Chimpanzees Don't Have The Same Rights As Humans, New York Court Rules
By GEORGE M. WALSH AP 12/04/14 12:26 PM ET
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — A chimpanzee is not entitled to the rights of a human and does not have to be freed by its owner, a New York appeals court ruled Thursday.

The three-judge Appellate Division panel was unanimous in denying "legal personhood" to Tommy, who lives alone in a cage in upstate Fulton County.

A trial level court had previously denied the Nonhuman Rights Project's effort to have Tommy released. The group's lawyer, Steven Wise, told the appeals court in October that the chimp's living conditions are akin to a person in unlawful solitary confinement.

Wise argued that animals with human qualities, such as chimps, deserve basic rights, including freedom from imprisonment. He has also sought the release of three other chimps in New York and said he plans similar cases in other states.

But the mid-level appeals court said there is no precedent for treating animals as persons and no legal basis.

"So far as legal theory is concerned, a person is any being whom the law regards as capable of rights and duties," the judges wrote. "Needless to say, unlike human beings, chimpanzees cannot bear any legal duties, submit to societal responsibilities or be held legally accountable for their actions."

That, they ruled, makes it "inappropriate" to grant the rights of a human to the animal.

The Nonhuman Rights Project said it will appeal to the state's top court, citing other New York appeals court rulings it says are at odds with Thursday's decision.

"It is time for the common law to recognize that these facts are sufficient to establish personhood for the purpose of a writ of habeas corpus," the organization said, referring to characteristics of chimps it says are "similar to those possessed by human beings."

Tommy's owner, Patrick Lavery, said Thursday he was pleased and expected the ruling.

"I just couldn't picture any court granting habeas corpus for an animal," he said. "If it works for one animal, it works for all animals. It would open a can of worms."

Tommy, believed to be about 40 years old, is a former entertainment chimp who was placed with Lavery about 10 years ago. Lavery said Tommy is cared for under strict state and federal license rules and inspections.

The court noted there have been no claims that Tommy has been mistreated or any of those rules have been violated.

Lavery said Tommy lives in a seven-room enclosure in Gloversville with lots of toys and other "enrichment."

And yet the nogs can roam free.

>Wise argued that animals with human qualities

This was a lawyer? Pretty vague argument.

xoxoxo
Attachments:

NippleChuck Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> xoxoxo


Stop the Monkeys!

The NYT will keep publishing articles sympathetic to the animal rights perspective. The other media in the country will follow the Times' lead, as they always do.

The judges will be reading those articles and watching the television programs.

The lawyers will come up with a case that is just right in terms of maximum sympathy and minimal appearance that a favorable ruling would create any problem.

People who oppose a pro-rights decision will be ostracized and demonized - the same tactics you see on Fairfax Underground, or with Jon Stewart, or Lena "I am willing to lie about being raped because the story is good for the cause" Dunham, etc. Opponents of recognizing animal rights will be associated with the KKK and slaveholders who refused to recognize the humanity of slaves and the Dred Scott case and killers of baby seals. The animal in question will be photogenic and do adorable things. We'll be told that the animal has compassion even for those who are mean to it, including the KKK/Slaveholder types. A reporter will observe how remarkable this is, how in some very important respects, the animal is superior to humans, more compassionate and forgiving. "They're naturally anti-war, Brit." "Yes, Brian. I think we humans could stand to learn a thing or two from them." Rueful smile (she is thinking about all the terrible things human beings do to each other, and it makes her sad).

Thus they will win the case, and everyone will be happy, and we'll see how happy the animal is, and it will be pointed out that the people who opposed the decision were incorrect about it having any far-reaching ramifications. And legal analysts from Yale and Columbia will explain why it was a good decision.

But the bottom line will be, the animal rights folks will have a gotten a toe into the door of the legal temple. They will have crossed the Rubicon.

And the cycle will start again. A new series of Times articles, etc. And the next case will ask for a bit more, and so on and so forth. And then maybe there will be a crisis of some kind, that will allow proponents to leap over a whole bunch of steps and stages that might otherwise have taken a couple of decades.

If chimps and their close relatives, the negroes, were left in the jungle, the world would be a better place.