biodiversity
Paragraph 29 oftheirresolutionCoP18
Doc.69-5,goesontoadda clausethatturns
hundredsofyearsofWesternjurisprudence
onitshead.Theninecountriesdemand:
Theburdenshouldbeplacedon
thosepartiesthat claim the contrary
todemonstrateit.
Inotherwords,becausetheproponents
of thisinvasionof thesovereignrightsofthe
nationsof CITEScannotprovethatlegaland
illegaldomesticivorymarketscontribute
directlyto thepoachingof Africanelephants,
theyhavedecidedto puttheburdenontheir
opponentsto provethatit doesn’t.
GIVENTHISLOGIC:
- Prosecutorsincommonlawcountriesdo
nothavetoprove,beyonda reasonable
doubt,thatanaccusedcommitteda crime;
rather,theaccusedhastoprovethatheor
shedidnot. - Underthisevidentiarystandard,the
accusedhastoprovethenegative–
I didn’tstealtheapplefromthestand,
I didn’tpickthefellow’spocket.Asa result,
lawenforcementcouldaccusevirtually
anyoneof anything– allcasesmagically
closedwithindays– leavingit to the
individualto subsequentlyamasstheproof
thathedidnotcommitthecrimeof which
hestandstobepunished. - Arethenationsoftheworld,gatheredin
SriLankatodealwithtradein endangered
speciesof floraandfauna,reallyprepared
to declareto theworldthattheyarelegal
scholarsin muftiandofsuchimpeccable
wisdomthattheyarereadyto reverse
hundredsof yearsofjurisprudence? - ArethelegallytraineddelegatestoCoP18
ready to state that the Latin maxim semper
necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit- the necessity of proof always lies
with the person who lays charges – is
so hopelessly old-fashion that it must be
abandoned to help Western animal rights
groups win at
all costs? >>
- the necessity of proof always lies
Photo © Jonathan Pledger