Rights of nature and the “kincentric” turn in Canadian settler law

This paper considers how the legal articulation of “rights of nature” (RoN) advances social and environmental justice goals in Canada. Focusing on the St. Lawrence River (STL) watershed as a case study, it explores why politicians and environmental not-for-profit groups (ENGOs) have pursued a RoN legislation strategy in this case, and what they hope to achieve. The story that emerged is that the RoN movement is evidence of a hoped-for paradigm shift that is critical for the world and that is to some extent already occurring. This paradigm shift is often described as one towards ecocentrism or towards a more Indigenous-centred view. Alternately, the concept of “kincentrism” is another way of understanding the shift that the RoN movement is encouraging. Kincentrism can be seen as a reorientation for North American settler colonial society, towards greater respect for relationality between, and common ancestry of, human and non-human life. This way of understanding kinship is central to many Indigenous legal systems and worldviews. The research demonstrated that many of those actively involved in the RoN movement are planting the seeds of a shift towards (or perhaps back to) a more relational way of understanding the world and its non-human elements. This supports the suggestion that nature rights can be considered a “collective” form of right that is itself more relational than more traditional western rights concepts. While there is optimism amongst many advocates that a RoN-related paradigm shift could have profound socioecological impacts, there are numerous hurdles. First, if the RoN movement in Canada is to support or compliment Indigenous rights, it must be grounded in Indigenous laws rather than simply be “inspired” by them. To accomplish this, RoN initiatives should be led or co-led by Indigenous peoples and include grassroots Indigenous voices. Second, “anthropocentrism” as well as human failures to protect the environment are often cited as key causes of the problems RoN laws aim to address. In employing this framing, advocates and legal drafters must neither erase the fact of historical and ongoing Indigenous stewardship, nor ignore the role of other socio-economic and political forces contributing to environmental degradation such as (racial) capitalism and the ongoing effects of colonialism. Finally, a related concern is that the movement must not distract from or undermine Indigenous self-determination efforts. While the initial two bills did not advance past first reading, other RoN movement goals such as public education may be advancing. As well, the increased public involvement of Indigenous leaders in STL rights recognition efforts over the past year is a positive sign. It may indicate that the RoN movement in Canada represents and supports progress towards greater respect for, recognition of and prioritization of Indigenous knowledges, laws, and lifeways.