sea.

See, I told you it would not be limited to the river itself, but would incorporate the whole watershed. And:

1.81.1 An integrated, indivisible view of Te Awa Tupua in both biophysical and metaphysical terms from the mountains to the sea.

1.18.2 The health and wellbeing of the Whanganui River is intrinsically interconnected with the health and wellbeing of the
people.

But they let the cat out of the bag accidentally at 1.12:

The Wai 167 claim included, among other things, claims in respect of the Whanganui River and was pursued for the benefit of all who affiliate to Whanganui Iwi.

Maybe the river is its own "living" entity, but the reason the Iwi are pursuing this is because they want control over river "interests" for the benefit of all "who affiliate to Whanganui Iwi."

If New Zealand wanted to declare the Whanganui an independent nation and its territory an independent country, that's their business. But trying to give them quasi-independence by squaring the circle - by giving a tribe the right to decide what the interests of a whole region from mountains to sea (and all its physical and metaphysical dimensions) are to mean while trying to retain prior private rights, is a bit odd, to say the least.

And al, what the heck is this sky-god thingy you mention? Is this some mystical reference to Native American gods or something? I don't get why Native Americans have anything to do with Maori.

And al, what the heck is this sky-god thingy you mention?

He's trying to mock God's Covenant with Abraham.

Then, he's mocking Mormonism ... and trying thereby to mock actual Christianity.

By calling God a "sky-god"? That makes no sense. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was never a sky-god. That's just goofy.

Of course it's goofy to call the Living God a "sky-god"; but it's also the standard, albeit stupid, put-down of Al's sort.

"There is obviously no other good legal way to handle the issues in question."

"Other" being the operative term. One could just as easily ask, "why not this solution?" You all are exercised about this because you sense a possible conflict with your favored narrative. The material facts of the eventual agreement and the performance of the parties are all that will eventually count.

"Why not quote the other, more interesting parts of the Agreement (thanks for the link):

Because I thought it too obvious to reference beyond my writing, "using language and concepts of the local culture". One usually files a claim to advance some material interest and it is the nature of our species to tie material interests to metaphysical boilerplate.

Of course a solution that deals with a river in terms of its watershed is likely to be the result given that not dealing with it as a commons issue is how we got the dispute in the first place.

"Al, if this were 1890 or 1920 in the US west, water rights would indeed be "all" that this is about."

Tony, you will rarely be wrong if you assume that always and everywhere it's Chinatown and it's all about the water.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10953190

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8327188.stm

",,,by giving a tribe the right to decide what the interests of a whole region from mountains to sea (and all its physical and metaphysical dimensions) are to mean while trying to retain prior private rights, is a bit odd, to say the least."

If I open a gaming establishment in my barn, I will have some serious legal problems yet there are three legal casinos within a few miles of chez al. Nothing odd; invading an already occupied place can lead to all sorts of things.

Apes are by their nature greedy creatures. Perhaps it is progress that contesting bands of apes are willing to resolve their differences through an agreement that advances their common welfare by putting the focus on the welfare of an extra-simian entity.

"Then, he's mocking Mormonism ... and trying thereby to mock actual Christianity."

Ilion, at least I'm an equal opportunity mocker. (I'm sure our LDS friends appreciate your "actual".)

Ilion, at least I'm an equal opportunity mocker. (I'm sure our LDS friends appreciate your "actual".)

When did "equal opportunity" cometo equal 'dishonest'?

Mormonism is not Christian; it is no more compatable with Christianity than Classical paganism was. And, in fact, it's compatible with paganism: the Mormon 'Heavenly Father' is an effect of Nature, just as Zeus was, rather than the Creator-of-all.

Actually, just for the record, there was a time when Mormons were quite definite that they were not Christians. It's only relatively recently that they've wanted to be considered Christians. So Al is showing his historical unawareness in implying that Ilion was insulting Mormons by referring to them as not being "actual Christians."

I'm an equal opportunity mocker.

I wish it were possible to prove the case, because I'd bet my next ten paychecks that's not true.

So,

"It's only relatively recently that they've wanted to be considered Christians,"

and,

"Al is showing his historical unawareness in implying that Ilion was insulting Mormons by referring to them as not being "actual Christians.


As usual Lydia you veer into category confusion. I may or may not be aware of a given LDS pivot (in this case I was) but that is irrelevant. I know a mock when I see one. Ilion's "actual" was gratudious and cruel as well as mocking.

Sage, we all have our blind spots, but I really do try.

