Page 11 - Unlikely Stories 5

At the Palm Court

“Thank you,” said the king. “I have reached a decision. Both
parties have raised the issue of unprecedented human interference in
our lives. About that we can do little but wait them out; their rise has
been fast and their fall will be equally precipitate. If the question is
whether or not the oaks are victims of arboricide because palms are
supplanting them at human hands, then the court cannot have an
opinion. But both sides have proceeded on a common category error:
palm trees cannot have replaced oak trees for one simple reason.
Palms are not trees; they are flowering plants.”
Elaeis frowned. Bismarck stood impassively.
“However,” continued the Royal palm, “a court of law does not
adjudicate based on the law of the jungle. There would be no court if
a sense of justice and a commitment to its desirability did not exist.
We cannot prevent suffering; it will always be with us. What we can
do is equilibrate redistributively to level the playing field. In a criminal
case the scales of justice must tip decisively owing to the weight of
evidence of guilt or innocence. Here the purpose is to right a wrong.
I cannot ignore the threat to leaf and limb. Thus the court will award
damages, as follows.”
Elaeis smiled. Bismarck stood impassively.
“Natural justice must admit human beings as actors in the drama
of natural selection. Theology might see the interventions of H.
sapiens as divine punishment for our sins, but our jurisprudence does
not define animal behavior as acts of God. On the issue of habitat
hijacking, the court rules that any palm planted where once stood an
oak must be removed. On the issue of inappropriate transport of
species, the court awards the right of palms to remain in place if they
do not occupy a location that an oak might find congenial. No
wrongdoing is admitted, and the actual percentage of extant palms
affected should be less than ten percent. If either party can bring a
human to court, I will be glad to reopen the case.”

10