It is currently 05/17/24 10:29 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Go to page 1, 2  Next   Page 1 of 2   [ 34 posts ]
Author Message
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/02/13 7:04 pm • # 1 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
I hate animal cruelty/mistreatment and want the chimps released to chimp sanctuaries ~ but I confess I have mixed emotions if this strays into medical testing territory ~ Sooz

Monday, Dec 2, 2013 03:09 PM CST
Chimps, seeking freedom, sue for legal personhood
The first of three lawsuits against New York State was filed today.
Lindsay Abrams

In a set of unprecedented lawsuits against New York, four chimpanzees are suing the state for their freedom.

The animals (with legal help from humans) are seeking to be recognized as legal persons, which would grant them bodily liberty and thus their freedom. From the Huffington Post:

Quote:
Brought with [lawyer Steven] Wise’s group — the Nonhuman Rights Project, dedicated to advancing legal personhood for animals — these suits cover what are now believed to be the Empire State’s four captive chimpanzees: two who are being used in locomotion studies at SUNY Stony Brook; a former performing chimpanzee now housed near Niagara Falls; and a former film actor, Tommy, who is to be the first plaintiff. Wise states in court filings that Tommy is 26 years old and alleged to be living in “solitary confinement in a small, dank, cement cage in a cavernous dark shed” at a trailer sales business in upstate New York.

In Tommy’s suit, filed on Monday against owners Patrick and Diane Lavery and Circle L Trailer Sales, Wise argues that because chimpanzees are “autonomous, self-determined, self-aware, intelligent, and emotionally complex” beings who cognitively “resemble human beings,” they must be declared legal persons with rights by the court — and as such, freed from captivity.

They would not be released to fend for themselves, of course; Wise is asking that the chimpanzees be sent to a primate sanctuary. In fact, what rights beyond being freed from captivity chimpanzees would be accorded, exactly, if they were found to be legal persons is still an open question, Wise said, largely to be determined through future litigation.

“They’re not really human rights at that point. They’re chimpanzee rights,” he said. “What chimpanzee rights are appropriate for chimpanzees? If you’re suing, if you’re using case law, then it’s one case at a time.”

The scheme isn’t unheard of: Spain and New Zealand have already extended personhood rights to great apes, and several other European countries have banned medical research on them. Without going that far, the U.S. National Institutes of Health announced this summer that it was reducing the number of chimps used for federal research to 50 — a move applauded at the time by animal rights activists.

“Our goal is, very simply, to breach the legal wall that separates all humans from all nonhuman animals,” the Nonhuman Rights Project explained in a blog post. In describing the legal precedent for the case, they use slavery as a natural comparison to the current situation of captive chimpanzees: “New York State recognizes the continuing viability of the common law writ of habeas corpus. New York case law permitted slaves to use the writ to challenge their status as legal things and establish their right to freedom.” Therefore, they’re arguing, the chimps, as slaves, have the right to do the same. The hurdles they’re expecting to face, they say, may end up mimicking the fight to end slavery in the U.S.:

Quote:
Several states in the south, which considered slaves to be simply chattel, not legal persons, simply barred them altogether from using habeas corpus to challenge their enslavement. (Ultimately, it took almost a full century and then a civil war for the matter to be resolved.) And with rulings of that kind still in place in several states, the Nonhuman Rights Project would likely have a hard time demonstrating that any nonhuman animals are anything but chattel, too.

Our strategy, then, is to file as many suits as we have the funds to be able to pursue, and in the states where we have the best chance of winning them. We will also encourage other animal rights attorneys and legal experts to file similar cases, modeled on the ones that have been successful.

What’s right for chimps, of course, could end up being not so good for humans. In an article from earlier this year about nonhuman rights, University of Florida animal psychologist Clive Wynne told the Week: ”If we are going to consider closing down AIDS and hepatitis research and giving human rights to chimps, we had better be certain we are not just giving in to a natural but baseless anthropomorphic tendency without solid evidence to back us up.”

“Frankly, we’re not even sure if we expect to win these first cases,” Wise told the Huffington Post. But he’s at least hoping to make people take the issue seriously. “I think the legal arguments are so strong, and the facts we’re bringing are so powerful, that I think it’s going to catalyze a very serious debate. And I think that can only help us.”

http://www.salon.com/2013/12/02/chimps_seeking_freedom_sue_for_legal_personhood/


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/02/13 7:22 pm • # 2 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
I'd certainly rank chimps above corporations.
They're smarter, too.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/02/13 7:26 pm • # 3 
Editorialist

Joined: 10/20/15
Posts: 4032
Does that mean you can marry them?


