I Am the Magpie River: How a Quebec river became a person under local law(cbc.ca)
cbc.ca
I Am the Magpie River: How a Quebec river became a person under local law
https://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/the-nature-of-things/this-pristine-canadian-river-has-legal-personhood-a-new-approach-to-conserving-nature-1.7100728
13 comments
Ok, we've replaced "the law" with "local law" in the title above.
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.
Municipal government making a law outside of their authority has the same effect as if you or i declared a law.
Why?
Because Quebec uses the French civil law system and that doesn't allow cities to make their own laws?
You can always make your own laws.
Whether or not anyone else is willing to go along with it is another matter. Making a law does not automatically compel others to accept it as their law. Indeed, those who believe in the French civil law system, which describes the majority of Quebec residents, are not likely to accept laws that are made outside of that framework.
But they might. The only thing that would try to stop it is other people, but if those other people are also on board then anything is possible.
Whether or not anyone else is willing to go along with it is another matter. Making a law does not automatically compel others to accept it as their law. Indeed, those who believe in the French civil law system, which describes the majority of Quebec residents, are not likely to accept laws that are made outside of that framework.
But they might. The only thing that would try to stop it is other people, but if those other people are also on board then anything is possible.
While you are technically correct that if you overthrow the government you can make any laws you want, it seems unlikely that applies to this situation.
The government isn't something that exists off to the side. It is literally just the people. The laws in force are simply what the people choose to recognize.
Indeed, Quebec tradition ensures that most people will choose to recognize the laws crafted under the given framework and not beyond. But they can also choose to look beyond it if they so wish. Of course, they don't have to either.
Indeed, Quebec tradition ensures that most people will choose to recognize the laws crafted under the given framework and not beyond. But they can also choose to look beyond it if they so wish. Of course, they don't have to either.
Let's someone in that city punches the river and get put in jail by the local cops for battery, what do you think would happen?
I encourage you to watch Fargo Season 5 which just finished. The bad guy is basically just that, the sheriff of a small town that doesn't recognize the authority of the U.S. federal government.
I encourage you to watch Fargo Season 5 which just finished. The bad guy is basically just that, the sheriff of a small town that doesn't recognize the authority of the U.S. federal government.
Let's say someone posted explicit nude photos of Magpie on the Internet without her consent. Because CBC just did exactly that (see the link, if you're into revenge porn).
What do think will happen? The answer is nothing, because ain't nobody taking this law declaring Magpie a person seriously. You can create all the laws you want, but they don't mean anything if nobody else is willing to recognize them. Government isn't something off to the side. It's just the people.
What do think will happen? The answer is nothing, because ain't nobody taking this law declaring Magpie a person seriously. You can create all the laws you want, but they don't mean anything if nobody else is willing to recognize them. Government isn't something off to the side. It's just the people.
> It is literally just the people. The laws in force are simply what the people choose to recognize.
We're the remenant of the british empire. The law is not the people. The law flows from the King & parliment, not some we the people BS.
Ultimately laws are enforced by people with guns. You can try to look beyond a bullet from a gun, but that usually doesn't go well.
We're the remenant of the british empire. The law is not the people. The law flows from the King & parliment, not some we the people BS.
Ultimately laws are enforced by people with guns. You can try to look beyond a bullet from a gun, but that usually doesn't go well.
So what you're saying is that it's just the people? A king is only as powerful as his subjects are loyal.
Because the constitution says so.
(Or more specificly, the constitution doesn't mention municipal governments so they dont have instrinsic rights, and all their powers come from the laws creating them. They definitely do not have the power to issue letters patent or anything of the sort)
(Or more specificly, the constitution doesn't mention municipal governments so they dont have instrinsic rights, and all their powers come from the laws creating them. They definitely do not have the power to issue letters patent or anything of the sort)
> 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.
> 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.
If you enjoy thinking about the legal implications of this, you'll almost certainly enjoy the first entry in "Legal Systems Very Different From Ours, Because I Just Made Them Up": https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/03/30/legal-systems-very-dif...
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.
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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
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 am not a lawyer. If an informed opinion regarding the your proposed alternative matters, hire a lawyer with expertise in such matters. On the other hand, if it doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter.
Instead I have some training in philosophy. It gives me some experience with slippery slope arguments, the philosophical rationales for animal rights, and some other equally useful (or useless) ideas.
But insofar as I understand the common law, persons are strictly liable for matters of strict liability and “being guilty” would require a criminal act (e.g. criminal negligence).
But again, hire a lawyer if it matters etc.
Instead I have some training in philosophy. It gives me some experience with slippery slope arguments, the philosophical rationales for animal rights, and some other equally useful (or useless) ideas.
