Is it time that chimps are given legal rights? What about elephants, dolphins and whales?
This morning New York’s Supreme Court will hear arguments over whether chimpanzees deserve to be given legal rights - specifically two chimps named Hercules and Leo being held in captivity by Stony Brook University in New York State for use in an anatomical research programme.
For the sake of posterity, the case is “Nonhuman Rights Project v. Stanley, New York State Supreme Court, New York County, No. 152736-2015”.
That’s a joke, right?
No. The Nonhuman Rights Project, a group founded by Steven Wise, an attorney and animal rights activist, is deadly serious. And the question of whether the most intelligent non-human animals should have a legal status beyond mere objects has generated significant legal debate in recent years.
But how can a chimp have rights if it can’t even speak?
Nor can some mentally ill people, or unborn children for that matter. But they still have legal rights.
So which “right” do they want chimps to be granted?
Specifically, the right to liberty – or “bodily freedom” – ie not to be stuck in a cage, or a science lab.
So if the court decides in their favour do the chimps simply walk off into Manhattan?
No. But they do get to go to a sanctuary in Florida to live out their days in as much freedom as is practically possible.
This all sounds pretty radical. Where would it end?
That’s the argument of Christopher Coulston, the New York Assistant Attorney General who is defending the university in this case.
He has warned the court against a decision that would set a precedent “for the release of other animals ... housed at a zoo, in an educational institution, on a farm, or owned as a domesticated pet”, and leave New York mired in litigation forever more.
So they want to free the cows, pigs and chickens too?
No. The Nonhuman Rights Project says only animals who demonstrate “clear scientific evidence of complex cognitive abilities [such] as self-awareness and autonomy” should be granted rights. So pigs and ducks are out of luck.
Dolphins, whales and elephants – who like chimps have been shown to communicate, remember, mourn their dead and play tricks on each other - would qualify.
And is there any legal, as opposed to scientific, basis for these claims for chimps’ rights?
Mr Wise, in arguing for the “personhood” of chimps is drawing on the 18th century case of Somerset v. Stewart (1772) in which James Somerset, a man who was captured and enslaved in Africa, was freed after anti-slavery campaigners filed a writ of habeas corpus against his illegal detention.
Somerset was a man, of course, not a chimp. But Mr Wise makes the point that it wasn’t that long ago that women, or enslaved Africans were not given “legal personhood” but were treated as mere chattels – property to be exploited, like land or livestock
So does the case have any chance?
It seems doubtful. Previous cases filed by Mr Wise against the owners of chimps named Tommy and Kiko have been rejected by lower courts, although those decisions are being appealed.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Suzanimal
Connect With Us