Court Claim: Chimps Are People, Too

[bluesand]

http://www.livescience.com/animals/080529-chimp-human.html

Matthew, a 26-year-old chimp, is headed to court in Europe as part of a human effort to classify him as a person.
Beyond the legal challenges, anthropologists say chimpanzees are not humans, though without a clear definition of what it means to be human, backing that claim up is a challenge perhaps fit for some great courtroom drama.
Animal rights activist and teacher Paula Stibbe, along with the Vienna-based Association Against Animal Factories (AAAF), says she wants the chimpanzee, named Matthew Hiasl Pan (http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?s=animals&c=&l=on&pic=080528-matthew-chimp-02.jpg&cap=Matthew%2C+26%2C+looks+through+the+glass+at+hi s+enclosure+at+an+animal+sanctuary+in+Vienna+on+Ma y+4%2C+2007.+The+chimp+probably+does+not+know+if+h e+wants+to+be+human+or+not.+And+that+could+be+one+ of+the+many+differences+that+separates+him+from+us .+Still%2C+anthropologists+admit+it%27s+hard+to+de fine+what+it+is+to+be+human.+Credit%3A+AP+Photo%2F +Lilli+Strauss.&title=), declared a person. That way, Stibbe says she can become the primate's legal guardian if the bankrupt animal sanctuary where Matthew lives closes. (Under Austrian law, only humans are entitled to have guardians.)
The appeal has been filed in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France. The case comes after Austria's Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling in January, which rejected a request (http://www.livescience.com/animals/070927_ap_chimp_human.html) to appoint the chimp with a legal guardian. The rulings did not address whether a chimpanzee could be declared a person.
"His life depends on this decision," Eberhart Theuer, the animal rights group's legal advisor, told the Evening Standard, a tabloid newspaper in London. "This case is about the fundamental question: Who is the bearer of human rights? Who is a person according to the European Human Rights Charter?"

[abroadinSacto]

I think this is the most retardedest news article I've read this week.

[hoodedclawjen]

i wonder if i could get myself legally declared a chimpanzee.

[abroadinSacto]

i wonder if i could get myself legally declared a chimpanzee.

If you do, I want full custody. Maybe we should start working on your green card now.

[hoodedclawjen]

If you do, I want full custody. Maybe we should start working on your green card now.

fair enough. i will bite you, then burst out laughing and throw my poop at you though. so nothing really new or unexpected there.

[Kiz]

"His life depends on this decision," Eberhart Theuer, the animal rights group's legal advisor, told the Evening Standard, a tabloid newspaper in London. "This case is about the fundamental question: Who is the bearer of human rights? Who is a person according to the European Human Rights Charter?"

Err.... humans are the bearers of humans rights maybe? So if we can't get animals animal rights, we just declare all animals humans? That's kind of nuts to put it mildly.

ETA: This article is confusing... surely whoever "owns" the chimp has legal responsibility? When the centre where the chimp is being held closes the chimp suddenly is wild and ownerless again? There are no legal provisions regarding animals that pertain to when an entity that "owns" them passes away, either an individual dying or centre going into receivership, that they just drop into legal limbo? That sounds very odd... I know when I die my cats can be legally passed on. I'm wondering why this cannot happen here.

[hoodedclawjen]

if the chimp gets declared a person, wouldn't he be able to get social security, apply for a sin number, have the right to learn to drive, be able to get legally married to another person (eww, ewww, ewwww), have the opportunity to run for office, and so on? that'd be a bit complicated.

[Kiz]

Yes. It's a shame she can't just buy the chimp and look after it herself if she is that concerned. Seriously, that should be legally possible, I'm not sure why it isn't. The "declare all animals humans" is just raving looney nuts.

[SomebodyElse]

"In general, I don't think that it's a good idea to grant chimpanzees legal human rights," Mitani said. "Chimpanzees are well-known to kill each other. What would we do to perpetrators of those 'crimes?'"
This is an idiotic supposition.


And what about other animals, like dogs and dolphins: A chimp-is-a-person ruling could trigger similar court cases in support of non-human animals getting human status, said Brosnan and other anthropologists.
Another idiotic supposition, and representative of a clear misunderstanding of the goal of getting the law to stop defining all non-human animals as property.


