Why does SH&DCRA insist on full protection of common rights?

 

Why has SH&DCRA insisted, and continue to insist, so strongly on protection of common rights? Why is SH&DCRA unwilling to give it up its insistence, even if it has put the Association at loggerheads with other stakeholders in the commons? Because no one has the right to tell us how we should or should not exercise our common rights. SH&DCRA’s approach is based on the principle of rejecting domination of the common rightholders by any other organisation.

 

Exercising our common rights under the laws, and whether we exercise that right or not, concerns only common rightholders. The narrative that's been told to us for years and still continues is that common rightholders should not get in the way of what the owners and usurpers want to do on the common.

 

If others are concerned about common rightholders actions, SH&DCRA are ready to address those concerns. Is there a question? We'll answer it. Is trust lacking? We'll build trust. But no one has the right to say to us: You can't have/do this because I don't want you to.

 

This is the secret of our Association that's persisted for decades; we've been insistent about our own rights. Common rights are important, but even more important is proving that SH&DCRA takes no orders from anyone and submits to no domination.

 

If there are any questions or uncertainties regarding the rights that the common rightholders exercise, we're ready to provide answers and dispel that uncertainty. The path to that is solely through diplomacy, as recent meetings between other stakeholders and SH&DCRA have shown.

 

Any negotiations will only reach a conclusion when the rights of the common rightholders are acknowledged, respected, and we can exercise our rights under the law without hinderance. We're not waiting for anyone to recognize our rights; our rights are already legitimate; our rights exist in law. What SH&DCRA wants is for our rights to be respected.