Tony, you will rarely be wrong if you assume that always and everywhere it's Chinatown and it's all about the water.

al, water rights may be the original driving force, but when you stoop to using topsy-turvy metaphysical means to get it, and you warp the legal structure into supporting such odd metaphysical notions as that the river - actually the entire watershed - is "one living thing" you end up pushing a whole host of OTHER things. The bureaucrats will be unable to restrict themselves to water rights. Prediction: within 5 years of the initial settlement agreement, there will come forward some claim that has nothing to do with who (meaning humans) gets to _use_ the water, and everything to do with some cockamamie notion of "who" the river is. If nothing else, some crazy will claim that the river wants to "marry" them. Why not, the Eiffel tower is married to several people - according to them. You can't play screwball with principles and escape unharmed.


al:

and others will claim that humans can become gods, each with their own planet. Where will this ever end?

Ilion:

Then, he's mocking Mormonism ... and trying thereby to mock actual Christianity.

al:

I know a mock when I see one. Ilion's "actual" was gratudious and cruel as well as mocking.

al, I am pretty sure that if Ilion's comment was mocking LDS, then yours was more so, and prior. And I am quite sure that if Ilion's was gratuitous, yours was much more. So I don't know where you get off throwing around these accusations. To be an "equal opportunity" slime by being slimy with everyone is not better than being a discriminating slime. Take some advice, please: just stick to the issue at hand.

My wife and I lived in NZ for some time and the politics of Māori relations is, at best, complicated.

The Māori enjoy the favor of the govt in a number of ways, but they are considered a backward minority by many. There is a special court set up there to deal specifically with the issues surrounding and created by the Treaty of Waitangi.

Have a look at the English version and compare it to a translated the Māori version and you'll begin to see the edges of the foundation that supports these ludicrous court judgements.

Has anyone ever heard of a case in law where a corporation had people appointed to represent its "best interests," as if it were a minor child?

There isn't really a legal mechanism for the situation described here. For one thing, corporations and other artificial entities don't have their own "best interests": the interest at stake has always been recognized as that of the various owners or shareholders (or sometimes creditors). So a corporation that becomes incapable of governing itself might be placed in receivership, where a court-appointed officer manages its affairs, but that management is carried out for the purpose of furthering the interests of particular individuals (or entities, as the owners or creditors happen to be).


My impression is that Al is not correct that this is simply a novel way of articulating general common-law principles of riparian rights. Where is the numerus clausus when you need it?

I wasn't thinking riparian (much of the US operates under prior appropriation or a combination of riparian and PA) as NZ seems to have already modified the common law. Why not go further? Water law has always evolved according to local circumstances and technological change.

Once they decided to seriously explore the implications of the Treaty of Waitangi (Chinatown?) something like this was a possibility (Winters Doctrine?). I mentioned the Colorado River Compact as it encompasses the whole watershed. Water law is loaded with novelty.

"Why not, the Eiffel tower is married to several people - according to them."

While ideas may have consequences, the concept can be overdone. As I never tire of pointing out when one we are treated with yet another outrage du jour, we live in a nation of over 300 million in a world of over seven billion. You can find at least a few people who will believe most anything. In this case Tony is using the possibility of a paraphillia to argue against this seemingly novel solution. Is the existence of a handful of Eifel objectophiliacs an argument against the tower itself?

(The need for an outrage du jour raises interesting questions as there sometimes seems to be an addictive aspect to rage, but I digress.)

We can't yet know how novel this is as we don't have a fleshed out product. What has already happened is that lawsuits have been dropped and folks are talking.

"God said to Abraham, 'kill Me a son.'"

All I was doing was restating the stories some of us have deeply internalized in slightly different form for some lighthearted mockery.

However, in a high school like bid for acceptance, our LDS friends have chosen to target the private lives of some of our fellow citizens. How painful it must be to them to still be so cruelly rejected by folks like Ilion.


This is nothing new. The theory of rights for inanimate objects was advanced as far back as 1972 in "Should Trees Have Standing?", an article by Christopher Stone in the Southern California Law Review. It was idiotic back then; it is idiotic now.

All I was doing was restating the stories some of us have deeply internalized in slightly different form for some lighthearted mockery.

Al, that may be what you are attempting, but you're failing. And whether you hit the mark or not, mockery in a blog post between people who DON'T see eye to eye on most other things is often quite offensive. It is one thing to use a lighthearted mocking comment in person to someone who knows you well and is already your friend (and so they are compatible with your outlook in some ways at least), who can both see and hear the smile along with the cut. It is something else entirely to do it on a blog, with people who are not your friend, who do not share your outlook, who cannot see the smile behind the cutting remark. The "kill Me a son" is an example of being jerk-wad offensive.