Err.... humans are the bearers of humans rights maybe? So if we can't get animals animal rights, we just declare all animals humans? That's kind of nuts to put it mildly.
No. There is a difference between status as a human, and status as a person. Getting the law to declare animals as persons is the only way to get the law to stop considering them as property. Property has no rights at all.


if the chimp gets declared a person, wouldn't he be able to get social security, apply for a sin number, have the right to learn to drive, be able to get legally married to another person (eww, ewww, ewwww), have the opportunity to run for office, and so on? that'd be a bit complicated.
No. Human children are persons who are not entitled to such things until they become capable of using them meaningfully.

This is actually a serious issue for animal rights, and I regret that the article appears to have confused the issues of considering animals as human, and getting granted human rights, which is absurd, and considering animals as persons, already in possession of the only rights they need, which are to be considered as sentient beings, and not human property. Rights for cows to be free to choose their own mates, reproduce when they want, keep their calves, and let their calves have their milk do not need to include the right to vote or drive, or to be prosecuted for stepping on bugs in the field. That's not what personhood for all sentient beings is supposed to mean.

[Kiz]

This is not a serious issue. This is some nut-case with more dollars than sense uselessly tying up the court system. If she was genuinely concerned about the welfare of chimps she'd use the money wasted on legal fees on setting up her own sanctuary. Trying to declare chimpanzees as humans, just slightly funny-looking humans, but persons nonetheless, is just idiotic.

I'm still wanting to know why, legally, another "owner" cannot take possession of the chimp when the centre closes. No-one has explained that part yet.

[hoodedclawjen]

perhaps the informal understanding of the term 'person' needs to be further worked through in order for the average person to take it seriously. i'd go with a chimpanze being described as a sentiant being, and there being rights afforded for such, but in my head, defining other animals as 'persons' feels like a stretch. i struggle with the concept of a corporation being a person, and johnny 5 type AI computers being possible people too.

[SomebodyElse]

Animal rights activist and teacher Paula Stibbe, along with the Vienna-based Association Against Animal Factories (AAAF), says she wants the chimpanzee, named Matthew Hiasl Pan (http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?s=animals&c=&l=on&pic=080528-matthew-chimp-02.jpg&cap=Matthew%2C+26%2C+looks+through+the+glass+at+hi s+enclosure+at+an+animal+sanctuary+in+Vienna+on+Ma y+4%2C+2007.+The+chimp+probably+does+not+know+if+h e+wants+to+be+human+or+not.+And+that+could+be+one+ of+the+many+differences+that+separates+him+from+us .+Still%2C+anthropologists+admit+it%27s+hard+to+de fine+what+it+is+to+be+human.+Credit%3A+AP+Photo%2F +Lilli+Strauss.&title=), declared a person.
Not a human, a person. How else does anyone think the legal status of animals as property will ever change, unless one "lunatic' with some money does something like this? Any other suggestions for getting the law to start recognizing animals as sentient beings, rather than property? Obviously Stibbe does not want to get someone to purchase this chimpanzee. That would be like trying to end slavery by selling black people to whites who promise not to make them work. She's using the current situation to attempt to get some legal system somewhere to recognize a non-human animal as a rights-holder, rather than just another commodity to be sold to the highest bidder.

Does anyone really think that animal exploitation will ever end without courts recognizing animals as persons instead of property? I realize there are plenty of members here who don't care about AR, but if you really don't understand the goals of animal liberation, and the means of getting there, just calling it lunacy because you don't understand it is kind of pointless. But if anyone who thinks this is stupid has got a better idea about how to get legal systems to change the way they view animals, please share.

[SomebodyElse]

perhaps the informal understanding of the term 'person' needs to be further worked through in order for the average person to take it seriously.
I would agree with this. I am already there in terms of what I at least consider a clear understanding of these meanings, but I forget that others are not. I can recommend Gary Francione's blog. He does a very good job of defining personhood and sentience in non-human animals. In this context, animals are either property, or persons. I don't want them to be property, but considering them as persons, legally, doesn't mean they are the same as humans. All it means is that they will no longer be considered property.

[abroadinSacto]

No. There is a difference between status as a human, and status as a person. Getting the law to declare animals as persons is the only way to get the law to stop considering them as property. Property has no rights at all.

This isn't quite true. The fact that dogs are typically regarded as property is one of the things that protects them. If I deliberately kill my neighbor's dog, it is a crime. If I kill a squirrel, under most circumstances it's legal.

There is a difference, to some people making a philosophical debate to support an agenda, between the words "human" and "person," but that is a bit contrived and weak in my opinion. I agree with the spirit of the distinction, but personally think it's nutty to develop revisionist definitions in this fashion. We're better-off just using new words.



No. Human children are persons who are not entitled to such things until they become capable of using them meaningfully.

Plenty of kids get Social Security benefits and almost all of them in my country have SSN numbers. I doubt apes ever become "capable of using [cars] meaningfully" so I'm not clear on what you're getting at.


This is actually a serious issue for animal rights, and I regret that the article appears to have confused the issues of considering animals as human, and getting granted human rights, which is absurd, and considering animals as persons, already in possession of the only rights they need, which are to be considered as sentient beings, and not human property. Rights for cows to be free to choose their own mates, reproduce when they want, keep their calves, and let their calves have their milk do not need to include the right to vote or drive, or to be prosecuted for stepping on bugs in the field. That's not what personhood for all sentient beings is supposed to mean.


I'm with you here except the person business again. Indeed, human rights are for humans, but all creatures deserve inalienable rights.

[SomebodyElse]

This isn't quite true. The fact that dogs are typically regarded as property is one of the things that protects them. If I deliberately kill my neighbor's dog, it is a crime. If I kill a squirrel, under most circumstances it's legal.
But killing someone's dog is a crime against the owner, not the dog. If he were stray, killing him would be the same legally as killing the squirrel.


Plenty of kids get Social Security benefits and almost all of them in my country have SSN numbers. I doubt apes ever become "capable of using [cars] meaningfully" so I'm not clear on what you're getting at.
I'm just saying that changing the legal status of animals as property doesn't mean we will be obligated to grant them rights they don't need, like the right to vote, the right to get a driver's license, stuff like that. In terms of the personhood of children and people with developmental problems, they are still legal persons, even though they do not function in society at the same level as "normal" adults. Their personhood does not mean that they are entitled to participate in every sector of human society, which is why children don't get to vote, or drive cars, and adults who are not declared legally competent have reduced entitlements as well. I expect everyone gets a SSN, or its equivalent, depending on the country you live in, but that's not so much a right as something that serves the government, and wouldn't be necessary to assign to non-human persons.


I'm with you here except the person business again. Indeed, human rights are for humans, but all creatures deserve inalienable rights.
Well, unfortunately I am not familiar with the issue being discussed in other terms. I realize that within the AR context, "person" has come to mean something very different from the common understanding, which is a handicap in making the issues clearer. This thread is a good example of that.

[Kiz]

Like it or not, "person" is another term for human.



per·son [/URL] (pûrhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifshttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifn)n.1. A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson; spokesperson; salesperson.
2. An individual of specified character: a person of importance.
3. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.
4. The living body of a human: searched the prisoner's person.
5. Physique and general appearance.
6. Law A human or organization with legal rights and duties.
7. Christianity Any of the three separate individualities of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as distinguished from the essence of the Godhead that unites them.
8. Grammar a. Any of three groups of pronoun forms with corresponding verb inflections that distinguish the speaker (first person), the individual addressed (second person), and the individual or thing spoken of (third person).
b. Any of the different forms or inflections expressing these distinctions.

9. A character or role, as in a play; a guise: "Well, in her person, I say I will not have you" Shakespeare.

Idiom: in person In one's physical presence; personally: applied for the job in person.

[Middle English, from Old French persone, from Latin pershttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/omacr.gifna, mask, role, person, probably from Etruscan phersu, mask.]
Usage Note: The word person has found widespread use in recent decades as a gender-neutral alternative to man in the names of occupational and social roles, such as businessperson, chairperson, spokesperson, and layperson. In addition, a variety of entirely new, more inclusive phrases have arisen to compete with or supplant -man compounds. Now we often hear first-year student instead of freshman and letter carrier instead of mailman. In other cases, a clipped form, such as chair for chairman, or a phrase, such as member of the clergy for clergyman, has found widespread use as a neutral alternative. Reflecting this trend, new standards of official usage for occupational titles have been established by the U.S. Department of Labor and other government agencies; for instance, in official contexts, terms such as firefighter and police officer are now generally used in place of fireman and policeman. See Usage Note at [URL="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/man"]man (http://img.tfd.com/play.swf).
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company (http://www.eref-trade.hmco.com/). All rights reserved.
person Noun
pl people or persons
1. an individual human being
2. the body of a human being: he was found to have a knife concealed about his person
3. Grammar a category into which pronouns and forms of verbs are subdivided to show whether they refer to the speaker, the person addressed, or some other individual or thing
4. in person actually doing something or being somewhere oneself: I had the chance to hear her speak in person [Latin persona mask] USAGE: People is the word usually used to refer to more than one individual: there were a hundred people at the reception. Persons is rarely used, except in official English: several persons were interviewed.

Collins Essential English Dictionary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/misc/HarperCollinsProducts.aspx?English) 2nd Edition



Some people in do use it more widely in an AR context but they are incorrect.

[Kiz]

I'm with you here except the person business again. Indeed, human rights are for humans, but all creatures deserve inalienable rights.

That is a far, far better way to put it.

My respect will always go to people who actually do something, rather than waste money on useless theatrics. (And yes, declaring chimps to be pseudo-humans is just that, theatrics).

[SomebodyElse]

Like it or not, "person" is another term for human.

Quote:
per·son (pûrhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifshttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifn)n.1. A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson; spokesperson; salesperson.
2. An individual of specified character: a person of importance.
3. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.
4. The living body of a human: searched the prisoner's person.
5. Physique and general appearance.
6. Law A human or organization with legal rights and duties.
7. Christianity Any of the three separate individualities of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as distinguished from the essence of the Godhead that unites them.
8. Grammar a. Any of three groups of pronoun forms with corresponding verb inflections that distinguish the speaker (first person), the individual addressed (second person), and the individual or thing spoken of (third person).
b. Any of the different forms or inflections expressing these distinctions.

9. A character or role, as in a play; a guise: "Well, in her person, I say I will not have you" Shakespeare.

Idiom: in person In one's physical presence; personally: applied for the job in person.

[Middle English, from Old French persone, from Latin pershttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/omacr.gifna, mask, role, person, probably from Etruscan phersu, mask.]
Usage Note: The word person has found widespread use in recent decades as a gender-neutral alternative to man in the names of occupational and social roles, such as businessperson, chairperson, spokesperson, and layperson. In addition, a variety of entirely new, more inclusive phrases have arisen to compete with or supplant -man compounds. Now we often hear first-year student instead of freshman and letter carrier instead of mailman. In other cases, a clipped form, such as chair for chairman, or a phrase, such as member of the clergy for clergyman, has found widespread use as a neutral alternative. Reflecting this trend, new standards of official usage for occupational titles have been established by the U.S. Department of Labor and other government agencies; for instance, in official contexts, terms such as firefighter and police officer are now generally used in place of fireman and policeman. See Usage Note at man (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/man).
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company (http://www.eref-trade.hmco.com/). All rights reserved.
person Noun
pl people or persons
1. an individual human being
2. the body of a human being: he was found to have a knife concealed about his person
3. Grammar a category into which pronouns and forms of verbs are subdivided to show whether they refer to the speaker, the person addressed, or some other individual or thing
4. in person actually doing something or being somewhere oneself: I had the chance to hear her speak in person [Latin persona mask] USAGE: People is the word usually used to refer to more than one individual: there were a hundred people at the reception. Persons is rarely used, except in official English: several persons were interviewed.

Collins Essential English Dictionary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/misc/HarperCollinsProducts.aspx?English) 2nd Edition

Some people in do use it more widely in an AR context but they are incorrect.
But what's wrong with expanding this to include animals, if it will change the way people think of them and treat them? Language isn't static, and neither are ideas.

And major societal changes often take place in court. Look at how Roe vs. Wade changed how people in the USA view reproductive rights. Call it whatever you want, but animals are not likely to ever be freed until something happens in a courtroom somewhere, and sets a precedent that will eventually change the way society views non-human sentients.

