Now, It’s “Whale Rights”

The “nature rights” project — and its ancillaries — keeps advancing, mostly ignored by those who could stop it in its tracks with legislation declaring that only humans and our associations and juridical entities have legal standing in courts or enforceable rights.

Now, a “whale rights” project has commenced, pushed pro bono by a big international law firm, Simmons and Simmons. From the Legal Cheek story:

These frameworks centre on the concept of a “legal person” — an entity acknowledged as having “standing” within the judicial system. Traditionally, this status has been reserved for humans, community organisations, and corporations. Granting this designation to whales represents a groundbreaking shift, acknowledging the value of non-human life and redefining how the law engages with the natural world.

“This legislation challenges traditional legal frameworks by recognising whales as sentient beings with intrinsic value,” said Rob Allen, a partner at Simmons & Simmons. “It builds on existing protections for cetaceans, offering a more comprehensive approach to safeguarding their habitats and acknowledging their complex ecological roles.”

As is often the case in nature rights activism, “indigenous wisdom” is invoked as somehow superior to modern conservation approaches to environmental protection:

Michelle Bender of Ocean Vision Legal, who helped draft the bill, explained its holistic approach: “By integrating Indigenous perspectives, Te Mana o Te Tohorā offers innovative solutions to protect whales while recognising the crucial role of Indigenous peoples in ocean conservation.”

The initiative’s London launch carries significant symbolism due to the city’s historical ties to the whaling industry. Mere Takoko, chief executive of the Pacific Whale Fund, emphasised the poignancy of developing the bill near the River Thames, a former centre of the whale oil trade.

I certainly believe in whale conservation and protecting the awesome beasts from commercial whaling, which no longer serves important human purposes. But lest we forget, whale oil was essential to industrialization back in the day. Once newer energy approaches were discovered, the need to kill whales ceased — and that was a very good thing. But I don’t think any apologies are owed for exploiting whales at a time when it offered so much benefit to human societies.

I have also been thinking about the accelerating invocations of “indigenous wisdom” as the basis for current policies. Indigenous societies were not industrial, and their environmental practices supported far fewer people than required in the modern day; also, their practices were often based on religious beliefs and mysticism. The tendency to invoke indigenous ways speaks, I suspect, to a deepening and rampant anti-Western-civilization emotionalism.

In any event, if whales are granted rights — which would involve access to courts (fronted by environmental radicals) to sue for violations of their putative rights — shipping, offshore electricity-generating windmills, national defense, and other such human enterprises may be subject to deleterious impacts. Be careful what you ask for — you just might get it.