Healani Sonoda-Pale For those of you who want a summary in layman’s terms of what was legally and ethically wrong with the Hawai’i State Supreme Court decision on the lease for the Thirty Meter Telescope atop Mauna Kea read this article by EarthJustice. Yes it seems that the decision was a political one not following the rule of law - a decision that diluted protections for Kanaka rights, and conservation and public lands. Stand with us on January 16, 2018 at the Hawai’i State Capitol to correct this Hewa. #AlohaMaunaKea#AlohaAinaMaukatoMakai
EXCERPT FROM THE ARTICLE BELOW: 1. The opinion inserted two footnotes that dropped legal bombshells: one suggesting that Native Hawaiians must bear the burden to prove their rights, exactly opposite to settled precedent that developers and agencies bear the burden to justify any harm to Native Hawaiian rights; and the other endorsing a false and offensive distinction between “contemporary” (read: fake) and “traditional” (read: real) Hawaiian practices. 2. The opinion also included language suggesting that agencies could limit their analysis of impacts to just the specific project footprint, while disregarding broader harms. 3. Finally, the opinion offered a cursory analysis of the public trust doctrine, a bedrock constitutional principle that protects all natural resources for present and future generations. Instead of following the precedent in the landmark Waiāhole case, the majority applied its own diluted interpretation suggesting, for example, that community benefit payments could fulfill the public trust.
No comments:
Post a Comment