Slashdot Mirror
Update: No Personhood for Chimps Yet
sciencehabit writes: In a decision that effectively recognizes chimpanzees as legal persons for the first time, a New York judge [Monday] granted a pair of Stony Brook University lab animals the right to have their day in court. The ruling marks the first time in U.S. history that an animal has been covered by a writ of habeus corpus, which typically allows human prisoners to challenge their detention. The judicial action could force the university, which is believed to be holding the chimps, to release the primates, and could sway additional judges to do the same with other research animals.
Update: 04/21 21:39 GMT by S : Science has updated their article with news that the court has released an amended order (PDF) with the words "writ of habeas corpus" removed, no longer implying that chimps have legal personhood. The order still allows the litigation to go forward, but we'll have to wait for resolution.
When it is possible to sit down with your lab "animal" and have a conversation in sign language...
Maybe they shouldn't be a lab animal.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
The summary is wrong or at the very least highly misleading. What the judge did was allow the argument for chimp personhood to go forward. In other words the court did not find that chimps were unquestionably merely property. That's much weaker than deciding they are actual persons or legal persons. So yes there was a step forward for Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP) but nowhere near as big a step as the summary implies.
The Judge did nothing of the sort, the chimps were the ones named in the case by the animal rights activists, the Judge had to direct any motion at the chimps for the owners of the chimps to respond - and thats what he did here. He asked the owners to respond, via the Habeus Corpus motion - he had no other recourse.
The activists are claiming something that didn't happen.
For the most part we don't use their whole corpse as decoration, just their genitals.
Actually it's the headline that makes that claim, not the activists. They are being quite careful to clearly state the legal position and their reasons for doing it.
The problem is US law is pretty weak on animal rights in general, and doesn't have clear mechanisms for dealing with situations like this. So, they tried something unorthodox, and it has at least got them a hearing.
That's why it is important, even if you don't agree with their position that the university should not keep the chimps captive in the way it does. It is creating a legal framework for deciding these things, because the law currently lacks one.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
"The ruling marks the first time in U.S. history that an animal has been covered by a writ of habeus corpus, which typically allows human prisoners to challenge their detention." While I question some of the treatment of research animals, what exactly did the chimps ask of the court?
Careful what you ask for. I knew some of the people involved with an old program at OU teaching chimps sign language. They eventually had the vocabularies of human 3 year olds. The program was eventually cancelled and the chimps split up to other research facilities. I've heard the stories from the grad students involved about how they would go visit those chimps, and they would sign "I'm in pain. I want to go home." while in the cages.