[HN Gopher] I Am the Magpie River: How a Quebec river became a p...
___________________________________________________________________
I Am the Magpie River: How a Quebec river became a person under
local law
Author : pseudolus
Score : 25 points
Date : 2024-02-07 12:22 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cbc.ca)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cbc.ca)
| office_drone wrote:
| This is misleading. The river has personhood _according to a
| municipality with a population of ~7000_.
|
| The Canadian legal system has made no such recognition.
| dang wrote:
| Ok, we've replaced "the law" with "local law" in the title
| above.
| bawolff wrote:
| > 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.
| lainga wrote:
| Alas! Once it has the benediction of the CBC, it has the weight
| of the federal government behind it. (only half-joking...)
| amarant wrote:
| How is that municipality name supposed to be pronounced?
|
| My first attempt sounded too much like "u-can-eat-shit" to be
| correct...I hope...
| unsupp0rted wrote:
| This never made sense to me. Personhood should be reserved for
| persons.
|
| Instead of contorting language and law into pretzels, make new
| law to conserve nature.
|
| A river is not a person. A corporation is not a person.
| anamax wrote:
| A corporation is, however, a collection of people.
|
| Which raises the question, should a collection of people have
| different rights than the members of said collection?
| floydnoel wrote:
| Of course a group of people should have no more rights than
| any one person! It's only natural.
| xhevahir wrote:
| No one said _more_ rights; that they should have all the
| rights of a single citizen is contentious enough. What if,
| for example, we grant freedom of speech to this entity,
| _and_ we take freedom of speech to include the funding of
| political parties, causes, or candidates? (That 's how
| things are at present in the United States.)
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| The question of citizens untied, ect wasnt about if
| corporations get more or new rights, but if the people lose
| rights they had before if they are part of a group.
|
| A person can hold up a sign, but can two people hold up a
| sign together.
| samatman wrote:
| Once you remove corporate personhood from corporations, there's
| nothing left. They can't sue, enter into contracts, be sued, or
| own things, making them unable to serve their intended purpose.
|
| Ah, but you'll say, the law should recognize a distinction
| between humans and corporations! It does. Corporate personhood
| is nothing more than a way of talking about the rights,
| privileges, and obligations, which corporations share with
| humans. When push comes to shove, the fiction is dispensed
| with, this is called "piercing the corporate veil"[0],
| terminology which shows that this is understood to be reasoning
| by analogy.
|
| [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil
| jl6 wrote:
| Just as long as it pays its taxes, we're cool.
| shrubble wrote:
| They missed an opportunity for a tie-in to Spirited Away...
| randomdata wrote:
| The CBC might want to ease up on the 'revenge porn'. Magpie River
| has not consented to the sharing of that revealing imagery.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| 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.
| brudgers wrote:
| Yes. Why not?
|
| 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).
| belval wrote:
| > 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, Cardenas
| 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.
| a_gnostic wrote:
| Can't be a person without a cute Magpie River-Chan avatar.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| Are Japanese river gods usually represented as cute young
| girls?
| verisimi wrote:
| We should make trees persons too, and animals, and ai, then as
| they pay taxes it'll decrease the tax burden on people, right?
| krapp wrote:
| If you're going to post dismissive snark at least make it
| relevant to the content of the article.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-02-08 23:01 UTC)