next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
All:
Mark Butler of EAC sent around this important judgement to its
committee on bird issues (represent the NS Bird Soc. on gthat
committee). It does indeed demand that significant threats to birds at
risk from window reflections be attended by corporations, even
although the accused was acquitted. (Cadillac-Fairview was
acknowledged, fairly I think, to have tried harder than most to
mitigate the problem.)
The judgement, which I've read in full, is fascinating reading for its
scope and rigour, and heightens my respect for the judiciary. I note
that the SPC did not seem to get much attention in the judgement,
which makes much use of the Species at Risk Act (SARA) status of a
mere handful of the many window kills. I wonder wonder if it would
have the judgement would have differed been different if the Migratory
Birds Act rather than SARA had been the basis for Toronto-based FLAP's
case.
A wider community might be interested in reading the judgement in full
in the Ecojustice blog:
<http://www.ecojustice.ca/blog/how-losing-in-court-is-still-a-win-for-migratory-birds>
You can find the full judgement by clicking it at the left-hand bottom.
It shows what's needed in pressing for judgements against
environmental violators in general, and gives a nice delineation of
scales of impact, so that if a Canada Warbler hits your cottage
window, you should have nothing to fear, but might want to learn to do
something about it.
Best, Ian
Ian McLaren
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects