Speaker 1: Hey, Drilled listeners, I wanted to bring you this episode
Speaker 1: of Damages, our new show, because it's about Ecuador and
Speaker 1: dovetails with our season on the Chevron Ecuador case back
Speaker 1: in season five. This episode gets into Ecuador's history as
Speaker 1: a leader in the rights of nature movement. It was
Speaker 1: the first country to bake rates of nature into its constitution.
Speaker 1: That happened under Rafael Correa, right around the time that
Speaker 1: things were starting to really shift around the Chevron Ecuador
Speaker 1: case down there. The Constitutional Court in Ecuador just released
Speaker 1: a ruling in late twenty twenty one that was pretty
Speaker 1: groundbreaking and has really started to spark some interesting changes
Speaker 1: in both climate law in general and rights of nature
Speaker 1: across the board. We get into all of that and
Speaker 1: more in this episode. I hope you enjoy it, and
Speaker 1: please go and check out Damages. We're doing some really
Speaker 1: exciting work over there, and I want you guys to
Speaker 1: listen to it. If you're not already subscribed to our
Speaker 1: newsletter or our Patreon, you can do that at either
Speaker 1: Patreon dot com slash Drilled or Drilled podcast dot com.
Speaker 1: In both cases, you get ad free and bonus episodes
Speaker 1: delivered to your inbox. Plus weekly write ups on whatever
Speaker 1: I'm reporting that week, so check that out. You can
Speaker 1: also support us by leaving a reading or review wherever
Speaker 1: you're listening to your podcasts. It actually really helps a lot,
Speaker 1: so it's a great way to support us. Thanks for
Speaker 1: listening and for supporting the show and all of our work,
Speaker 1: and I hope you enjoy this episode. Welcome back to Damages.
Speaker 1: I'm Amy Westervelt. So far this season we've looked at
Speaker 1: how rights of nature has worked in both tribal court
Speaker 1: and district courts in the United States.
Speaker 2: What would the law have to look like to correspond
Speaker 2: to a state of affairs in which the river had rights?
Speaker 3: The suit would have to be brought in the name
Speaker 3: of the river.
Speaker 4: The river would be the planet, not Jones.
Speaker 1: But for most folks, if they've heard about rights of
Speaker 1: nature at all, it's not because of how the idea
Speaker 1: has played out in the US, but because of how
Speaker 1: it took hold in South America, particularly in Ecuador Monica.
Speaker 1: Firietinta mentioned this in our last episode.
Speaker 5: You know, it is quite unique in the world. The
Speaker 5: constitution in Ecuador has this acknowledgement that nature has rights,
Speaker 5: something that doesn't exist in other constitutions.
Speaker 1: In two thousand and eight, Ecuador became the first country
Speaker 1: in the world to write rights of nature into its constitution. Today,
Speaker 1: we're going to look at how that came about and
Speaker 1: why we're just now starting to see rulings come out
Speaker 1: of Ecuador that are shaping how the whole world understands
Speaker 1: rights of nature. We're going to time travel a bit first,
Speaker 1: all the way back to the nineteen seventies when the
Speaker 1: oil industry first arrived in Ecuador.
Speaker 5: Joye sa lugar A in Nagosto.
Speaker 1: This is Louis Yanza. He moved to the Oriente area
Speaker 1: of the Ecuadorian Amazon, that's in the eastern part of
Speaker 1: the country as a kid in the seventies. He says,
Speaker 1: when he stepped off the bus in Lago Agrio, the
Speaker 1: largest city in the area at the time, the streets
Speaker 1: were literally filled with oil, as in there was oil
Speaker 1: running down the streets. He stepped onto a street of oils.
Speaker 5: A Sosan in Yominama de.
Speaker 1: Jansa says growing up he would see big black clouds
Speaker 1: in the distance nuez neingras. He didn't know what caused them,
Speaker 1: but he found out later it was the oil refineries.
Speaker 1: In the area. Later he would see pits filled with
Speaker 1: wastewater and oil in the jungle as well. All of that,
Speaker 1: the oil streets, the black clouds, the waste pits, who
Speaker 1: created them and whose responsibility it was to clean them
Speaker 1: up became the focus of a massive lawsuit that started
Speaker 1: in nineteen ninety three against the American oil company Texaco.
Speaker 4: Whether you drive on many come back a medium sized
Speaker 4: gar or a magnificent limousine, you can trust Texico to
Speaker 4: have the great gasolines exactly right.
Speaker 1: That suit lasted through an acquisition Chevron acquired Texico in
Speaker 1: two thousand, multiple trials and settlements and appeals in courts
Speaker 1: in multiple countries. There are aspects of that case that
Speaker 1: are still going on today. It's long and really really complicated.
Speaker 1: I did a whole twelve part podcast about it on
Speaker 1: my other show Drilled. But for our purposes today, it's
Speaker 1: important to understand a few key things about that case. First,
Speaker 1: that some indigenous communities in the Amazon were literally obliterated
Speaker 1: by foreign oil companies in the seventies. Foreign companies started
Speaker 1: an oil industry in Ecuador that was many, many times
Speaker 1: more harmful and polluting than they would ever dare to
Speaker 1: be back home. Then it's important to note that the
Speaker 1: election of a new Ecuadorian president changed the course of
Speaker 1: that case and the country's relationship to oil. And finally
Speaker 1: that Chevron technically lost that case, but instead of paying
Speaker 1: or cleaning up the oil pits, they took the lawyers
Speaker 1: to court and halt the government of Ecuador in front
Speaker 1: of an international arbitration tribunal for daring to let its
Speaker 1: citizens sue Chevron. In a word, colonialism, or to put
Speaker 1: a finer point on it, oil colonialism. Oil colonialism has
Speaker 1: cast a black cloud over the economy and government of
Speaker 1: Ecuador for fifty years. So imagine how exciting it was
Speaker 1: for Ecuadorians in two thousand and six to have someone
Speaker 1: running for president who promised to do something about it.
Speaker 1: Remember this was during a time period when George W.
Speaker 1: Bush was the President of the United States.
Speaker 6: Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so were we.
Speaker 6: They never stopped thinking about new ways to harm our
Speaker 6: country and our people, and neither do we.
Speaker 1: And Latin America was taking a big swing to the left.
Speaker 7: The forty six year old Morales won the presidency in
Speaker 7: December with more popular support than any Bolivian president in decades.
Speaker 7: He's the latest in a string of left leaning leaders
Speaker 7: to assume power in South America in what many see
Speaker 7: as a backlash against US backed free market policies.
Speaker 1: In Bolivia and Brazil, socialist presidents had just been elected,
Speaker 1: and of course, in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez was the favorite
Speaker 1: socialist boogeyman of the capitalist West. Ecuador was poised to
Speaker 1: take a hard left too. When Chavez made international headlines
Speaker 1: calling Bush the devil, Ecuador's socialist candidate, Rafael Goria said
Speaker 1: that was an insult to the devil. Coorea made indigenous
Speaker 1: rights a campaign promise, and he vowed to renegotiate the
Speaker 1: country's contracts with foreign oil companies. That made him a
Speaker 1: huge threat to American corporate interests, but wildly popular with
Speaker 1: the people of Ecuador. Correa's anti establishment campaign didn't mince words.
Speaker 1: He called the Congress a sewer and vowed to overrun
Speaker 1: the old Guard with a citizen revolution. He was elected
Speaker 1: in two thousand and six, and just two years later
Speaker 1: made good on his campaign promises. He amended the constitution
Speaker 1: to include indigenous rights, a whole host of other sorts
Speaker 1: of civil rights and yep, you guessed it. Rights of nature.
Speaker 1: It was the first time any country in the world
Speaker 1: had put rights of nature in its constitution.
Speaker 5: Bersonalmente jobingo di Narelida.
Speaker 1: This is Alberto Costa, an economist and the former Minister
Speaker 1: of Energy and Mining for Ecuador. He says he spent
Speaker 1: a lot of years believing that nature was a subordinate object,
Speaker 1: a resource to be used for development or the economy,
Speaker 1: that it must be controlled by human beings. And then years,
Speaker 1: he says, and his thinking changed. He came to realize
Speaker 1: that his view of the world, a view that's still
Speaker 1: shared by much of the rest of the world, was
Speaker 1: completely wrong. Acosta went on to actually help write those
Speaker 1: amendments to the Constitution in two thousand and eight, which
Speaker 1: was a big deal both for Ecuador and for rights
Speaker 1: of nature advocates all over the world who started to
Speaker 1: look at Ecuador as a place to test out the
Speaker 1: idea of using rights of nature to hold corporations accountable.
Speaker 1: In one of the very first cases, activists sued the
Speaker 1: government on behalf of a river that was being impacted
Speaker 1: by a developer and the river one Then the deep
Speaker 1: Water Horizons Bill happened in the Gulf of Mexico.