Actually, just for the record, there was a time when Mormons were quite definite that they were not Christians. It's only relatively recently that they've wanted to be considered Christians. ...
It will never matter whether they want to be considered Christians; it's a matter of logic that they are not.

Titus's comment is extremely interesting and confirms the point in the main post: The analogy to corporate law is misleading. The environmentalists want to say, "If you think LLC's should have any treatment as entities with standing in law, then in consistency you have no right to object to making animals or ecological regions into legal persons." This is wrong for many, many reasons, but this is just one of them: The legal structures that will be created for the environmental purposes are actually *quite different* from corporate pseudo-personhood. We see that right here in the treatment of the river as though it were a minor child--that is, an entity with rights and "best interests," to be represented by people chosen to speak for it as guardians, but without liabilities.

??? Tony, that's part of our culture or I thought it was. Suddenly I feel so old; is Paul the only Dylan fan at W4?

"The legal structures that will be created for the environmental purposes are actually *quite different* from corporate pseudo-personhood."

Lydia, the metaphysics are feel-good boilerplate. We already know how to accomplish a public good: Define the area on a map, make it a district with the necessary powers to do the job, and set up the process. We do this in one form or another all of the time. New Zealand abounds with land trusts and I'll assume they know about zoning and conservation easements.
The metaphysics are different but are irrelevant to whatever form results from this decision.

al, you appear to be intentionally ignoring the fact that the New Zealanders themselves think this is something quite different. It isn't just a matter of defining a region and zoning rules.

the metaphysics are feel-good boilerplate

In the hands of eco-warriors it never is "just" a pro-forma new means and methods of just doing what we have always been doing. The whole point is that they don't WANT to merely do what we have always been doing, they want to do something different, and this means is designed for that. They don't want man to control the environment for man, even in an enlightened way that preserves its value intact for future men forevermore. That's passe for the ultra eco's.

This is wrong for many, many reasons, but this is just one of them: The legal structures that will be created for the environmental purposes are actually *quite different* from corporate pseudo-personhood. We see that right here in the treatment of the river as though it were a minor child--that is, an entity with rights and "best interests," to be represented by people chosen to speak for it as guardians, but without liabilities.
Plus, legal-fictitous porporate persons are comprised of actual and identifiable human persons; this novel pseudo-person is not an identifiable body of actual persons.

"al, you appear to be intentionally ignoring the fact that the New Zealanders themselves think this is something quite different."

No, what I have done is my homework. One of the things we ignore at our peril is the reality that newspaper stories are written to a deadline by folks who likely know little or nothing about the subject and who may be internally constrained by flawed conventions and too convenient narratives (hint: when there is a word or phrase for something it may not be novel).

Another important concept that I have found useful when dealing with policy matters is that life is like a funnel. There are likely more actors and stories than implementable policies. If you read the linked documents, you will find that the Crown and the Iwi came to similar conclusions from differing perspectives.

There is no way around the fact that the only way to responsibly manage a watershed is to treat it as a whole. As long as that is the driving concept the underlying metaphysics will be irrelevant as the details will be driven by the techno-economic and techno-environmental realities.

"They don't want man to control the environment for man, even in an enlightened way that preserves its value intact for future men forevermore."

"Want" doesn't have anything to do with it. The sentence is self contradictory. All it demonstrates is that when one believes one impossible thing, it becomes easier to believe other impossible things. Until we Plains Apes come to our well earned extinction it will be impossible for us to do other than manage the environment.

And where did these "eco-warriors" come from? Tony, with all respect, you have way too deeply drunk of the kool-aid here. All we have here is a typical dispute between an indigenous people (whose own tenure was relatively brief and whose stewardship was initially wanting) and the descendants of later invaders who initially trashed the place. The former endeavored to persevere while most of the latter realize that mistakes were made. It seems reasonable for the former to cleave to their narrative and the latter theirs while they reason together.

http://www.wanganui.govt.nz/Publications/Whanganui%20River%20settlement%20-%20Q&A.pdf

http://www.horizons.govt.nz/assets/publications/managing-our-environment/publications-plans-and-strategies/Whanganui-catchment-strategy.pdf

"Plus, legal-fictitous porporate persons are comprised of actual and identifiable human persons; this novel pseudo-person is not an identifiable body of actual persons."

"porporate" - Flipper's?

http://www.wrmtb.co.nz/

http://nz01.terabyte.co.nz/ots/DocumentLibrary%5CWhanganuiRiverROU.pdf

Land trusts in many forms have been around for several centuries.

