‘Ecocide’, and crimes against peace.

“The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other - until one day when they are suddenly declared to be the country's official ideology.”- Ayn Rand.

There was a time not so many years ago when the concept of animal land rights, a special category of environmental law, and the very idea of our legal process being hijacked by the UN and international agencies would have been too silly to be taken seriously. Even less time than that the mere suggestion that the balance of power in Canberra could be held by a party with a policy plank of closing down the coal industry within ten years, would have been laughed at.

Now all are in the wings, and the way things are going give us little reason for optimism that common sense will prevail:

CORPORATE polluters would be forced to stand before the International Criminal Court to answer for crimes against the environment under a proposed United Nations law change.

Environmental lawyer and activist Polly Higgins is campaigning for ecocide – damage caused to the environment – to be classed as a crime against peace under United Nations law, alongside genocide, crimes against humanity, crimes of aggression and war crimes. …

Ms Higgins said under the proposed laws, damaging and destructive activity to the environment would be criminalized.

"By creating a law of ecocide, what we do is we impose a legal duty of care on not just corporations but also governments to assist those who are at risk of ecocide, or have adversely been impacted by it," she said.

Environmental protection agencies such as Queensland’s EPA, operated with laws that did not fit their purpose, she said. Penalties only existed if the culprit was caught.

Fascists like Polly, love international law and national law set up under international auspices, such as the various Human Rights Commissions, as the concept of due process is much more relaxed than those of a western society. We tend to take the view that it is up to the crown to prove that an offense has occurred and that the defendant committed it.

You can make a pretty good bet that under international jurisdiction it will be up to the defendant to prove otherwise. Under what is proposed this seems to be the case.

Note the remark: “Penalties only existed if the culprit was caught.”