Chimps Are People, Too?

[nathanbforrest45]

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/12/02/group-sues-for-legal-personhood-for-chimps-in-state-with-highest-abortion-rate/

The looneys are among us

[Chris]

Does law really define who we are?

Chimps Are People, Too? Lawsuit Will Test That Question (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/12/03/248343474/chimps-are-people-too-lawsuit-will-test-that-question?ft=1&f=)


http://i.snag.gy/VhYf3.jpg

Is a chimp, living as a pet in the home of Patrick and Diane Lavery in Gloversville, N.Y., really enslaved and entitled to his freedom? Does the 26-year-old Tommy, who scientists argue is cognitively similar to humans, deserve some of the same rights as Homo sapiens?

Those questions are at the center of a lawsuit (pdf) filed in the State of New York Supreme Court in Fulton County, N.Y., on Monday.

As The New York Times puts it, "this is no stunt." Instead it is the culmination of a legal strategy that's been years in the making. The lawsuit was filed by the Nonhuman Rights Project, which has been working to change the common law status of some "non-human animals" from "things" to "persons."

...


Laws is often like metaphysics, a lot of words meaning nothing. Law doesn't need to be so nonsensical, as the article goes on:


The lawsuit uses a cornerstone of the legal system to seek this change. The Nonhuman Rights Project filed a writ of habeas corpus, which historically compels a judge to call upon a person's captor to explain why he has a right to hold the person captive.

"More specifically, our suits are based on a case that was fought in England in 1772, when an American slave, James Somerset, who had been taken to London by his owner, escaped, was recaptured and was being held in chains on a ship that was about to set sail for the slave markets of Jamaica," Michael Mountain, of the Nonhuman Rights Project wrote in a blog post. "With help from a group of abolitionist attorneys, Somerset's godparents filed a writ of habeas corpus on Somerset's behalf in order to challenge Somerset's classification as a legal thing, and the case went before the Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench, Lord Mansfield. In what became one of the most important trials in Anglo-American history, Lord Mansfield ruled that Somerset was not a piece of property, but instead a legal person, and he set him free."


Is this absurdity a function of modernity?


The motion filed on Monday argues that Chimps are being treated by the law as slaves, but it also argues that the law right now already gives legal personhood to nonhumans: Domestic animals, for example, who are the beneficiaries of trusts and, of course, it also extends some human legal rights to corporations....

[Dangermouse]

Chimps post here regularly, but they're too right-wing, and move on to Stormfront, where they fit right in.

[Agravan]

Chimps post here regularly, but they're too right-wing, and move on to Stormfront, where they fit right in.

The left is just trying to increase their voter base.

[roadmaster]

Chimps post here regularly, but they're too right-wing, and move on to Stormfront, where they fit right in. Are you calling white people chimps.

[Contrails]

Does law really define who we are?

Is this absurdity a function of modernity?

The motion filed on Monday argues that Chimps are being treated by the law as slaves, but it also argues that the law right now already gives legal personhood to nonhumans: Domestic animals, for example, who are the beneficiaries of trusts and, of course, it also extends some human legal rights to corporations....

I would be really surprised if they prevail on this argument. Just because animals have been made beneficiaries of trusts does not grant them legal personhood. Trusts have been established to benefit many inanimate objects like parks and buildings, and they always have to name a human as trustee to administer them.

[Chris]

But to even consider this case is surprising. What, is out judicial system going to pot? It's just absurd.

[nathanbforrest45]

I started this same topic several days ago.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/19563-Robert-A-Heinlein-quot-Jerry-Was-A-Man-quot

[Chris]

I started this same topic several days ago.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/19563-Robert-A-Heinlein-quot-Jerry-Was-A-Man-quot



Apologies, didn't see.


@Mods, you could merge the two topics, this one and nathan's @ http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/19563-Robert-A-Heinlein-quot-Jerry-Was-A-Man-quot.

[Adelaide]

Threads merged.

Anyways, I support animal rights but I don't think animals really have the same rights as humans. Kind of a bizarre case.

[Peter1469]

Threads merged.

Anyways, I support animal rights but I don't think animals really have the same rights as humans. Kind of a bizarre case.

Silly cases like this pop up every now and then.

[Cthulhu]

Silly cases like this pop up every now and then.

And should be dismissed if the judge has any lick of sense in him.

[Chris]

And should be dismissed if the judge has any lick of sense in him.

But the judge is only human...or should we say chimpanzee!

[hanger4]

Sooo, as an aside, if this Nonhuman Rights Project

achieves it's objective will someone get to marry

any "person" they want ??

[Cthulhu]

But the judge is only human...or should we say chimpanzee!

Well the courts are often run by chimpanzees, so I could see a legitimate conflict of interest being present.

[Cthulhu]

Sooo, as an aside, if this Nonhuman Rights Project

achieves it's objective will someone get marry

any "person" they want ??

Although the warped souls championing it will never admit it, it is further down the pipe and definitely on the table.

[Chris]

Sooo, as an aside, if this Nonhuman Rights Project

achieves it's objective will someone get to marry

any "person" they want ??


I'd like to marry a corporation, a rich one! --I don't mean to make light of a good point.

[Chris]

Well the courts are often run by chimpanzees, so I could see a legitimate conflict of interest being present.

:-) Technically, though, that would be a kangaroo court.

[Peter1469]

And should be dismissed if the judge has any lick of sense in him.

Judges don't like to do that, unless it is apparent that the plaintiff is disingenuous or trying to shake someone down. They probably see these cases as a fun diversion. I wouldn't want to be a judge- it would bore the crap out of me.

[Contrails]

And should be dismissed if the judge has any lick of sense in him.

Or maybe the judge wants to make a ruling that will set precedence and keep similar suits from being filed in the future.

[Cthulhu]

Or maybe the judge wants to make a ruling that will set precedence and keep similar suits from being filed in the future.

Although such altruism would be warmly welcomed, I suspect it is extremely rare. The way I see it, the judge could set a precedence against it, or he could make a profit. And given that judges come from lawyer stock, I remain skeptical.