I hate forums without an active moderator. Why do you people let this troll nicknamed "al" keep posting? Here is nothing more then a typical troll, and we don't defeat a troll by feeding it:

http://data.motor-talk.de/data/galleries/0/143/1963/48397644/dont-feed-the-troll-1316286463763399354.jpeg

He is not a Christian, he is not a Conservative, he hates our religion and our ideas. He likes mentally ill sexually depravated people. [Edited LM]

So, summing up, "al" is the exact description of "what is wrong with the world". What is wrong is that we have too many people like "al" which dirty our society. And as such, why would he post here except for trolling?

My dream is that we one day achieve independency from "al" and other scum traitors like him. Lets move all of the conservatives to one half of the Western Civilization and leave all the liberals and their friends in the other half. [edited LM]

Ho-hum, Al in his usual spin mode. "Nothing to see here, folks," no matter what the left does, no matter how bizarre or unprecedented. Al, I sometimes have to wonder. Suppose some law were passed promoting or embodying a set-up that was _really_ offensive to the metaphysics of the left--such as, say, being based on innate male-female differences. Even if it really were simply embodying the legal structures of hundred years past (as you erroneously claim this is doing). Somehow, I don't think your "nothing to see here, folks" spin machine would be operating then.

I'm not going to go into the reasons why I edited "Felipe's" comment, above, except in private to my co-contributors or editor, but I'll just say this: It's not within the standards of this blog to allow comments wishing for violence. Bag it.

And I say that as someone who has little patience with liberals.

Thank you Lydia. I would like to add that Felipe is a very unusual screen name for the type of sentiments he was expressing, although it may not accurately reflect his identity.

In a perhaps futile attempt to be less offensive myself, I offer to explain the origin of my screen name. I suspect many people believe it is meant to be taken in the imperative or sequential sense, and while that is a bonus effect the main reason is much simpler and more mundane. I abbreviate about half my first name and all but a stylized L for my last name when I write my name. So my signature looks like "Step2".

Step2, I always wondered where you came to such an odd handle. Now I see, and thanks.

"...no matter how bizarre or unprecedented..."

"Statement of significance of Waikato River to Waikato-Tainui
8 Statement


This is from a 2010 settlement,

(1) The Crown recognises the statement of significance of the Waikato River to Waikato-Tainui as stated in this section.

(2) He tuupuna noo ngaa iwi o Waikato-Tainui Te Awa o Waikato. E mau ana te mana te mauri me te kaha o te Iwi. He mauri tu tahi e kore e wehea. Ka rere mai oona wai i Te Taheke hukahuka puta atu ki te Puuaha o Waikato. Ka hono haere ai ngaa wai o Te Awa o Waikato i ngaa parenga, i ngaa whaiawa, i nga momo takawai o raro, i ngaa rerenga, i ngaa waikeri, i ngaa wehenga, i ngaa roto, i ngaa ika, i ngaa tupunga otaota, i ngaa maania, i ngaa repo, i ngaa motu, i ngaa puna, i ngaa arawai o te awa, i ngaa ararangi o te awa, i ngaa tuaapapa o te awa, tae noa ki oona tohu a wairua me toona mauri. Naa too maatou hononga ki te awa, naa too maatou manaaki i te awa te take ka tiaki i te mana o te awa, aa, ka riro maa maatou taua mana whakahaere i runga i ngaa tikanga tuku iho mo te awa. No reira, naa too maatou hononga ki te awa hei kaitiaki te puutake o too maatou oranga a wairua, oranga a tinana, a, tae noa ki oo maatou tikanga a iwi katoa.

(3) The Waikato River is our tupuna (ancestor) which has mana (spiritual authority and power) and in turn represents the mana and mauri (life force) of Waikato-Tainui. The Waikato River is a single indivisible being that flows from Te Taheke Hukahuka to Te Puuaha o Waikato (the mouth) and includes its waters, banks and beds (and all minerals under them) and its streams, waterways, tributaries, lakes, aquatic fisheries, vegetation, flood plains, wetlands, islands, springs, water column, airspace, and substratum as well as its metaphysical being. Our relationship with the Waikato River, and our respect for it, gives rise to our responsibilities to protect te mana o te Awa and to exercise our mana whakahaere in accordance with long established tikanga to ensure the wellbeing of the river. Our relationship with the river and our respect for it lies at the heart of our spiritual and physical wellbeing, and our tribal identity and culture.

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2010/0024/latest/whole.html


"Even if it really were simply embodying the legal structures of hundred years past (as you erroneously claim this is doing)."