Speaker 3: The gusher unleashed in the Gulf of Mexico continue used
Speaker 3: to spew crude oil. There are no reliable estimates of
Speaker 3: how much oil is pouring into the gulf, but it
Speaker 3: comes to many millions of gallons since the catastrophic blowout.
Speaker 1: And some folks had the idea of filing a case
Speaker 1: in Ecuador about it.
Speaker 8: Environmentalist organizations from five countries file a complaint on November
Speaker 8: twenty six against British Petroleum VP for the spill of
Speaker 8: over five million oil burrows and the environmental damage linked
Speaker 8: to that spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The complaint
Speaker 8: was filed before an Ecuador's court because this is the
Speaker 8: only country that recognizes nature as a subject and protects
Speaker 8: its rights in its constitution.
Speaker 1: If Ecuador's constitution protected mother nature, was that really just
Speaker 1: limited to ecosystems within the country's borders. It was an
Speaker 1: interesting test of Ecuador's rights of nature law, but ultimately unsuccessful.
Speaker 1: The case was thrown out for lack of jurisdiction, and
Speaker 1: then not much happened on rights of nature for a while,
Speaker 1: no big cases but Correa. Yeah, he kept turning up
Speaker 1: in the news.
Speaker 2: Planter com promiso then no explotade cercas.
Speaker 8: Petrolium.
Speaker 1: The international press could not get enough of this plan
Speaker 1: he had hatched to protect the Amazon, specifically Yasuni Park,
Speaker 1: where an enormous oil reservoir had been found beneath an
Speaker 1: exceptionally fragile part of the forest. Corea tried to sidestep
Speaker 1: the oil curse. Instead of having to decide whether to
Speaker 1: preserve the forest or get the oil money, Correa proposed
Speaker 1: something along the lines of climate debt. Developed countries should
Speaker 1: pay Ecuador not to extract that oil. For just three
Speaker 1: point six billion dollars over thirty teen years, Ecuador would
Speaker 1: agree to leave it in the ground, avoiding more than
Speaker 1: four hundred and seventy three million tons of CO two emissions.
Speaker 1: It also would have protected one of the most biodiverse
Speaker 1: places on the planet. Five years later, though, Korea was
Speaker 1: announcing a shockingly different plan to the country.
Speaker 4: So Alassemble nal.
Speaker 9: I asked the National Assembly a national interest to explore
Speaker 9: for oil in Yasuni. But listen well, people of Ecuador,
Speaker 9: especially my dear young people. Exploration will effect less than
Speaker 9: one percent of Yasuni Park.
Speaker 1: Jessuoni Developed Nations had only kicked in thirty million dollars
Speaker 1: to preserve the Ecuadorian Amazon, and Korea's argument was that
Speaker 1: he couldn't say no to the economic development the country
Speaker 1: so desperately needed just to save a forest for a
Speaker 1: lot of people. This officially marked the end of Korea's
Speaker 1: commitments to indigenous communities and the environment. By this point
Speaker 1: in his presidency, Korea had already survived a coup attempt
Speaker 1: and various corruption scandals. Chevron had gone after him really
Speaker 1: hard for supporting the case against it in Ecuador, and
Speaker 1: he was coming to grips with the fact that his
Speaker 1: country's economy had become entirely dependent on oil money. He
Speaker 1: couldn't turn that off immediately and risk plunging the country
Speaker 1: deeper into poverty. And he couldn't allow more drilling without
Speaker 1: harming indigenous communities and the ecosystem. It's kind of like
Speaker 1: the position a lot of countries are finding themselves in today.
Speaker 1: So Korea went for a plan that made nobody happy,
Speaker 1: just a little bit of drilling. He moved forward with
Speaker 1: plans to drill in just one percent of Yesudy, which
Speaker 1: he thought was a great compromise, but it disappointed both
Speaker 1: environmentalists and indigenous leaders, and even the people who were
Speaker 1: for oil drilling didn't get what they wanted. Over the years,
Speaker 1: Kurea got kind of bitter about the whole thing. Are
Speaker 1: we really going to put nature's rights over helping the poor?
Speaker 5: He asked.
Speaker 1: He complained about quote infantile environmentalism and people who just
Speaker 1: couldn't accept trade offs. Between the coup attempt and the
Speaker 1: various scandals plaguing his administration. From twenty ten until he
Speaker 1: left office in twenty seventeen, Kuda's government was marked by instability,
Speaker 1: and that included the courts too. His successor, President Lenin Moreno,
Speaker 1: made it his goal to strengthen the country's institutions. In
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen, he tasked a Council of Citizen Participation with
Speaker 1: appointing nine new judges to the Constitutional Court. Those judges
Speaker 1: announced that they would take on several rights of nature cases.
