Greening the Constitution ?

[Moonlight Graham]

... because the question of what is "bad for the environment" is really a subjective judgment call.

This can be true for sure. See my above post I just made that addresses this subjectivity and links to this post:

Some ""bad for the environment" calls might be more clear though. Let's say my example " right to clean water". Since judges could interpret that any way they wanted, we would need rights that are more specific. Maybe "clean water" could mean maintaining all lakes and rivers (and possibly drinking wells) in Canada so that they have a level of man-caused pollutants low enough to where people could drink from and swim in and not have it cause any significant health problems (as long as those health problems were caused by man-made pollutants and not from ie: drinking from a naturally-occurring bacteria-filled swamp).

Also, a "right to clean air" could be defined by a reasonable minimum of human-caused pollutants in ppm (so that ie: they wouldn't cause breathing problems).

Maybe another could be "a right for no Canadian animal/plant species to become extinct or endangered because of mainly human-caused activity"?.

Basically, these "rights" might have to be operationalized, aka give specific numerical measurements or other measurable thresholds to avoid subjectivity.

Edited December 2, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[Remiel]

Clean water and air could be called human rights, but they do not exactly make pure sense as rights of the environment: some species thrive in conditions that are sub-optimal for people.

[Michael Hardner]

An "environmental problem" is a purely subjective judgement and has no place in the constitution since there is no consensus on what constitutes a "problem" and there is no way to get a consensus because the same words mean different things to different people.

I don't get this tack at all. We don't have consensus on much in the world, and certainly not legal matters. Moonlight G above has framed the issues nicely, I think.

[TimG]

I don't get this tack at all. We don't have consensus on much in the world, and certainly not legal matters.

We have consensus on freedom of speech, due process, freedom of assembly. We don't have consensus on property rights which was why they were left out in 1982. Environmental rights are much like property rights - generally supported only by people on one side of the political spectrum.

Would you be supportive of including a 'property rights' in the constitution in addition to 'environmental rights'?

If your answer is no or yes with caveats you should understand my objection to environmental rights.

[Michael Hardner]

We have consensus on freedom of speech, due process, freedom of assembly.

No we don't. The interpretations of such things are fiercely debated, and they change frequently.

We don't have consensus on property rights which was why they were left out in 1982. Environmental rights are much like property rights - generally supported only by people on one side of the political spectrum.

I can see a case, though, for clarity in this area - and that it would help both sides. As for property rights, we don't have them. The government can and will seize whatever it likes in certain situations. If there is something like clarity that would be of benefit to both sides, then maybe you could submit that for discussion too.

If your answer is no or yes with caveats you should understand my objection to environmental rights.

Ha ! There are always caveats TimG...

[TimG]

As for property rights, we don't have them. The government can and will seize whatever it likes in certain situations.

That is your opinion. Many people see that lack of protection for property rights as a gross infringement of basic human rights. This opinion has no less merit than your call for environmental rights.

Like I said, if you don't think that property rights should be in the constitution then how can you possibly expect the ill defined concept of environmental rights to be in there?

Edited December 2, 2013 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

That is your opinion. Many people see that lack of protection for property rights as a gross infringement of basic human rights. This opinion has no less merit than your call for environmental rights.

Like I said, if you don't think that property rights should be in the constitution then how can you possibly expect the ill defined concept of environmental rights to be in there?

What is my opinion ? You didn't say specifically which of my statements you were responding to. Furthermore, I didn't say anything about the merits of property rights vs human rights, I just said what the situation is today and invited you to propose a change - which I would be eager to read.