Slashdot Mirror
Lawsuits Seek To Turn Chimpanzees Into Legal Persons
sciencehabit writes "This morning, an animal rights group known as the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP) filed a lawsuit in a New York court in an attempt to get a judge to declare that chimpanzees are legal persons and should be freed from captivity. The suit is the first of three to be filed in three New York counties this week. They target two research chimps at Stony Brook University and two chimps on private property, and are the opening salvo in a coordinated effort to grant 'legal personhood' to a variety of animals across the United States. If NhRP is successful in New York, it would upend millennia of law defining animals as property and could set off a 'chain reaction' that could bleed over to other jurisdictions, says Richard Cupp, a law professor at Pepperdine University in Malibu, California, and a prominent critic of animal rights. 'But if they lose it could be a giant step backward for the movement. They're playing with fire.'"
If freed, chimpanzees would be unable to follow basic laws and would likely need to be locked up in imprisonment anyway.
This decision will also be used precedence by the machines to decide how humans should be treated post-singularity. Choose wisely.
Corporations aren't people. You can realize this when you think that a corporation is not allowed the right to vote. Corporate personhood is just a legal shorthand for talking about the collective rights of the individuals that make up the corporation.
The concept has been perverted by activists who hear the word 'personhood' and think they understand what it means without even bothering to read wikipedia. These are the people of which Churchill said, "the best argument against democracy is a 2 minute conversation with the typical voter." They can't think to educate themselves, they'd prefer to be outraged.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
...there is hope for me, a code monkey !
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
There is a much better argument that a fetus is a person and deserves protection under the law but the anti-abortion types haven't managed to get that idea recognized by the courts or enacted as law through the ballot box. I don't agree with their argument or what the anti-abortion types are trying to do by making it but I can still see some validity to their argument. Given that the courts have considered whether a fetus is a person from the moment of conception and said "no", I don't see the courts granting "personhood" to chimpanzees.
O/T: This does give rise to an amusing situation. The folks who push "personhood" for a fetus would probably vehemently oppose granting the same designation to a chimpanzee (fundamentalists see man as on a whole different level than other animals). Likewise, the people pushing personhood for chimps would be some of the more liberal types and would probably be very "pro-choice".
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
It's well documented that some animals have the mental capacity of a typical 3 year old human child. (See Alex the african grey parrot, Koko the gorilla, etc.)
Not to mention dogs, i.e. Chaser the border collie who's been taught over 1000 words.
(mute volume) http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/world-smartest-dog-nova-special-shows-border-collie/story?id=12875750
"Heinlein saw this coming in 1947."
No, he didn't.
Heinlein invisaged chimpanzees genetically enhanced to be more intelligent and more like humans.
Chimpanzees are not human. They don't think like humans, they don't behave like humans, they aren't physically built like humans.
Of all these things, probably the most important is that they don't think like humans. At all. Chimpanzees do not understand non-verbal communications even as much as dogs do. They're just not people.
> They are treated as legal persons for very good reasons that go back hundreds of years for certain purpose.
Total nonsense. Corporations became legal persons OVER time based on greed TO LIMIT LIABILITY. Corporations want all the benefits and do everything in their power to avoid having to pay for them.
Date Decision, Legal Right Affirmed
1889 "Minneapolis and St. L. R. Co. v. Beckwith", Right for judicial review on state legislation
1893 "Noble v. Union River Logging R. Col", Right for judicial review for rights infringement by federal legislation
1906 "Hale v. Henkel", Protection "against unreasonable searches and seizures (4th)
1908 "Armour Packing C. v. United States", Right to trial by jury (6th)
1922 "Pennsylvania Coal Co. V. Mahon", Right to compensation for government takings
1962 "Fong Foo v. United States", Right to freedom from double jeopardy (5th)
1970 "Ross v. Bernhard", Right to trial by jury in civil case (7th)
1976 "Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Consumer Council)", Right to free speech for purely commercial speech (1st)
1978 "First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti", Right to corporate political speech (1st)
1986 "Pacific Gas and Electric Company v. Public Utility Commn of California", Right against coerced speech (1st)
Reference:
* A Short History of the Corporation
http://cnx.org/content/m17314/latest/
Also see:
http://www.thecorporation.com/index.cfm?page_id=314
Specifically, "The Corporation complete film transcript (PDF)"
http://hellocoolworld.com/files/TheCorporation/Transcript_finalpt1%20copy.pdf
http://hellocoolworld.com/files/TheCorporation/Transcript_finalpt2%20copy.pdf
A very good question. The issue is that this article is about an attempt to define these chimps as 'legal persons' to grant them the protections and rights that brings. What I wonder is, has enough thought gone into handling the responsibilities and obligations that come with being a 'legal person' such as being subject to the law? Rape, murder, theft etc are all common within the animal kingdom and no less so the more cognitively advanced members such as Apes and Dolphins.
I have no issue with people pushing for greater rights for animals. I strongly agree with the idea of defining the distress we cause animals so that we can weigh up the pros and cons. Defining Apes as persons is a dumb way to try and short-cut this process.