Our Canadian Constitutional Right to Life — and the Right Not to Be Deprived Thereof

I've been quite buoyed lately by the hard work and legal successes of Our Children's Trust in the United States. It's one NGO that my hubby and I are proud and happy to contribute money (and some time) to.  

I've written about OCT before, here.  Their mandate is to secure the legal right to a stable climate and a healthy atmosphere for all present and future generations.

Ah, those pesky future generations. I've written about them before, too -- here, and here, and here. So today I'd like to tell you what I just found out. Guess what the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Constitution Act, 1982) guarantees to all Canadians? Yup, "life, liberty and security of person." Here's what that means: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."

So folks, on the basis of our constitutionally enshrined (ooh, listen to me, all legalesy) legal right #7, we should be suing the @$$es off the federal and provincial governments that aren't taking the climate change emergency seriously! 

And while we're at it, take a look at 15. (1) under the section called Equality Rights: "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."

Did you catch that part about age? Children, in other words, also have the right to a secure future. So let's support Our Children's Trust - Canada and get our legal challenges by young people and on behalf of future generations going.

CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982 (80)

PART I

CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

 Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms

Rights and freedoms in Canada

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Under the section called Legal Rights
 
Life, liberty and security of person

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Then, under the section called Equality Rights
 
Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Under the section Enforcement
 
Enforcement of guaranteed rights and freedoms

24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.

The Saddest Sad Thing about the Climate Change Emergency

It was a sad week all over the globe. As athletes from around the world vied to break sporting records at the Rio Olympics, India and the Middle East experienced record-breaking temperatures. Massive floods and forest fires are killing and "homelessing" people left, right and centre. Amidst all this, the denial campaign is doubling down (their efforts to obfuscate the need for an emergency response are mind and heart boggling) and the scientific community, for the most part, just keeps calling for more research. Aaaarrrgghhh!

But the saddest sad thing this week was a series of posts and comments on the question of bringing children into this changing world -- a world that is changing for the worse in practically every way.

Children are a vulnerable subpopulation, and as such they are more susceptible to the ravages of climate chaos. On top of that, we're doing an excellent job of ravaging their future.

An NPR article asked "Should We Be Having Kids in the Age of Climate Change?" Lots of commenters weighed in:

"Should we be protecting our children by not having them?"

"Of course yes, we should protect future children by not having them! Knowing what we know about climate, and the inevitable wars and struggle and suffering that will happen in the near future - how could anyone create another person, someone they claim to love, and willingly subject them to all of that?? If they can, then I don't understand it at all. I wish I did."

"Investors have a moral obligation to safeguard their grandchildren's future against climate change." [See my webpage on Future Generations for more information on this idea.]

"Decided not to have kids because I know it would break my own heart to see them grow up in a dying world." [I responded that this decision must have been heartbreaking in itself.]

"Too late for me but I have had this discussion with my only child, a 16 year old son." [Good point ... how are young people feeling about a future with no children?]

And in response to From Epic Fires to a 1,000-Year Flood: The Climate Change of Here and Now:

"What must it be like to have a new born baby in your arms and look out the window at a line of fire as far as the eye can see beneath a looming wall of smoke and ash that blots out the future! What will be the future as the infant grows up and enters the world as an adult?

"What world will they see in twenty years? The deniers smirk as they pocket their profits and bribes while knowing the truth. Just one more golden egg from the Golden Goose they keep saying. Just one more pipeline, just one more deep water drill, just one more fracking well!

"They will never say enough is enough and worse they will probably start saying that it is too late to do anything about climate change already anyway. They plan to say that eventually. They'll say whatever it takes to be able to squeeze out one more golden egg before the goose dies."

So, yeah, I believe the saddest of all the sad things these days is the idea that the future has become a thing of the past, no longer something to look forward to. And that the greatest joy in the world for so many people -- having children -- has turned into something cruel.

What Would Dr. Seuss Say About the Climate Change Emergency?

Back in January 2012, soon after the 2011 UN Climate Change Conference in Durban, South Africa, Grist asked "What would Dr. Seuss say about climate change?" (See Michelle Nijhuis's article here.)

Today, in the interests of lightness and love (there's so much sadness in the world right now that no one needs me ragging on about the state of the planet), I'd simply like to share my contribution to that conversation. (You might have to fiddle and twiddle a bit to get the Cat in the Hat rhythm going.) 

Enjoy!

I think the good doctor would have called for compassion!
Instead of our dithering, hand-wringing and dashin'
From meeting to meeting, from summit to COP
He would have decided to simply yell, Stop!
Start placing the needs of the children at centre
And remember, on Earth we are all just a renter.
Stop giving subsidy money to fossil fuel corps
Redirect it to renewables before it all warps.
Create a future that's safer, cleaner and brighter
And for the sake of your kids, be a climate change fighter.

INsuring Versus ENsuring Our Children's Future

We are a culture that eats its children and grandchildren.
— Tom Brown, Jr.

I read the abstract of an article this week about aquifer overexploitation and groundwater depletion in the US High Plains and Central Valley (hey, we all spend our spare time in different ways), and it got me thinking. Why is it
we're willing to INsure our future,
but not willing to ENsure our children's future? 

We're willing to pay money today (those of us who can afford it) to arrange for future financial compensation to our loved ones in the event of our own illness, injury or death. We "provide" for them financially. But we're not willing to make any sacrifices (of time, money, energy or comfort and luxury) today to make certain of providing our progeny with what they'll really need: adequate clean water, secure access to healthy food, shelter safe from extreme storms and heat waves. In other words, we insure our lives but don't ensure their lives.