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/02/13 7:44 pm • # 4 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
Nah.
No one would want to marry a corporation.
No one sane, at least.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/02/13 8:27 pm • # 5 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/20/09
Posts: 8188
I doubt they'll win. But I wish they would.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/02/13 9:02 pm • # 6 
Editorialist

Joined: 10/20/15
Posts: 4032
I think I'd agree with what they are trying to achieve Chaos. But Chimps aren't people anymore than corporations are.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/02/13 9:04 pm • # 7 
Editorialist

Joined: 10/20/15
Posts: 4032
I dunno Oskar. A lot of those corporations are pretty rich. Marry one, live high on the hog, and then divorce them might be a worthwhile plan ...
Depends on the conjugal duties I guess.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/02/13 9:08 pm • # 8 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
Cattleman wrote:
I dunno Oskar. A lot of those corporations are pretty rich. Marry one, live high on the hog, and then divorce them might be a worthwhile plan ...
Depends on the conjugal duties I guess.


Don't need to marry one to get screwed by one.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/02/13 9:18 pm • # 9 
Editorialist

Joined: 10/20/15
Posts: 4032
Ahhh! But what if you get to screw them????


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/03/13 8:24 am • # 10 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
Cattleman wrote:
Ahhh! But what if you get to screw them????


Need a few changes in US law for that to happen.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/03/13 8:26 am • # 11 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
Maybe someone should apply for a marriage licence to marry Georgia-Pacific if corporations have the same rights as people.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/03/13 7:54 pm • # 12 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/20/09
Posts: 8188
Cattleman wrote:
I think I'd agree with what they are trying to achieve Chaos. But Chimps aren't people anymore than corporations are.


But we've established that corporations are people...so why not chimps?


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/03/13 9:02 pm • # 13 
Editorialist

Joined: 10/20/15
Posts: 4032
Your supreme court isn't God Chaos ...


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/03/13 9:37 pm • # 14 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/04/09
Posts: 4072
...conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all apes are created equal...


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/04/13 7:21 am • # 15 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/20/09
Posts: 8188
Cattleman wrote:
Your supreme court isn't God Chaos ...


I'm not sure what "god" has to do with this.

And as for the claim that medical "research" is a valid excuse to torture chimps, I disagree. Plenty of things have been tested and deemed "safe" by torturing animals (particularly with the LD50) only to find that
those things were NOT safe. At the very least, the LD50 has to go. But that's another topic.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/04/13 6:42 pm • # 16 
Editorialist

Joined: 10/20/15
Posts: 4032
"God"?
Well, just because the Supreme Court says something is so don't actually make it so.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/04/13 6:48 pm • # 17 
Editorialist

Joined: 10/20/15
Posts: 4032
Another thought ....

If Corporations are people does that mean declaring bankruptcy is suicide?

What about a "hostile takeover"? Murder, rape, kidnapping ....


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/04/13 8:51 pm • # 18 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
How 'bout a compromise?
Chimps can be classified as Tea Partiers. At the very worst it'll improve the gene pool.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/05/13 2:55 pm • # 19 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 02/09/09
Posts: 4713
I don't know about this "legal personhood" approach but I do know one thing; The treatment of animals in the U.S. and elsewhere is often appalling.

Humans have rationalized barbaric behavior, both towards animals and other humans, at least as far back as the first civilizations.

And we are the most advanced, most evolved species?


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/05/13 3:55 pm • # 20 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
And we are the most advanced, most evolved species?

Only according to us.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/05/13 4:15 pm • # 21 
Editorialist

Joined: 10/20/15
Posts: 4032
Oskar's right. That's a kind of meaningless statement John.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/06/13 8:39 am • # 22 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
I agree with oskar's "Only according to us." reply to John's "And we are the most advanced, most evolved species?" question, but I disagree with CM's comment "That's a kind of meaningless statement John." ~ I favor any question that pushes us to reflect on our own mindsets and perspectives ~ I've often posted that I've learned the most from those I disagree with most because that forces me to re-examine my own beliefs ~ I see that as a healthy exercise ~

Sooz


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/06/13 9:24 am • # 23 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/22/09
Posts: 9530
oskar576 wrote:
Nah.
No one would want to marry a corporation.
No one sane, at least.



I would. MSN, for example, could probably support me in the style to which I would like to be accustomed. Then I'd divorce it and take a little bit more than half of everything it has.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/06/13 11:44 am • # 24 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
Then I'd divorce it and take a little bit more than half of everything it has.

Not in a no fault divorce province/state, you wouldn't.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 12/06/13 12:47 pm • # 25 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/22/09
Posts: 9530
oskar576 wrote:
Then I'd divorce it and take a little bit more than half of everything it has.

Not in a no fault divorce province/state, you wouldn't.


Hah! When you've been divorced as many times as I have, you'll know that 50/50 crap is bull dust.


Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Go to page 1, 2  Next   Page 1 of 2   [ 34 posts ] New Topic Add Reply

All times are UTC - 6 hours



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
© Voices or Choices.
All rights reserved.