The legal argument is that some animals deserve basic rights. Because they have some human qualities, they are entitled to legal personhood. In the case of a chimpanzee named Tommy, that means the right to not be imprisoned.
A New York state appeals court will be faced with making a ruling regarding Tommy the Chimp, which could lead to expanded rights for animals such as gorillas, elephants and dolphins.
The lawsuit on behalf of Tommy, who lives alone in a cage in upstate Fulton County, if the ruling grants him his right to legal personhood, would require that Tommy is released, and given the opportunity to join other chimps at a Florida sanctuary that mimics their natural habitat.
The lawyer is also seeking the release of three other chimps in New York and said he plans similar cases in other states. If he succeeds, he said he will seek personhood for other species with human qualities, which he defines as self-determination and autonomy.
One of the judges said the state has laws to protect animals from mistreatment and suggested they might be a more appropriate avenue to ensure Tommy's welfare.
He said the case is not about well-being, but unlawful imprisonment.
"Keeping a legal person in solitary confinement in a cage is unlawful," Mr. Wise, the monkey's lawyer, said.
Richard Cupp, a professor at Pepperdine Law School who writes and speaks extensively about the legal and moral status of animals, said that granting legal personhood and rights to animals could unintentionally dilute the concept of human rights.
"We could see over time some of our most vulnerable humans losing out in a rights struggle if they're in direct competition with some particularly intelligent non-human animals," Cupp said. "We could have the personhood paradigm weakened by extending it to animals."
Cupp, and several of the judges, noted that rights come with responsibilities. "Human beings are the only species where most of us are capable of the responsibilities that go with rights," Cupp said.
Tommy's owner, Patrick Lavery of Gloversville, didn't appear in court or submit documents. Reached later by phone, he said Tommy, a former entertainment chimp who was placed with him several years ago, is cared for under strict state and federal license rules. "I think it's totally ridiculous to give an animal human rights."
The lawsuit on behalf of Tommy, who lives alone in a cage in upstate Fulton County, if the ruling grants him his right to legal personhood, would require that Tommy is released, and given the opportunity to join other chimps at a Florida sanctuary that mimics their natural habitat.
The lawyer is also seeking the release of three other chimps in New York and said he plans similar cases in other states. If he succeeds, he said he will seek personhood for other species with human qualities, which he defines as self-determination and autonomy.
One of the judges said the state has laws to protect animals from mistreatment and suggested they might be a more appropriate avenue to ensure Tommy's welfare.
He said the case is not about well-being, but unlawful imprisonment.
"Keeping a legal person in solitary confinement in a cage is unlawful," Mr. Wise, the monkey's lawyer, said.
Richard Cupp, a professor at Pepperdine Law School who writes and speaks extensively about the legal and moral status of animals, said that granting legal personhood and rights to animals could unintentionally dilute the concept of human rights.
"We could see over time some of our most vulnerable humans losing out in a rights struggle if they're in direct competition with some particularly intelligent non-human animals," Cupp said. "We could have the personhood paradigm weakened by extending it to animals."
Cupp, and several of the judges, noted that rights come with responsibilities. "Human beings are the only species where most of us are capable of the responsibilities that go with rights," Cupp said.
Tommy's owner, Patrick Lavery of Gloversville, didn't appear in court or submit documents. Reached later by phone, he said Tommy, a former entertainment chimp who was placed with him several years ago, is cared for under strict state and federal license rules. "I think it's totally ridiculous to give an animal human rights."
All Tommy knows is this environment. Would it be in his best interest to be uprooted and moved? If the chimp has rights, then was he asked if he wanted to leave his home and be moved to a completely strange environment with other simians where he could run the risk of being injured?
Imprisonment?
Is a canary put in a cage to imprison it, or to protect it?
As for the personhood thing, I wonder if the lawyer pushing for the personhood rights of animals supports the personhood rights of the unborn?
I have a feeling his answer would be that he is pro-abortion.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
NY Court Hears Arguments That Chimps Have Rigths - ABC/Associated Press
No comments:
Post a Comment