I first saw this over at, naturally, Treehugger where all kinds of “just shake your head at it” stuff comes up. I predict this is going to be an awful thing and the only thing that will have “Rights” in the end will be the Lawyer Class (reformatted, emphasis mine):
A triumphant win for Toledo residents means that the Great Lake’s wellbeing is now an official top priority. In a triumphant win for a group of grassroots environmental activists in Toledo, Ohio, Lake Erie and its watershed will soon have its own Bill of Rights. Led by Toledoans for Safe Water, with support from Advocates for a Clean Lake Erie, the new bill declares that the Great Lake has a right to carry a smaller environmental burden than it currently does. A special vote, held on February 26, drew about 9 percent of Toledo’s registered voters and passed by a 61-39 margin. It is now in the hands of lawyers to determine just what shape this Bill of Rights will take.
From the proposed amendment:
“We, the people of the City of Toledo, declare and enact this Lake Erie Bill of Rights, which establishes irrevocable rights for the Lake Erie Ecosystem to exist, flourish and naturally evolve, a right to a healthy environment for the residents of Toledo, and which elevates the rights of the community and its natural environment over powers claimed by certain corporations.”
Let’s do the math. The US Census Bureau has an estimate of 276,491 in 2017 (down from 287, 288 in 2010). Nine percent would be 24,884 people. Sixty-one percent in the affirmative is 15,179. The EPA says about 12 million people live in its watershed. That means 0.12% of the population just voted to make it a living entity.
So, is this legally binding on the other 99.9% of Toledians? And what if you live in one of the other 17 or so cities with large populations that AREN’T Toledo? Like Cleveland and Buffalo for starters? They get no say in this
This is just another example of worthless Virtue-Signaling and an unwillingness to understand their loosing of the Law of Unintended Consequences. Yet, they believe their own PR, I guess and figure that simply because they “said so”, then Pharoh’s “thus it shall be done” will apply. The real problem is this:
So, if it is a “living entity”, should we consider its water to be its blood? Wouldn’t that mean that using it for drinking water should be off limits? Taken as a whole, should all boating cease including commerce transportation (like cargo)? Tour boats the same, right? I mean, humans have rights – it is clear that Lloyd certainly believes that pickups should not be allowed to run you over (yes, a bit tongue in cheek here).
But if it is a living entity, wouldn’t those things be a direct consequence? And now, with this law, ANYONE now has standing to sue anyone else for “violation of those rights” for any reason at all if it can be construed to be violating Lake Erie’s “rights”? And how would we know if that person is right – is Lake Erie “sentient” and able to speak for itself? What if that person suing has their own purpose and agenda in mind and is now “coercing” the Lake to participate without its consent? I have no doubts that someone will try – all I have to do is look at some of Treehuggers’ past posts and go “just a smidge further and you’re there”.
Look, that all sounds a bit loopy but the Law can certainly be an ass and this one sounds quite ripe for a mucking out after the ass has been standing around for a while.
This is what happens when the idea and definition of what a Right, that is associated with being a Human, is becomes muddled, polluted, and transmogrified to serve a political agenda.
Nonsense on a stick.