Speaker 1: For the first time in years.
Speaker 10: This particular court has prioritized rights of nature specifically, and
Speaker 10: they I've selected a few cases to concentrate on so
Speaker 10: that the parameters of rights of nature, how it is
Speaker 10: applied in practical.
Speaker 11: Ways, the scope of the law.
Speaker 1: Is worked out. This is Melissa Troutman. She's a journalist
Speaker 1: and co founder of the investigative news outlet Public Herald
Speaker 1: in the United States. She made a documentary film about
Speaker 1: rights of nature called Invisible Hand that came out in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty, and she's been following the rights of nature
Speaker 1: movement for several years.
Speaker 10: And one of those cases before the Constitutional Court of
Speaker 10: Ecuador is a case to protect Los Adro's Forest.
Speaker 1: Reserved from mining.
Speaker 10: It's a very, very ecologically diverse forest that will be
Speaker 10: gone if concessions for mining put forth by the Ecuadorian
Speaker 10: government will go through.
Speaker 1: Losdros is a cloud forest that's a type of rain
Speaker 1: forest with dense tree canopies and constant precipitation that looks
Speaker 1: kind of like clouds. It's one of the most biodiverse
Speaker 1: forests in the world and is home to several endangered species,
Speaker 1: including the very adorable brown headed spider monkey. It's also
Speaker 1: already listed as a protected forest in Ecuador, so a
Speaker 1: lot of environmentalists in the country we're asking, if you
Speaker 1: can mine in a protected forest, what does the protected
Speaker 1: label even mean? It's important politically too. The Losros case
Speaker 1: didn't just come before the court after new justices had
Speaker 1: been put in place. It came before the Court during
Speaker 1: a much more business friendly presidency. President Guillermo Lasso vowed
Speaker 1: to expand mining and oil extraction in the country and
Speaker 1: has so far done just that. Tossing mining permits in
Speaker 1: Los Adros could shut down mining in any of the
Speaker 1: country's protected forests, and it could put both Lasso and
Speaker 1: various companies on notice about the court's intention to actually
Speaker 1: enforce rights of nature. That story coming up after the break.
Speaker 12: Are you looking for a country with naively low mining regulations,
Speaker 12: zero red tape and I responsibly low taxes, Look no further,
Speaker 12: introducing a fibulus once in a lifetime opportunity to open
Speaker 12: your very own mind in the most biodiverse country on
Speaker 12: the planet, and there is literally nowhere you can't mind.
Speaker 1: This is from a parody ad that some environmental groups
Speaker 1: made around the time that the Losedro's case was going
Speaker 1: to court.
Speaker 12: Los Cedros ready to mind, Sabu good to blow, John
Speaker 12: tal for grabs.
Speaker 1: The complaint in the lo Aro's case centers on a
Speaker 1: twenty seventeen policy change that allowed mining on six million
Speaker 1: million acres in Ecuador, including more than half of Los Adros.
Speaker 1: It was thought to be a quick move to replace
Speaker 1: declining oil revenues with mining money. Lossros was originally given
Speaker 1: protected for a status because it's home to so many
Speaker 1: rare and endangered species, dozens of them, so environmentalists immediately
Speaker 1: questioned the permits there. Environmental groups began working with indigenous
Speaker 1: leaders in the area and filed their case invoking rights
Speaker 1: of nature to block the mining permits in Los Adros.
Speaker 1: In twenty nineteen, the provincial court agreed with the activists
Speaker 1: mining Los Aedros was a clear rights of nature violation.
Speaker 1: The mining companies appealed that decision and headed to the
Speaker 1: constitutional court in twenty twenty, here's Alberto Costa again.
Speaker 13: Lub deel Castle and Auviencia de los CROs so presentaron
Speaker 13: persola scientificos, the scientificas they received as partes der mundo.
