Tuesday, April 03, 2007

Human Identity Crisis: German Court to Decide if Chimp Should Have "Human" Status

I make a lot of speeches, and in recent years I have been warning many of my audiences that serious efforts are afoot to grant animals "human" rights, including the right to bring lawsuits as "persons." (This is one of the goals of the "Great Ape Project," for example.) When I get to this point in the speech, the audience laughs. No one can believe it would ever happen.

Believe. A Brazilian court already has issued a write of habeus corpus in the name of a chimp. And now a case in Germany may well decide that a chimpanzee is a "person" with what up until now have been called human rights. From the story in the Guardian/Observer:

He recognises himself in the mirror, plays hide-and-seek and breaks into fits of giggles when tickled. He is also our closest evolutionary cousin.

A group of world leading primatologists argue that this is proof enough that Hiasl, a 26-year-old chimpanzee, deserves to be treated like a human. In a test case in Austria, campaigners are seeking to ditch the 'species barrier' and have taken Hiasl's case to court. If Hiasl is granted human status - and the rights that go with it - it will signal a victory for other primate species and unleash a wave of similar cases.

The consequences of such a ruling will be to begin the project of tearing human beings off of the pedestal of exceptionalism and transforming us into just another animal in the forest. One of the first results will be animals suing humans for the violation of their "rights." Think not? Again from the story:
If Hiasl is granted human status, Martin Balluch, of the Association against Animal Factories, who has worked to bring the case, wants him to sue the vivisection laboratory. He said: 'We argue that he's a person and he's capable of owning something himself, as opposed to being owned, and that he can manage his money. This means he can start a court case against Baxter, which at the very least should mean his old age pension is secure.
What I find most depressing about all of this is the increasing inability of many people to defend intrinsic human dignity and the unique moral status of human beings--as in the Washington State case a short while back involving an ultimately successful attempt to outlaw bestiality--in which supporters of the law spoke primarily about the inability of animals to consent to sex with humans, instead of the bigger picture which I identified in this Daily Standard article.

Humans are having an identity crisis. And it doesn't bode well for our moral understanding of the importance of being human.

Post Script: I have heard from several people wondering whether this is a hoax due to the publication date of 4/1. So, I did a little leg work. Here is a BBC story about the lawsuit dated March 29.

Labels:

7 Comments:

At April 03, 2007 , Blogger microgeek said...

Does this mean that the chimp will "get" to pay taxes?

 
At April 03, 2007 , Blogger Wesley J. Smith said...

Hi microgeek: No. Only humans will have responsibilities and duties. Animals will only have rights. It's kind of a heads we win, tails you lose situation. Thanks for coming by SHS.

 
At April 03, 2007 , Blogger Jimmy the Dhimmi said...

Maybe its worth it that the legislation goes through, just for the pure entertainment value! I would love to see the chimp all dressed up in a suit and tie in the courtroom, being escorted by the bailif to the stand for cross-examination.

Whats up with the German courts these days? Last week a judge dismissed a divorce case brought about by an abused woman, because she was a Muslim and should have expected it since wife-beating is permitted in the Koran. Sheesh! The age of reason is officially over in Europe.

 
At April 03, 2007 , Blogger Unknown said...

Can we get this story not from an April 1st source?

 
At April 03, 2007 , Blogger Wesley J. Smith said...

That occurred to me, too. But I don't think it is a hoax. These agendas are very high on the animal liberationists' agenda. Moreover, the Observer isn't the Onion.

 
At April 03, 2007 , Blogger Unknown said...

The BBC has the better write up. I should learn to do leg work myself. Cheers.

 
At April 17, 2007 , Blogger Sue said...

Animals don't need to vote or sue. (I'm happy that there are people who are willing to advocate on their behalf.)

Domestic animals should have the same sort of rights to be free from abuse or pain (at the very least) that we have in place for dependent humans who aren't in a position to protect themselves, and who aren't expected to have the same kinds of duties or responsibilities as the rest of us -- babies, nursing home residents, mentally ill, etc.

There are just some thing we wouldn't do to defenseless people, even if they aren't able to speak out for themselves.

And wild animals should have the right to live free from human interference.

And I see the treatment of captive and domestic animals to be a highly moral issue -- one that is ignored by moralists.

If people are against animal rights, they should at least take a discerning look at the underbelly of each and every way animals are used, to discover some dirty little secret, because whenever there's money to be made, abuse and exploitation are hiding in plain sight.

If you're looking for someone who is a religious conservative (Bush's former speech-writer), check out http://www.matthewscully.com

Just passing through on a Google search for a related topic. (Feel free to visit my site.)

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home