Which isn't what I wrote. Land trusts of one sort or another have existed since the 15th or 16th centuries. They evolve to meet the needs of the times.

Make a proposal and I'll give you an answer. If you can make the case that X is an actual M/F difference and that difference is an appropriate area for state intervention then I'll likely agree with you.

Thanks for remembering me never to defend Christians. When I see a sadistic mocking Christianity I must mentally remember that I must not interfere. The other side is masochist and enjoys the humiliation and will react negatively to people trying to help them.

What a sad state my religion is at. Well, this is already well known. I am just disappointed of this behavior in a blog which claims to be a "crusade". I guess it was false propaganda. I respectfully suggest that you take out the name "crusade" from your motto to avoid future mistakes that it is in anyway related to the real crusades. I wonder what real crusaders would think if they saw christianity from our days. I wonder how christians would treat them if they came to our days...

Because of things like that is that I think sometimes that Christianism has no future. In the long run the only way for indo-europeans to survive might be adhering to some kind of jesuitic islam sect. For at least islamists have self-respect. They defend themselves and they have are defeating liberalism. Christians on the other side are so surrendered that even a blog with "crusade" on it's motto is actually liberal.

> Thank you Lydia. I would like to add that Felipe is a very unusual
> screen name for the type of sentiments he was expressing,
> although it may not accurately reflect his identity.

I think that you are not aware of the following 3 facts:

1> Latino is a stupid term invented by the left in the USA which has no significance elsewhere. In Latin America itself noone talks in such terms.

2> Whites are a huge group in Latin America: approximately 200 million read Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Latin_American

3> Liberals are not a pest only in the USA. Whites, asians and light mulatos in Brazil are racially discriminated in Universities and Public Jobs since our marxist overlords established racial quotas and racial tribunals to make sure that only those black enough get the reserved places: http://globalvoicesonline.org/2012/05/05/brazil-approves-racial-quotas-in-higher-education/

As a person discriminated racially by the alliance between marxists and liberals I must say that I deeply hate both this ideologies and will never rest to fight both of them.

Anyway, I don't live in the USA, and I never would. I read about how whites are discriminated in the USA, and I would never want to be humiliated like that. If I have to be oppressed at least I am being oppressed in my home country. I only read right-wing blogs in english because I find that they are mentally stimulating, and there so many more conservative blogs in english than in other languages. Although this time I think that I landed in a wrong spot.

Anyway, I probably said too many true things again and will get censored, so I just wasted more time writing this response.

Thank you for that information Felipe. You are a Christian gentleman, obviously a beacon of hope in these dark times. I don't know why anyone would want to leave the emerging economic dynamo and tropical paradise...ummm Marxist infected sewer of Brazil, but should you ever venture out of your prison I cordially invite you to visit America.

"As a person discriminated racially by the alliance between marxists and liberals..."

Hummm, Brazil... Felipe, where were your grandparents on November 9, 1938.


This may be of interest,

http://otago.ourarchive.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10523/191/Morris_LLM_thesis_2009.pdf?sequence=1

al, do not contribute to off-topic issues like 1938. Do not feed...

Felipe, oddly enough your comment was not censored. If you have things to say that are on-topic and are well-reasoned in family-friendly language, you have leave to say them. It's when your comments go off-topic or when you start using language that celebrates unjust violence that you get cut off.

If you want to understand what this blog is about, spend some time reading a few dozen threads first. A good crusade needs its physical warriors, but it also needs those who war with words. A blog is words, that's our medium. Here's what we say in "Posting Rules"

With our adversaries we can still hope to achieve a courteous clarity of disagreement, and even a mutual admiration: but this can only be done in forthright civility.

Forthright and Civil, then, will be our watchwords: we will be forthright and adversarial commenters will be civil.

If you want to fight physically against Islam or against trenchant liberalism, join a fighting force with our blessing. If you want to fight here with words, you have to live with our rules.

Sorry, but I couldn't resist. I will endeavor not to give in to my darker angels.

However, I don't think you meant to write this in the way you did:

"If you want to fight physically against Islam or against trenchant liberalism, join a fighting force with our blessing."

Please consider what forces exist to do what you propose. You can't mean the U.S. or NATO military as they are explicitly not at war with "Islam." Any violence towards liberalism, trenchant or whatever, brings to mind Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Klan, the dude who shot Dr. Teller, and that chap in Norway who shot up the Social Democrat's youth camp.

Want to restate?

What special happened in 1938?

None of those were aligned against trenchant liberalism. Of course. I don't know of a specific force that meets my stated conditions. He can start his own country if he wants, and then get his own army going.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.