Speaker 1: He says, scientists from all over the world testified to
Speaker 1: defend the spider monkeys, the plant, the water, and it
Speaker 1: was great, magnificent. Even Junta sajimos defendlas. We continue to
Speaker 1: defend isolated situations, He says, this wonderful protected forest of Losdros,
Speaker 1: But why not all the forests, Why not all the
Speaker 1: forests and all the moors. Why not all the water
Speaker 1: sources already for a cost of protecting entire ecosystems would
Speaker 1: be more in keeping with the intention of rates of nature,
Speaker 1: not just one case, one place at a time. But
Speaker 1: there's that problem again of shoehorning this very different view
Speaker 1: of nature into a Western court system. The courts in Ecuador,
Speaker 1: like those in the US, work case by case, so
Speaker 1: it's hard to make big shifts in philosophy. You can't
Speaker 1: really say, forget specifics, let's litigate how we treat forests overall.
Speaker 1: Although rights of nature cases still have to be litigated
Speaker 1: one at a time, Los Cedros was seen as a
Speaker 1: case that could set enough of a precedent to protect
Speaker 1: lots of other forests. So scientists and lawyers from all
Speaker 1: over the world zoomed in to testify before the Constitutional
Speaker 1: Court in Ecuador on behalf of Los.
Speaker 14: Cedros Representantes de Las or the Nisaciones Air Law Center,
Speaker 14: Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature, Center of Biological Diversity,
Speaker 14: International Drivers, Great Lakes Environmental and Loss.
Speaker 1: And then it was a waiting game until finally, in
Speaker 1: December twenty twenty one.
Speaker 7: La Corte Constitutions Delos.
Speaker 5: Hello, this is Jane Goodul. Last week there was some
Speaker 5: wonderful news for those of us who are fighting to
Speaker 5: protect the natural world. The Ecuadorian Constitutional Court, in a
Speaker 5: landmark ruling, agreed that the government should revoke the mining
Speaker 5: permits that it had granted for exploration in the Las
Speaker 5: Cidrus Protected Forest in order to uphold the rights of nature.
Speaker 1: The Cloud forest.
Speaker 13: One huge news the court not only rejected the mining
Speaker 13: permits for those the there's it made some pretty broad
Speaker 13: judgments in its ruling that will help protect other forests too.
Speaker 1: I called up Constanza Prieto, the Latin America legal director
Speaker 1: for Earth Law Center, to get some more details.
Speaker 11: Well, we decide to intervene in Lossdros because it was
Speaker 11: such an important case.
Speaker 1: Trieto is a expert on rates of nature and she
Speaker 1: says the Lossro's ruling will impact not just future rates
Speaker 1: of nature cases, but also how the government thinks through
Speaker 1: permitting for things like mining and ohiel drilling, how rates
Speaker 1: of nature might come into play earlier on in the process.
Speaker 11: What the is very important because they talk about the forest,
Speaker 11: but not only the first about also the university and
Speaker 11: also about the water. They explain what means for the
Speaker 11: authorities all these rules. It's even like a class of
Speaker 11: what should mean for the authorities, also for the judge
Speaker 11: and also for the legislative power, what means our rate
Speaker 11: of nature?
Speaker 1: This is really key. This ruling sets a precedent, and
Speaker 1: the court used this opportunity to not just say yes
Speaker 1: Los thero's wins, no mining there, but also to say,
Speaker 1: this is how authority should think about rates of nature
Speaker 1: in these situations, and this is how policymakers and the
Speaker 1: courts should think of it.
Speaker 11: So that is the main importance of the case. And
Speaker 11: also because such an important subject mining.
Speaker 1: Mining is a hot subject in Ecuador, in particular, since
Speaker 1: that twenty seventeen law change that opened up millions of
Speaker 1: acres to mining. The government has granted permits for more
Speaker 1: than seven million acres in Ecuador, and a lot of
Speaker 1: those acres are in protected forests. So the court's decision
Speaker 1: to throw out the mining permits in loss Thro's could
Speaker 1: reverberate through the economy in a big way.
Speaker 11: That is a biggest statement to say, like no mining
Speaker 11: activities or similar to mine activities now on the future
Speaker 11: can be in this kind of force.
Speaker 1: It's really it's a pretty sweeping ruling no mining activities
Speaker 1: or activities similar to mining can be done in this
Speaker 1: kind of forest, But Preeto says it's not exactly the
Speaker 1: blanket ruling in might seem to be. It's not saying
Speaker 1: no mining in protected for us ever period.
Speaker 11: It's not clear. I think I suppose so well be
Speaker 11: cased by case, but I suppose a more fragile or
Speaker 11: vo diverse ecosystem will not allow this kind of destructive mining.
