http://www.ecojustice.ca/blog/ecojustice-delivers-a-big-win-for-the-canadian-orca-population
This ruling fills me with jubilation. In my 1998 book The Living Beach, I took a look at the idea that natural phenomena should have legal rights. Bolivia has passed a landmark law on this topic -- and here's a Canadian court asserting the duty of Canada to protect the habitat of a wild animal.
Geologist Stanley Riggs suggests that we might begin by giving legal rights to beaches and other natural objects. He proposes that beaches themselves should have legal standing in the courts; they should become "jural persons," with rights which the courts would be obliged to consider. The idea is disorienting at first, but then so is the present situation. If I sue my neighbour over ownership of some dune land, is there not something absurd about the fact that the law considers my interests and my neighbour's, but not those of the dunes? Surely Gaia is also a party to this dispute.
Of course, the courts already consider the legitimate interests of persons who are unable to speak for themselves -- infants and the mentally incompetent, for instance. Other entities which are,literally, legal fictions are "persons" in the courts, including corporations, trusts, estates and nations. In many jurisdictions, animals have at least minimal rights, such as the right not to be
treated cruelly. Even ships are sometimes treated as jural persons.
If a ship or an estate, why not a beach, a mountain, a stream?





