During a live circus performance, Russian trainer Sergei Prichinich narrowly escaped death when a female brown bear named Donut, weighing over 490 pounds, suddenly attacked him. The horrified audience, filled with parents and children, watched in terror as the bear, who was riding a hoverboard as part of her act, viciously attacked Mr Prichinich, pinning him to the ground for approximately half a minute, New York Postreported. 

Meanwhile, he desperately tried to defend himself, holding a bar between the bear’s jaws and his body. Just as the situation seemed dire, a worker outside the cage intervened, jabbing at the bear and distracting her long enough for Prichinich to break free. The bear backed off, giving Prichinich a narrow escape from the terrifying ordeal.

Nikita Mikhailov, director of the Moretti Circus, confirmed that the show resumed without further incident after the horrific episode. 

”Towards the end of the act, the bear snapped at Sergei and wrestled with him. Their performance continued,” he said. He noted that the tamer ”waited for the bear to calm down, got up, continued the routine with her, sealed it with a kiss, and that was it.” 

He also praised Mr Prichinich for his quick thinking and professional handling of the situation. ”This is an animal, and they can behave differently, they may not like something, but they can express their emotions this way. Every trainer understands this,” Mr Mikhailov added. 

While everyone was relieved that the trainer escaped unhurt, Russian animal rights activist Yuri Koretskikh renewed his calls for a complete ban on live animal performances, citing the inherent risks and dangers posed to humans and animals in such shows.

”While modern world circus art is rapidly moving towards humanity, banning the use of animals in circuses, the Russian circus lobby is actively resisting progress, defending its commercial interests,” Mr Koretskikh said.

In Russia, animal rights have been a pressing concern, prompting President Vladimir Putin to sign a bill outlawing animal cruelty in 2018. Although the legislation doesn’t address animal performance, activists have continued to focus on this issue. Last year, the Russian Duma proposed a bill to prohibit the use of animals in circuses nationwide. The bill is set to be presented to the lower chamber in October. 

In a groundbreaking declaration earlier this month, Indigenous leaders of New Zealand and the Cook Islands signed a treaty, He Whakaputanga Moana, to recognise whales as legal persons. Image for Representation.
| Photo Credit: AP

In a groundbreaking declaration earlier this month, Indigenous leaders of New Zealand and the Cook Islands signed a treaty, He Whakaputanga Moana, to recognise whales as legal persons.

Aotearoa New Zealand has already granted legal personhood to a river (Te Awa Tupua Whanganui River), land (Te Urewera) and a mountain (Taranaki maunga), but He Whakaputanga Moana differs from these earlier processes. It is based in customary law, or tikanga Māori, rather than Crown law.

The declaration seeks to protect the rights of whales (tohorā) to migrate freely and to use mātauranga Māori alongside science for better protections. It also aims to set up a dedicated fund for whale conservation.

But a core concept of legal personhood is the idea that the “person” (in this case, whales) can sue to protect their rights.

The declaration was signed by King Tuuheitia Pootatau Te Wherowhero VII of the Kiingitanga movement, Lisa Tumahai who chairs the Hinemoana Halo Ocean initiative, and the Cook Islands leader Kaumaiti Nui Travel Tou Ariki.

It recognises traditional Māori and Pasifika ideas about the importance of whales as ancestral beings. King Tuuheitia described it as “a woven cloak of protection for our taonga”, noting the presence of whales “reflects the strength of our own mana”.

While He Whakaputanga Moana is not a pan-Māori declaration, mana is a shared core concept of tikanga Māori, representing authority and power.

What is legal personhood?

Over the past few hundred years, legal personhood has been developed for companies as a way for individual shareholders to avoid liability. This means a company can go to court, rather than its shareholders.

In the past decade, Aotearoa New Zealand has led the way in developing legal personhood for things in nature into a tool used as part of settlements under Te Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi. It is important to note that these ideas have been recognised and implemented by the Crown in partnership with Māori.

As part of the signing of the Tūhoe settlement in 2014, the former national park Te Urewera was granted legal personhood. In 2017, legal personhood for the Whanganui river was also part of a settlement. And last year, this idea was extended to Mount Taranaki. The Taranaki Maunga Collective Redress Bill passed its first reading in parliament last week.

These natural features are now not owned by people or the Crown, but by themselves.

Legal personhood has been praised in New Zealand and overseas by people interested in using it to protect the environment.

Tikanga key to unlocking legal power

There is currently a shift in the legal system to recognise tikanga as a key source of law alongside statute and common law (the kind of customary law New Zealand inherited from England).

In the recent case of Ellis v R, the Supreme Court recognised and applied ideas about mana. In deciding to overturn the conviction of Peter Ellis posthumously, the court held that Mr Ellis’ mana was affected by the convictions, even after his death.

He Whakaputanga Moana is based on customary concepts like mana rather than being a Crown-drafted piece of law. It is likely it could be recognised by the courts as part of the growing wave of tikanga jurisprudence.

Marine mammals in New Zealand’s territorial waters are protected absolutely by the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978 (as has recently been highlighted when the Sail GP regatta was held in a marine sanctuary and races were delayed because dolphins were present).

But He Whakaputanga Moana recognises legal personhood above and beyond that legislation.

Whales in court

So what if whales went to court? What if whales sued for plastic pollution in their habitat, the dumping of waste in the oceans or climate change causing warmer waters and depleting their food stocks?

In this case, He Whakaputanga Moana could potentially give a human interest group, perhaps the Kiingitanga, the legal standing to sue on behalf of whales.

In addition to recognising tikanga as a source of law, the Supreme Court has also opened the door to climate change focused litigation, such as the case of Smith v Fonterra.

Here, activist Mike Smith has sued seven major New Zealand polluters for their greenhouse gas emissions. The defendants said the claim could not succeed and applied for a “strike out”, but the Supreme Court has allowed it go to trial.

Among other findings, the court found the litigation should proceed, as it might involve ideas of tikanga and tikanga-based loss that should be tested at trial. This suggests that if the courts were to recognise the validity of He Whakaputanga Moana in customary law, this case might allow those representing whales to run a claim against ocean polluters.

A ruling in favour of whales could have significant ramifications for the health and wellbeing of our oceans, and perhaps the very existence of their species.