Speaker 1: So at least in the most fragile and biodiverse ecosystems,
Speaker 1: it seems pretty certain that mining won't be allowed. If
Speaker 1: Ecuadorian President gir Molasso had his way, the ruling wouldn't
Speaker 1: impact anything outside of Los ae CROs. The businessman president
Speaker 1: has pinned his hopes for building Ecuador's economy on mining,
Speaker 1: and there's an interesting twist here. At least some of
Speaker 1: that mining will feed into the international supply chain for
Speaker 1: renewable energy and electric vehicles. In an interview with The
Speaker 1: Financial Times, Lasso said that Ecuador's deposits of copper and
Speaker 1: other valuable metals need to be mined to support the
Speaker 1: global energy transition away from fossil fuels. This is a
Speaker 1: super interesting problem facing the entire world at the moment.
Speaker 1: As we turn towards electrification as part of the solution
Speaker 1: to climate change, how does that system rely on the
Speaker 1: same extract of processes that led to the climate crisis
Speaker 1: in the first place, and what can be done to
Speaker 1: address the impact of those processes. Lasso has also okayed
Speaker 1: a lot of oil development, and it's unclear just how
Speaker 1: much of the country's planned mining is actually connected to
Speaker 1: electrification or how committed to that energy transition the president
Speaker 1: actually is. But Lasso told the FT that he planned
Speaker 1: to try to win over public opinion by quote explaining
Speaker 1: what kind of mining this is, responsible, sustainable mining, and
Speaker 1: defending the greater interest of the majority of Ecuadorians above
Speaker 1: the political interests of indigenous leaders. Meanwhile, just a few
Speaker 1: weeks after the Lesdros decision, the Constitutional Court dealt Lasso
Speaker 1: another potential blow in the same round of constitutional amendments
Speaker 1: that added rights of nature to Ecuador's constitution back in
Speaker 1: two thousand and eight. Remember, the country also added various
Speaker 1: specific rights for indigenous communities. One of those rights was
Speaker 1: the right to free, prior and informed consultation around development
Speaker 1: or extraction projects, taking place in their lands. In February
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two, the court ruled that some indigenous communities'
Speaker 1: rights to this type of consultation had been violated by
Speaker 1: various oil projects. The court called for stronger protections to
Speaker 1: guarantee indigenous communities rights to decide over extractive projects in
Speaker 1: their territories. The one to two punch of Los Sedros
Speaker 1: and this indigenous rights ruling sends a clear signal to
Speaker 1: Lasso and to extractive industries. Ecuador's new court plans to
Speaker 1: take its constitution, including rights of nature and indigenous rights seriously.
Speaker 1: The tension between colonial governments and indigenous nations is something
Speaker 1: that often crops up in rights of nature cases, and
Speaker 1: in a lot of ways, rights of nature laws are
Speaker 1: seen as something of an attempt to bridge the two.
Speaker 1: That was certainly the case in New Zealand, where a
Speaker 1: massive rights of nature case became the first step toward
Speaker 1: healing the harms done by colonialism. That's our story next week.
Speaker 2: The kanundrum in the case is that the people lived
Speaker 2: in the environment. You know, it's quite it was quite
Speaker 2: amusing for them to say, you know, the government owns
Speaker 2: and controls this area and the people were saying, well,
Speaker 2: we live there, so you don't own it and you
Speaker 2: don't control it. One of the key witnesses for me,
Speaker 2: he described it in our language, is tutor. It as
Speaker 2: my mother and my father. It's where I grew up.
Speaker 2: It's where I go to pray. It's where I go
Speaker 2: to partake of food that nourishes me and my future generations.
Speaker 2: So for you to suggest that you can own my
Speaker 2: mother and my father, it's completely entathetical to our ideology
Speaker 2: or our relationships to that environment.
Speaker 1: Come back for that, Thanks for listening, and we'll see
Speaker 1: you next time. Damages is an original Critical Frequency production.
Speaker 1: Our editor and senior producer is Sarah Ventry. Sound designed
Speaker 1: by Repaying, mixing and mastering by Mark Busch. Our fact
Speaker 1: checker is wou dan Yan. Our First Amendment attorney is
Speaker 1: James Wheaton of the First Amendment Project. Our artwork was
Speaker 1: done by Matt Fleming. Our theme song is Bird in
Speaker 1: the Hand by Forenoon. Archival in this episode is courtesy
Speaker 1: of National Public Radio and Vanderbilt University. Damages is made
Speaker 1: possible in part by a generous grant from the File Foundation.
Speaker 1: We appreciate their support. If you're enjoying this podcast, Please
Speaker 1: rate or review it wherever you're listening.