Groundbreaking Rights and the Fear of Dissent in Ecuador

UUSC Interim President Bill Schulz offers the second in his series of posts from Ecuador, where he is visiting with other UUSC staff to learn more about developments related to the nation's new constitution.  

Here's another foreign concept to American ears — the notion of an independent federal human-rights ombudsperson. Imagine this position appointed by a group of representatives of civil-society groups for a five-year term, renewable once, and removable by the legislature only for cause — not for political reasons. That's what Ecuador has. It's called the public defender, and, though the office has no prosecutorial powers, it is free to investigate and expose all human-rights crimes, be they committed by the government itself or others.

In a conversation today with Ecuador's public defender, Fernando Gutierrez Vera, we talked about the new notion that Nature itself has rights. Gutierrez admitted that it is a novel and untested concept. The truth is that no one is sure how it will be enforced. But my guess is that 20 or 30 years from now, we will see lawsuits brought not just on behalf of the human victims of Nature's exploitation but on behalf of the air and the trees themselves. 

"But they are inert," many will object. They have no consciousness. They are not free agents. How can we possibly imagine suing on their behalf or knowing what they would want? But the fact is that we have no compunction today about bringing suits on behalf of children or those whose medical conditions preclude their making responsible decisions for themselves. We sue to see that animals are treated humanely (a funny construction, I know!). We even sue to see that the interests of the deceased are respected. How great a leap is it to imagine acting in the interests of the natural world itself? And is it really so difficult to discern the interests of that world?

One other fascinating element of our conversations with civil-society groups here in Ecuador:  the government now in power is regarded as one of the most progressive on the continent, but it is apparently growing more and more resistant to dissent. It has, in the view of many social-justice leaders, begun to criminalize peaceful protest under the guise of fighting "terrorism." How familiar is that to us Americans? As one observer put it, "Calling what we are doing ‘terrorism' is an insult to the true terrorists!"

What a society can give in one hand — a groundbreaking new concept of rights — it can take away with the other, by reverting to the old shibboleth that those who challenge the status quo are dangerous extremists seeking to destroy the very fabric of civilization. But then, repressive governments are always frightened governments. And we all know what fear can do to even the best-intentioned souls.