Here again, it seems we can blame economics, and especially the EuroAmerican economy. (It's early morning and I feel like oversimplifying today.) According to our friendly Wikipedia, life insurance "began as a way of reducing the risk to traders, as early as 2000 BC in China and 1750 BC in Babylon." (See? Traders = economy?) Lloyd's of London (perhaps the most iconic insurance company) began in the 17th century as a group of merchants, ship owners and underwriters who met at Lloyd's Coffee House to discuss their deals.

Then there's the notion of future discounting (an accounting/financing principle that says "a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow"), which has crept into our collective EuroAmerican psyche: A life today is worth more than a life tomorrow. This is already true for us geographically or intragenerationally (a life here is worth more than one half way around the world), so why not intergenerationally as well?

Indeed, the noted economist, Julian "Doom Slayer" Simon (I predict he'll soon be renamed Julian "Future Slayer" Simon), once quipped: "Because we can expect future generations to be richer than we are, no matter what we do about resources, asking us to refrain from using resources now so that future generations can have them later is like asking the poor to make gifts to the rich." Pardon? See the kind of mindset we've been dealing with? Future generations don't stand a chance!

Here's another example I heard from a friend during the George W. Bush presidency. At an environmental conference in Seattle, a federal US employee with the National Marine Fisheries Service was asked, "Can you really support four more years of this administration's policies toward the environment?" Response? "I'm with George. He's all about right now. None of this future generations stuff. After all, what have they done for us lately?"

Perhaps saddest of all was the reaction recently to the World Future Council's call for Ombudspersons for Future Generations. (Please consider signing their petition here. It might be the only good thing that comes out of the Rio+20 Summit later this month.) They are calling for a network of special representatives to help protect the resources and livelihoods of future generations ... guardians of the future. The negative response I read (not to mention my husband's exhortation that this will come to naught if we don't give future generations legal rights), utterly disheartening, was it written mainly by selfish &%$#@! or by those who've simply never heard or learned about intergenerational equity?

Anyway, thinking like an ancestor isn't about buying insurance. It's about love for our children, our grandchildren, and all the children in our lives. It's about concern for our family's health, prosperity, safety and security, now and in the future. It's about child honouring ... placing the welfare and well-being of the children at the centre of all our deliberations and decisions. It's about ensuring a viable (livable, survivable) future for all the children. Of all species.

A man has made at least a start on discovering
the meaning of human life when he plants shade trees under which
he knows full well he will never sit.
— D. Elton Trueblood

Let's Start Honouring the Children

I was reminded again today of the vital new philosophy or worldview suggested by Raffi Cavoukian, a world-renowned Canadian children's singer/entertainer who has turned his focus to the adults of the world, knowing that it's adults who make the decisions. (Too bad it's not the kids! See Speak for the Children.)

Child honouring is the simple — but transformative and, for many cultures, revolutionary — notion of putting the children at the centre of deliberations and actions. A sort of golden rule:

Do unto the world what will be best for all the children.

I said it was simple! But it makes a damned good guiding principle, doesn't it? Especially if one understands that children are more sensitive to famines and environmental toxins and other degradations than adults are — in the literature, they are called a "susceptible sub-population."

So if we care about the children of the world, and we love the special children in our own lives, please, can we start implementing the precautionary principle? I commented the other day to someone who knows our prime minister that I think he must hate his children. She responded that he probably loves them more than anything in the world (besides his cats) — he just "doesn't believe in climate change."

"Well," I responded, "that's the same as hating his children." He is certainly condemning them to a hellish future, and that — to me, at least — does not come across as love.

It is time to put the children at the centre of our moral compass!

p.s. Somalia and the United States of America are the only two countries who have not ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. That sort of fits the US attitude to the climate change crisis as well, doesn't it?

27 Days - Speak for the Children

Someone sent me an email recently, encouraging participation in a climate rally. "Speak for the Climate" was the subject of the email, and it really got to me. But it took me a moment or two to realize why.

The climate does not need anyone speaking on its behalf. It is not a living thing. It is not suffering. Even if it were alive, however, I'm sure it would be an extrovert, and an assertive one at that!

No, the climate does not need anybody speaking for it.

The children, on the other hand, need many advocates. The children of all species are, for the most part, voiceless and powerless in this struggle to safeguard the planet and their future.

Two ideas for giving young people a voice have come my way recently. The first is that we should allow adolescents to vote. The obvious reason these days is that the older a voter is, the less he or she cares (or seems to care) about the future. So the people whose lives we are threatening most by not taking strong action to get to zero carbon emissions are the people who have no say and cannot participate politically.

"I say, allow them [children] the right to vote at birth, but give that right to the parents until the child turns the age of majority. Variation 1: make your vote proportional to your remaining life expectancy. To make it easy, consider the normal life span to be 100. Infants get 100 votes, 100-year olds, get 1 vote."

— Goesta Berling

Kind of a cool idea (even if I did find it at Halfbakery.com). The second reason to give teenagers the vote, as explained by a friend recently, is that young people are still passionate and apt to vote for the Earth. The older we get and the more responsibilities we take on, she said, the more we vote for our own security — mainly financial security, putting the Earth much lower on our list of priorities.

The second idea is to create a children's ombudsman, voted in by young people in each jurisdiction. This position would be held by a youth and yet be considered a senior level portfolio. Kind of like having a kid looking over your shoulder every time you make a decision, reminding you to keep the children in mind.

This reminds me of something Raffi (the Canadian children's singer) proposed around the beginning of this century: child honouring. It's not unlike the concept of intergenerational equity, a principle of sustainable development. Raffi developed a Covenant for Honouring Children, which is a beautiful document. According to the Centre for Child Honouring website, "Child Honouring is a philosophy—a vision, an organizing principle, and a way of life—the children-first way of sustainability."

In any case, we all should be speaking for and thinking of the children, of all species, in every decision we make that might affect the Earth and the future.