But insofar as I understand the common law, persons are strictly liable for matters of strict liability and “being guilty” would require a criminal act (e.g. criminal negligence).
But again, hire a lawyer if it matters etc.
This is why conventional corporate persons all have a specific governance charter. It labels which human beings are accountable.
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.
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.
Or just a regular old national park.
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.
Legally, “personhood” just means the right to own property.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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...
My first attempt sounded too much like "u-can-eat-shit" to be correct...I hope...
Journalistic piece I found about the Maggie pronounced it something like e-QUAN-uh-she
Silent T’s apparently.
Silent T’s apparently.
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.
[deleted]
Alas! Once it has the benediction of the CBC, it has the weight of the federal government behind it. (only half-joking...)
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]
[0] https://uzhupisembassy.eu/uzhupis-constitution/
[0] https://uzhupisembassy.eu/uzhupis-constitution/
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?
It would just be disincorporsted, like a defunct company.
They missed an opportunity for a tie-in to Spirited Away...
We should make trees persons too, and animals, and ai, then as they pay taxes it'll decrease the tax burden on people, right?
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.
If you're going to post dismissive snark at least make it relevant to the content of the article.
Can't be a person without a cute Magpie River-Chan avatar.
Are Japanese river gods usually represented as cute young girls?
If anime is to be believed, just about anything from vampires to dragons to inanimate objects can be represented by cute girls.
Just as long as it pays its taxes, we’re cool.
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.
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.
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
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
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?
Which raises the question, should a collection of people have different rights than the members of said collection?
Of course a group of people should have no more rights than any one person! It's only natural.
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.)
No, that is not how things are. Companies do not have freedom of speech etc. in the USA.
Don’t they? In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014) the Supreme Court did not address and answer whether for-profit corporations are protected by the free exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, but the Court did recognize a for-profit corporation’s claim of religious belief (equal to the belief of its owners), sufficient for such a corporation to be exempt from a regulation that it (or its owners) religiously object to, if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law’s interest, according to the provisions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.
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.
A person can hold up a sign, but can two people hold up a sign together.
Yeah, this is the critical legal reasoning behind Citizens United, and it doesn't get enough respect from people who dislike the practical outcome of that decision. You do not surrender your rights when you join an organization. Anything that one of its employees could legally do is something that the corporation (which is, as the saying goes about government, just another term for things we agree to do together) should be able to.
It's complicated and difficult to draw the lines and impossible to do it perfectly. But if Elon Musk wants to blow an entire fortune for the lulz, that's kind of up to him. And we shouldn't stop him.
It's complicated and difficult to draw the lines and impossible to do it perfectly. But if Elon Musk wants to blow an entire fortune for the lulz, that's kind of up to him. And we shouldn't stop him.
Corporations are by definition persons. The “incorporate” means to “make a body” - a legal body that can act like a natural person under the law.
Imagine if, say, the New York Times Coporation wasn’t a person.
It couldn’t own property. Or enter into contracts. So no office building, unless one of the investors had a property they cared to rent to individual officers or employees.
Coworking for everybody, basically.
Salaries would be paid from the private accounts of individual investors. As would all expenses.
If an investor ran low on funds, they would have to be replaced, quickly.
All employees would be the personal servants of the executive officer, although their contracts would make clear they must serve the organization as a whole.
Some industries can function like this.
Maritime insurance functioned without incorporation for centuries.
Even today Lloyd’s of London has some “names” which are personally liable, with no corporate veil between themselves and liability.
But businesses like the New York Times Corporation can’t operate that way.
Imagine if, say, the New York Times Coporation wasn’t a person.
It couldn’t own property. Or enter into contracts. So no office building, unless one of the investors had a property they cared to rent to individual officers or employees.
Coworking for everybody, basically.
Salaries would be paid from the private accounts of individual investors. As would all expenses.
If an investor ran low on funds, they would have to be replaced, quickly.
All employees would be the personal servants of the executive officer, although their contracts would make clear they must serve the organization as a whole.
Some industries can function like this.
Maritime insurance functioned without incorporation for centuries.
Even today Lloyd’s of London has some “names” which are personally liable, with no corporate veil between themselves and liability.
But businesses like the New York Times Corporation can’t operate that way.
The law already distinguishes between legal and natural people. The idea that certain groups of people become virtual people is not new. It dates back to roman times and our entire legal system is built around it.
Rivers being people is silly though.
Rivers being people is silly though.
I lost a court case several years ago in Utah because the judge decided I was not a person. I was merely an individual.
The CBC might want to ease up on the 'revenge porn'. Magpie River has not consented to the sharing of that revealing imagery.
The Canadian legal system has made no such recognition.