QuoteUS chimpanzee Tommy 'has no human rights' - court
BBC News
4 December 2014
A chimpanzee is not entitled to the same rights as people and does not have be freed from captivity by its owner, a US court has ruled.
The appeals court in New York state said caged chimpanzee Tommy could not be recognised as a "legal person" as it "cannot bear any legal duties".
The Nonhuman Rights Project had argued that chimps who had such similar characteristics to the humans deserved basic rights, including freedom.
The rights group said it would appeal.
Owner pleased
In its ruling, the judges wrote: "So far as legal theory is concerned, a person is any being whom the law regards as capable of rights and duties.
"Needless to say, unlike human beings, chimpanzees cannot bear any legal duties, submit to societal responsibilities or be held legally accountable for their actions.''
The court added that there was no precedent for treating animals as persons and no legal basis.
In October, the Nonhuman Rights Project had argued that chimpanzees should be recognised as "legal persons" and therefore be given the right to liberty.
The group said on Thursday it would appeal against the court verdict in New York's highest court.
Tommy's owner, Patrick Lavery, said he was pleased with the outcome, according to the Associated Press.
Tommy - who is believed to be about 40 years old - is a former entertainment chimp. He was given to Mr Lavery about 10 years ago.
Back story:
Quote8 October 2014 Last updated at 19:08 ET
The battle to make Tommy the chimp a person
By Jon Kelly BBC News Magazine, Washington DC
Tommy is 26. He lives alone behind a trailer sales park in upstate New York. His hobbies include watching cartoons.
He is also a chimpanzee. And now Tommy is at the centre of one of America's more curious legal battles.
A lawsuit submitted by a group called the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP) seeks to have Tommy recognised as a person under law.
It's a case with potentially radical implications, challenging as it does human society's very understanding of rights.
For his part, Tommy is blissfully unaware of the legal kerfuffle surrounding him. He lives behind Circle L Trailer Sales, along Route 30 near Gloversville, New York. The site is also home to a business called Santa's Hitching Post that rents out reindeer at Christmas.
The quality of his accommodation is a matter of dispute. A 79-page legal brief submitted by the NhRP claims that the chimp is kept in a "small, dank, cement cage in a cavernous dark shed".
"Tommy is in a small cage in a small room that is part of a very large edifice - almost like a huge warehouse," said Steven Wise, the attorney who is bringing the case. He told ABC News he had visited the premises and caught a glimpse of the chimp. The building contained 10 other empty cages, he added.
Three years ago, according to the the NhRP, there were four chimpanzees on the site, and not long before that there were six. They "were primarily used in entertainment", Mr Wise has said. But now, say the NhRP, Tommy is "all by himself - his only company being a TV on a table on the opposite wall".
But Patrick Lavery, Tommy's owner, has insisted that the chimp is comfortable in this environment.
"He's really got it good," Mr Lavery told the Albany Times Union. "He's got a lot of enrichment."
Mr Laverty, who said he and his wife Diane had kept chimps for decades, added that Tommy had access to TV, cable and a stereo, and that he enjoyed watching cartoons.
In another interview, Mr Lavery denied the cage was small, insisting it was a spacious $150,000 facility with a door to an outside area. During the winter Tommy stays indoors in a building heated to 21C (70F), with the walls painted to resemble a jungle, he added.
He also said the chimp's accommodation complied with state and federal regulations and was superior to Tommy's previous home. "He likes being by himself."
Whatever the facts of Tommy's living conditions, he is now the focal point for one of the more distinctive cases to be considered by a mid-level state appeals court in Albany.
A panel of five appellate judges heard Mr Wise's petition for a writ of habeas corpus - a request for a custodian to prove he or she has lawful authority to detain a prisoner. A decision is expected in the next four to six weeks.
The NhRP's petition argues that New York law does not limit legal personhood to human beings. The state has previously conferred legal personhood status on domestic animals who are the beneficiaries of trusts, the campaign says, as well as extending rights to non-human entities such as corporations.
The lawsuit does not argue that chimpanzees are human, but that they are entitled to the rights of "personhood". It cites research by great ape experts which has established they are "autonomous, self-determined, self-aware, highly intelligent, emotionally complex".
The lawsuit refers to an English case from 1772 that dealt with an American slave named James Somerset, who escaped from his owner in London. After a plea of habeas corpus was filed, the court ruled that Mr Somerset was a person rather than a thing and set him free.
On this occasion, Mr Wise has asked the court to transfer Tommy to the North American Private Sanctuary Alliance, a 120-acre facility in Wauchula, Florida, housing 45 great apes, many of which are former research animals.
Mr Lavery has waived his right to make an argument in court.
