Earlier this year, Wesley J. Smith reported in THE WEEKLY STANDARD on the drive among environmentalists to make "ecocide" an international crime:
But what is ecocide, precisely? Practically any business activity that environmentalists loathe, from large scale resource development to nonrenewable energy generation, along with any accidental ecological disaster would potentially qualify as a crime against peace. As envisioned by ecocide’s rising star, Polly Higgins, who recently addressed the United Nations promoting a Universal Declaration of Planetary Rights, the This Is Ecocide website states:
Ecocide is the extensive destruction, damage to or loss of ecosystem(s) of a given territory, whether by human agency or other causes, to such an extent that peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants of that territory has been severely diminished.
Undeterred by the apparent insanity of this idea, Smith now reports that environmentalists are going to televise a mock ecocide trial:
When I mention this environmental misanthropic threat in speeches–as so often happens about many of the radical policies that this way come–people often roll their eyes with that “it can’t happen here” look on their faces. Well it will happen here if we aren’t careful. Indeed, ecocide advocates are about to run a mock trial streamed live on Sky News in the UK. From the New Zealand Standard story:
Michael Mansfield QC (prosecuting barrister) and Nigel Lickley QC (defence barrister) will lead the case for and against Mr X. Mr X has been charged with a number of ecocides – which one will be tried will be determined on the day – and could be:
- Deforestation of the Amazon
– Arctic drilling
– Fracking for shale gas in Nigeria
– Major oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico
– Bauxite mining of the Niyamgiri mountain
– Unconventional tar sands extraction in Canada
– Deep sea mining of the Central and Eastern Manus Basin
The trial will examine how the crime of Ecocide protects the Earth Right to Life.
Note again, the defendants will not necessarily be accused of polluting–as in the Exxon Valdez oil spill sense–but development. And as the painting I embedded above illustrates, once the premise is accepted, it won’t end with the currently named enemies.