Technically its probably still incorrect (ianal). Municipalities cannot make any local law they want. All law making authority has to be delegated to them by the provincial government. Band councils are a bit more juridsictionally complex, but i imagine this is beyond their authority too.
Municipal government making a law outside of their authority has the same effect as if you or i declared a law.
> Although the title of legal personhood is a unique way of approaching conservation, it can draw questions about how the Magpie will manage the intricacies of the legal system — especially since it can now theoretically sue and be sued.
> In the case of damage, due to flooding for instance, Cárdenas explains that the Magpie would likely not be found liable. "The river doesn't commit intentional damage, therefore it cannot be sued," she said, pointing out that those who build in known flood zones are also aware of the risks.
Intent is not a condition for successfully suing someone but realistically this entire thing is mostly a joke anyway so might as well make up the entire thing as they go.
> The Clamzorians are animists. They believe every rock and tree and river has its own spirit. And those spirits are legal people. This on its own is not unusual – even New Zealand gives rivers legal personhood. But in Clamzoria, if a flood destroys your home, you sue the river.
The creation of new personhood, the attachment of legal rights to what was previously a non-person, is a very dangerous game. It sounds in both abortion and animal rights. If a non-sentient river can be a person, why not a whale? Why not the wild animals that use this river? As living beings one would assume they were due more rights than the river.
That actually makes me wonder: how, if at all, is this different from creating a government agency or non-profit corporation or whatever, giving it ownership of the river, and chartering it to protect the river?
Such an entity would have the same "legal personhood" rights, and its leadership / officers would do pretty much the same thing as the "guardians" discussed in the article. And it avoids all the goofy questions of whether the river itself can be guilty of strict-liability offenses or liable for flooding damage or whatever.
I dont think its a slippery slope. We've had non natural persons in law going back to the romans.
The problematic part here is, how do you determine what a river "wants". Maybe it wants to be polluted the way some humans want to smoke. Ok, maybe not, but still, it seems like this is the wrong tool for the job. Why not just use some sort of environmental easement, or pass some law making it a protected river.
There are multiple slippery slopes, some good, some bad.
It’s a slippery slope to a national park system. It’s also a slippery slope to a public-private partnership to maintain natural sites.
Both are great.
It’s also a slippery slope to a system where natural entities receives court appointed “guardians”, who sue and defend based in the interests of their client, whatever that means.
That would be a mess.
There really needs to be some sort of board, selected by parties with interests in the well-being of the river.
> In 2021, the Innu Council of Ekuanitshit and the regional municipal council of Minganie passed sister resolutions, granting the Magpie River the landmark right of legal personhood
Maybe i'm missing something, but surely this would require an act of either the provincial or federal legislature. Surely this is way outside of the powers of a municipal council.
That's technically a band council not a municipality. They probably have more or at least different rights than a municipality, but i still doubt they have the authority to incorporate a river.
It’s been done before (sort of): the river Vilnelė is declared to have the constitutional right to flow by everyone, in the very first article of the constitution of Užupis. [0]
This makes me wonder, how does a certificate of death work? Could a doctor declare that it does not have a heartbeat, and is therefore dead? Would that remove its person-hood, as there is no person to represent it and show life in court?
Floura and fauna pay their tax in-kind, we use their products to power the economy in lieu of currency. I disagree with the child comment saying that your comment is snarky, I think it's completely valid to look at it this way and helps to complete the systemic analysis.
Readit News
The Canadian legal system has made no such recognition.
Municipal government making a law outside of their authority has the same effect as if you or i declared a law.
Dead Comment
> In the case of damage, due to flooding for instance, Cárdenas explains that the Magpie would likely not be found liable. "The river doesn't commit intentional damage, therefore it cannot be sued," she said, pointing out that those who build in known flood zones are also aware of the risks.
Intent is not a condition for successfully suing someone but realistically this entire thing is mostly a joke anyway so might as well make up the entire thing as they go.
An excerpt:
> The Clamzorians are animists. They believe every rock and tree and river has its own spirit. And those spirits are legal people. This on its own is not unusual – even New Zealand gives rivers legal personhood. But in Clamzoria, if a flood destroys your home, you sue the river.
Because corporations are persons with constitutional rights under US law, if there is a slippery slope this is not where it starts.
Animal rights are one of two important philosophical movements from the second half of the 20th century. Copy-left is the other (and the easier one).
Such an entity would have the same "legal personhood" rights, and its leadership / officers would do pretty much the same thing as the "guardians" discussed in the article. And it avoids all the goofy questions of whether the river itself can be guilty of strict-liability offenses or liable for flooding damage or whatever.
The problematic part here is, how do you determine what a river "wants". Maybe it wants to be polluted the way some humans want to smoke. Ok, maybe not, but still, it seems like this is the wrong tool for the job. Why not just use some sort of environmental easement, or pass some law making it a protected river.
It’s a slippery slope to a national park system. It’s also a slippery slope to a public-private partnership to maintain natural sites.
Both are great.
It’s also a slippery slope to a system where natural entities receives court appointed “guardians”, who sue and defend based in the interests of their client, whatever that means.
That would be a mess.
There really needs to be some sort of board, selected by parties with interests in the well-being of the river.
Or just a regular old national park.
Companies, charities, and governments are all legal persons.
I could form an LLC and that would be a person.
There’s nothing about legal personhood that implies a right to continues existence.
It might make sense for certain natural entities to posses legal personhood.
It would probably make for sense for there to be some kind of public interest real-estate trust.
Maybe i'm missing something, but surely this would require an act of either the provincial or federal legislature. Surely this is way outside of the powers of a municipal council.
My first attempt sounded too much like "u-can-eat-shit" to be correct...I hope...
Silent T’s apparently.
Deleted Comment
[0] https://uzhupisembassy.eu/uzhupis-constitution/