In December, an appeals court in Rochester, New York, will hear another case from Mr Wise relating to a chimpanzee called Kiko.
Apes and humans have common ancestors but should they have the same rights? An international movement to give them "personhood" is gathering pace.
What would Aristotle make of it? More than 2,000 years after the Greek philosopher declared Mother Nature had made all animals for the sake of man, there are moves to put the relationship on a more equal footing.
Judges in Austria are considering whether a British woman, Paula Stibbe, should become legal guardian of a chimpanzee called Hiasl which was abducted from its family tribe in West Africa 25 years ago.
If Mr Wise's legal bid is successful, it would not be the first time that the rights of primates have been enshrined in law. In 2008 the Spanish parliament approved a resolution supporting the Great Ape Project, which argues that the rights to life, liberty and freedom from physical and psychological torture should be guaranteed to the creatures.
But the attempt to secure legal rights for animals has been criticised by some legal experts, including US Circuit Judge Richard Posner, who has warned that courts could be inundated with cases that could result in a series of contradictory rulings.
"I doubt that it will have any headway," says Mary Cheh, professor of law at George Washington University. "It's a pretty vacant landscape in terms of courts that would rule this way."
But the Princeton University professor Pete Singer, who coined the phrase Animal Liberation in his 1975 book of the same name, says that by widening the debate the case has already achieved an important objective.
"It's already of some significance even if it doesn't succeed," he says.
Tommy's thoughts on his place at the cutting edge of contemporary jurisprudence remain unknown.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 05, 2014, 12:48:03 AM
In its ruling, the judges wrote: "So far as legal theory is concerned, a person is any being whom the law regards as capable of rights and duties.
"Needless to say, unlike human beings, chimpanzees cannot bear any legal duties, submit to societal responsibilities or be held legally accountable for their actions.''
I think I've known a few people who could also fit that criteria.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 05, 2014, 12:52:19 AM
I think I've know a few people who could also fit that criteria.
You can tell who they are, since they received TARP funds to be used as bonuses.
Certainly some corporations too. :D
Next thing you'll be saying we should pay wages to our monkey butlers. :rolleyes:
Good.
You can not fix a mistake by making an other one.
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 05, 2014, 08:24:46 AM
Good.
You can not fix a mistake by making an other one.
Yeah. Sure, the US has made a lot of mistakes in their dealing with corporations, but that's no reason to decide that animals are people.
i don't think a well guarded freedom of expression is a mistake. :hmm:
yet, it is when corporations are persons.
Careful now...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcollider.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Frise-of-the-planet-of-the-apes-movie-image-031.jpg&hash=d5b607a189f9bec18a4e8c72d18ef16d4cbeb949)
it's more that business owners/corporate leadership should be able to express themselves through the business/company. just like a private catholic university should be able to express its religious ideals.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 05, 2014, 08:22:17 AM
Next thing you'll be saying we should pay wages to our monkey butlers. :rolleyes:
To say nothing of your monkubines.
Quote from: Malthus on December 05, 2014, 09:38:35 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 05, 2014, 08:22:17 AM
Next thing you'll be saying we should pay wages to our monkey butlers. :rolleyes:
To say nothing of your monkubines.
The less said about them, the better, I think. :huh:
Quote from: LaCroix on December 05, 2014, 08:45:22 AM
i don't think a well guarded freedom of expression is a mistake. :hmm:
When you equate freedom of expression with the freedom to bribe elected officials, it most assuredly is a mistake.
Quoteprimates are not
Now that's a sweeping decision.
Vive la différence!
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 05, 2014, 12:52:19 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 05, 2014, 12:48:03 AM
In its ruling, the judges wrote: "So far as legal theory is concerned, a person is any being whom the law regards as capable of rights and duties.
"Needless to say, unlike human beings, chimpanzees cannot bear any legal duties, submit to societal responsibilities or be held legally accountable for their actions.''
I think I've known a few people who could also fit that criteria.
Or categories of people, which is a point the petitioners made. I.e. children do not bear legal duties and their legal obligations are usually voidable, but they still have habeas rights. The court responded to that argument in a footnote but not entirely convincingly. Not necessarily attacking the result, but the court's reasoning - tying the existence of habeas rights to social contract theory - is questionable.
Primates are not legally people?
Bad news for the Church of England - the Roundheads were right. :P [/Civil War Hijack]
Wait a moment, I'm a Primate!
I'm a primate and so is my wife.
No, I am Primate.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 05, 2014, 04:41:26 PM
Wait a moment, I'm a Primate!
I didn't even know you were a member of the Church of England.
Quote from: Malthus on December 05, 2014, 03:52:27 PM
Primates are not legally people?
Bad news for the Church of England - the Roundheads were right. :P [/Civil War Hijack]
:o Good Laud.