Chimp Becomes Litigant: Granted Habeas Corpus
I have been warning for some time now that the animal liberation movement seeks to change the law so that animals can be litigants in lawsuits. (What would really happen is the animal liberationists would be the litigants, with the animal as the unknowing "beard.") Well it has happened in Brazil. I don't have a link, but here is the story. (Hat tip: Center for Consumer Freedom.)
"Correio da Bahia (Brazil)
October 6, 2005
Historic Decision Recognizes Chimpanzee as Legal Subject
At a hearing, the decision of a judge that granted habeas corpus to Suíça was discussed.
By Ciro Brigham
[translated from Portuguese]
Suíça, the chimpanzee who died on September 27, 2005 at the Salvador zoo, just became part of Brazilian legal history: She is the first animal to be recognized as a "legal subject" in a legal action. The judge, Edmundo Lúcio da Cruz, who analyzed the petition for habeas corpus submitted to the "9th Criminal Court" by petitioner/lawyers Heron José de Santana and Luciano Rocha Santana, ruled in favor of the chimpanzee. The decision was made on September 28 and published in the "Official Diary" on October 4th, World Animal Day, the same date that honors Saint Francis of Assisi, patron saint of animals.
"Animals are not able to bring actions in court, in the same manner as persons, since they are only legal objects and are treated as property." This ruling, given a few years ago by a judge in Rio de Janeiro to a lawyer petitioning for the liberty of a bird imprisoned in a cage, is outdated. To the joy of Bahia's animal protection groups, Judge Edmundo Cruz has very different thoughts."
If an animal is being mistreated, it is a human obligation to remedy the situation. But no animal should have the right to petition a human court for a legal remedy as if it were human. Moreover, granting animals a legal status as a litigant, is to state that the animal is a person. Persons can sue those who wrong them in tort. Thus, such thinking would surely quickly "evolve" into animals bringing lawsuits in tort for money damages (with the damages or court ordered attorney's fees going to animal liberationists).
Imagine the harm to scientific advancement if a lab rat could sue for assault and battery because it was the subject of a medical experiment. Consider the consequences if a horse or a cow could sue to be freed from involuntary servitude. Animal liberationists would use the legal system to drive animal-using businesses into the dirt. Indeed, I have no doubt that is the plan.
But turning animals into the moral equals of humans will not only result in great human harm, such as stunting medical progress, but even more perniciously, distort our self perception into being just another animal in the forest. If that is who we think we are, that is precisely how we will act.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 8:33 AM
12 Comments
12 Comments:
My friend, we ARE forest animals, from all biological point of views.
Deal with it.
Furthermore, not all animals or all humans have equal mental competence. To suggest that lab rats, cows and horses should have the same legal standing as primates or adult humans is a straw man argument.
Some primates, cetaceans and elephants are self-aware and I support the idea that they should be granted the same legal rights as a human of equivalent mental competence - for example a human child. We also have a similar moral duty to protect their interests.
This is quite possibly the stupidest thing I have ever heard. However the behaviour of some animal rights activists makes it unsurprising.
You are a pompous idiot.
Fine.
I'm assuming this means I will also be able to sue animals that wrong me? It would be quite hilarious if one of these cats which have been endowed millions were to scratch a handler ;)
There's no evidence that rats are sentient beings, but plenty of evidence that both chimps and great apes are.
I also believe as you do that human life matters, but that doesn't mean that other species aren't as exceptional as we.
Please consider your evolutionary history. Homo sapiens modern once shared this planet with at least two other sentient species, Homo Neanderthalensis and Homo Erectus. Both other species showed advanced tool use, ritualistically buried their dead and created art.
We are almost certainly the most intelligent species on the planet, but intelligence neither determine sentience nor rights. I am more intelligent than a human infant, but that infant holds as many rights as I do. If chimps display self-awareness (recognition of themselves in the mirror is one test of this) and use of language (well documented cases of chimps using American Sign Language exist, in addition to the more well known Koko the ape) then they can do everything that my small children can do. Aside from the roughly two percent genetic difference between us and them, what else separates our species so severely that they shouldn't hold the same rights as we?
people are really really stupid, all this is, is a way for certain groups of people to make ridiculous amounts of money and have a perfect scape-goat (maybe quite literally).
