"Chimps Lack Standing to Sue"
A little sanity from Texas. PETA tried to have chimpanzees named as party plaintiffs in a lawsuit about the proper care of primates. Before you laugh, this is a major goal of the animal liberation movement. Indeed, in Brazil, a chimp was awarded an injunction in his own name.
The point of this is to blur the crucial distinction between animals and humans. Having animals able to sue in their own names would open the door to animal rights radicals suing the heck out of all animal using industries, using the clueless animals as a front to further the liberationists' desires.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 10:01 PM
6 Comments
6 Comments:
Should embryos have standing to sue?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
An interesting question. Certainly more than animals.
Of course, children can't sue in their own names. They do so through guardians, in the name of the guardians, who act for the benefit of the children, with court oversight. If there would be a right for unborn human life, it would be similar. I don't know if unborn humans have ever been able to litigate through guardians before birth. Children have litigated about injuries sustained before birth. Anyone out there know?
Animals should not be able to sue in their own names or through a guardian. Litigation about the proper care of animals should be between and among humans, and/or human institutions.
I just read your other blog post about the chimp in Brazil.
I agree that animals probably should not have standing per se as that would disrupt medical research.
However, I disagree with your assessment that giving animals standing would dehumanize the rest of us by blurring the line between animal and human. Rather, I sympathize with the compassion that underscores giving animals SOME rights. Animals feel pain and that is enough for me to say they deserve compassion.
I do not believe "the sanctity of life" should be limited to humans. Rather, all life should be sacred (or dignified), simply by being alive or to put in spiritual terms, all of God's creations are in fact God's property, not ours.
That said, what exactly that "dignity" entails is a very different matter. For instance, whether all that translates to giving embryos, animals, or yeast standing on their own or through guardians.
But it remains - giving the rest of the animals of the forest respect is far from humanizing them, but rather quite compassionate (and personnally, I would add it respects God).
One last thing - I saw one law journal article about giving animals intellectual property rights. Specifically, the author proposed that humans are compensated for the use of their likeness being used for commercial advertising, animals should be compensated as well. The author proposed some percentage of the profits being used to support conservation.
Barring the obvious difficulties of the details (i.e. which conservation effort), I think it is a brilliant proposition. One that would be both fair and beneficial.
In anticipation of your response - No, I would not find this system de-humanizing.
On one level, it is a dumb idea. If someone used my name or likeness to make a profit, I have been wronged individually and can seek compensation.
Animals have no such intellectual proprietary interests or even understand the concept that they are being filmed or depicted.
I support conservation, so I would certainly not object to a call by such groups for companies that make use of animal images to donate a percentage of profits to such causes, particularly since people respond positively to animal pictures. But, it would be ridicuilous to make it mandatory.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home