Quatloos!

I am indebted to Evictees and Families Unite for drawing my attention to a Guardian article: New Zealand river granted same legal rights as human being.

Treating a natural resource as something to be respected and not merely exploited sounds good. But the legal implications are interesting.

"Te Awa Tupua will have its own legal identity with all the corresponding rights, duties and liabilities of a legal person," said Finlayson in a statement.

Okay. So if a person drowns in the river, can it be charged with murder? I suppose New Zealand doesn't have the death penalty, but can a river be imprisoned?

Perhaps disappointingly, the Bill clarfies:

(1) Te Awa Tupua is a legal person and has all the rights, powers, duties, and liabilities of a legal person.

(2) The rights, powers, and duties of Te Awa Tupua must be exercised or performed, and responsibility for its liabilities must be taken, by Te Pou Tupua on behalf of, and in the name of, Te Awa Tupua, in the manner provided for in this Part and in Ruruku Whakatupua—Te Mana o Te Awa Tupua.

And:

The purpose of Te Pou Tupua is to be the human face of Te Awa Tupua and act in the name of Te Awa Tupua.

So, if the river kills someone, this "human face" gets jail time? Probably not:

The persons appointed to Te Pou Tupua are not personally liable for any action taken or omission made in their capacity as Te Pou Tupua, but only if the action or omission relates to their powers and functions under this Act and they have acted in good faith.

When the bill receives royal assent, the river will not only be a legal person but also, for some purposes, an institution, a public body, a public authority and a body corporate.

Well, NZ is the only place where one can lawfully get married in a Pastafarian ceremony.

Carbo Diem.

It's a national shame how Pastafarians are cruelly persecuted here in Vancouver;

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/b-c-pastaf ... -1.2041844

So, are those people now legally naiads?

And in any case, what is the practical difference between this and a conservation trust?

littleFred wrote:Okay. So if a person drowns in the river, can it be charged with murder? I suppose New Zealand doesn't have the death penalty, but can a river be imprisoned?

You got to get it in court first.

grixit wrote:And in any case, what is the practical difference between this and a conservation trust?

I suspect this is actually the case. The declaration pacifies the Maori demands and helps settle the issue.

Wondering what happens if you pee in it? Sorry, had to be asked.

Well, for one thing: if it were the Cuyahoga, you could always tell it that you wouldn't piss on it if it were on fire.

ArthurWankspittle wrote:... The declaration pacifies the Maori demands and helps settle the issue.

Yes. I see the Bill includes a tweak to the NZ Income Tax Act. I'm not familiar with NZ law, but if this was in the UK, I fear more tweaking would be needed to the effect that the river itself (unlike humans and companies) is incapable of committing crimes, has no responsibilities for taxes or other civic duties, and so on.

The "human" face, the Te Pou Tupua, can commit crimes, of course. But it would be those humans who committed the crimes themselves or as a corporate body, rather than merely admitting responsibility for actions done by the river.

From a SovCit perspective, this might be a line used to avoid taxes: "A river runs through my land. A river can be a legal person. If you want to tax my land, then place the tax on the river."

Courts may need to rule, eg People v Frazier:

Despite the physical ability to commit vicious and violent acts, dogs do not possess the legal ability to commit crimes.

littleFred wrote:Courts may need to rule, eg People v Frazier:

Despite the physical ability to commit vicious and violent acts, dogs do not possess the legal ability to commit crimes.

oh jeeze, my dog is an angel but dogs do get charged with crimes. even the nicest dogs can be psychopaths. like those dirty cop dogs with their grow op's and grenade launchers.....

http://time.com/5234/mcgruff-the-crime- ... launchers/

because you cant have a crime dog without the crime. who's a good boy mcgruff?

peace,
ninj

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-39336284

India follows NZ in River personhood

These decisions may sound a bit odd to us, but they are actual determinations by real governments, and I don't think they really belong on the Sovereign Citizens board.

The story made it to one of my favorite websites;

http://loweringthebar.net/2017/03/river ... erson.html