I say fuck animal rights liberationists because, we should learn to fix "human" problems before trying to give other species human rights and including them in our problems.
As a whole though, its an interesting take on law and how absurd the system of so called justice has become. It will be quite a century that we are a walking into.
By the way, have you heard of the " 15% human sheep."
Feel free to sue all the animals that "wrong" you. You most likely wandered into their territory, therefore you are at fault.
Besides, even if you win, have fun w/ the catnip... that's about all they can give up.
Animals should not have "human Rights". The are animals not humans. Thats what animal rights are for. We have laws to protect animals from mistreatment. The fact that an animal, even a chimp can not make an argument on its own behalf should say something right there. If we are going to give them our rights we also need to hold them accountable to our laws. This is just no feasible. I do agree that animals need to be protected and there are some things that people do to them that is just not right. But they are not human and therefore should not have human rights. End of story.
This could all be seen as beside the point. Regardless of the intelligence level of an animal, IT STILL IS NOT A HUMAN.
The question is not necessarily 'should any organism above a certain intelligence be granted certain rights', it could also be argued that the question is 'should other species participate in our legal system'. In either case there are arguments pro and con, but we haven't even settled what the question is, let alone the answer.
Personally I think it is all going down a mighty slippery slope. There is no really clear qualitative distinction between organisms of different mentality. If I can argue that a Chimp is sufficiently intelligent or self aware (whatever that means) to warrant granting it the same rights as a human, then what about certain monkeys? What about parrots and crows? There is no clear dividing line and thus the whole issue will end up being endlessly and expensively litigated forever. This isn't even getting into what it implies for the future. What about computers?
What SHOULD be considered is utility to human society. Is it a good idea to go down this road? Maybe we might want to leave these sorts of decisions to future generations who might have a different take on the whole thing, or different needs. It doesn't seem to me we NEED to give animals civil rights to insure that they are treated well.
Regarding someone suing an animal...
Most people here are assuming that intelligence/consciousness/sentience is the proper basis upon which to allocate rights, and I will go along with that.
In that case, an animal could (would, should?) be allocated rights on a sliding scale, accordingly. We don't allow someone to sue a human child if that child harms them in some way; however, we do allow someone to sue that child's guardian. The same could be done for animals: their guardians would be liable. This wouldn't really change anything from that regard, because currently those people are already liable as their owners, if negligence can be shown. (Note that negligence is the same measure used to determine parental culpability for their children's actions.)
This has similarities to the evolution of the rights of children. It used to be that children were basically considered the property of their parents, and parents could treat them however they saw fit, almost without limitations. Gradually that eroded over generations to what we see today. Why shouldn't the same thing happen for the more intelligent animals now? It is, for example, immoral (and illegal) to torture an animal. What about protecting sentient animals in other ways, such as right-to-life, and so on?
I participated in a research program studying dolphin intelligence at the Kewalo Basin Marine Mammal Laboratory in Hawaii some years back, and was amazed and delighted to learn that dolphins actually do have at least a rudimentary language. (e.g. they have been demonstrated to have names for each other, and will even talk about each other when the dolphin being talked about is not part of the conversation!) Is it right that such a sentient being can be killed at will by humans? I don't think so, and many others agree.
First I would say, yes, we should respect the creation around us. Given that our world drifts further and further towards atheism and buying into the evolutionary THEORY( not science or fact) it is small wonder that the first thing on your minds is not that man was CREATED in God's image. One day you will realize the incredible difference between mankind and other beings. I hope for your sake it is not at a time when it will make no difference to your eternal destiny. God commanded Noah to kill and eat. Disobey God if you want. Jesus ate lamb and fish at the very least.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home