[abroadinSacto]

But what's wrong with expanding this to include animals, if it will change the way people think of them and treat them? Language isn't static, and neither are ideas.



This is basically the same arguement used to qualify "intelligent design" as something under the realm of science. I'm not willing to go there.

You're right that language isn't static, but when words are abruptly redefined to serve a specific agenda, we usually have a problem. Look at the history of the words "witch" and "liberal" and how they have been used, for example.

[Badger_Lady]

Rights for cows to be free to choose their own mates, reproduce when they want, keep their calves, and let their calves have their milk.

This is probably the best reason I've heard to rationalise why this case will never be won. Those judging it will never be able to draw a line (which animals are people? Including arachnids and insects? How about ameoba? Bacteria?).

They are not going to make a ruling that could lead to the "freeing of all farm animals".

Don't get me wrong, it sounds like a wonderful idea - for our little fantasy land where all wishes come true and there's no fighting and the air is filled with cherry blossom...

[SomebodyElse]

You're right that language isn't static, but when words are abruptly redefined to serve a specific agenda, we usually have a problem. Look at the history of the words "witch" and "liberal" and how they have been used, for example.
I'm not really seeing the general resistance to this as criticism of an agenda. It looks more to me like people are reacting with fear to having their supremacy challenged. (General observation, no one in particular in mind here).

Its curious that you should liken the argument to that used by believers in the religious fantasy of intelligent design. Most of the actual science quoted in the article mentions how difficult it is to tell the differences between humans and chimps when looking at DNA, which is something most people don't want to accept, and asks some questions about just how humanity and personhood are defined, which no one wants to answer, unless the answers serve the status quo. Which most often is justified by religious statements about gods giving humans dominion over everyone else, humans being the only ones with souls, etc., and all that other crap about how much better humans are than everyone else, and how no one but the human should be entitled to, you guessed it, personhood. I don't know what the biological or scientific arguments for defining what is human, as expressed in the article, will turn out to be, but I won't accept the religion-based arguments claiming that humans are the only ones entitled to personhood.

Its possible that advocates of intelligent design just know a good argument when they see one, and will use it to suit themselves. Maybe the same can be said of AR advocates, but at least we are working to serve the needs of others than ourselves. If a tool works, I won't throw it out because I don't like some of the uses other people put it too, and if we don't try to do things that have never been done before, we'll never know if they might have worked, or not.

[abroadinSacto]

I'm not really seeing the general resistance to this as criticism of an agenda. It looks more to me like people are reacting with fear to having their supremacy challenged. (General observation, no one in particular in mind here).

Its curious that you should liken the argument to that used by believers in the religious fantasy of intelligent design. Most of the actual science quoted in the article mentions how difficult it is to tell the differences between humans and chimps when looking at DNA, which is something most people don't want to accept, and asks some questions about just how humanity and personhood are defined, which no one wants to answer, unless the answers serve the status quo. Which most often is justified by religious statements about gods giving humans dominion over everyone else, humans being the only ones with souls, etc., and all that other crap about how much better humans are than everyone else, and how no one but the human should be entitled to, you guessed it, personhood. I don't know what the biological or scientific arguments for defining what is human, as expressed in the article, will turn out to be, but I won't accept the religion-based arguments claiming that humans are the only ones entitled to personhood.

Its possible that advocates of intelligent design just know a good argument when they see one, and will use it to suit themselves. Maybe the same can be said of AR advocates, but at least we are working to serve the needs of others than ourselves. If a tool works, I won't throw it out because I don't like some of the uses other people put it too, and if we don't try to do things that have never been done before, we'll never know if they might have worked, or not.

My last comment wasn't in reference to the article, just to the use of the term "personhood" and how it has been applied by a very small group to refer to something other than humanity. I see bringing a non-human into personhood, something that is widely regarded as a human realm, for the sole purpose of proving a point, to be the same as the intelligent design tactic.

I'll just stress, if there's a point to be made, make it. Use existing language and invent words if you need them to describe new constructs. This Singeresque style of revising the meaning of words is a silly attempt at a lofty philosophising of the matter to a point that you practically have to be a "follower" simply to understand what the hell the discussion is about.

AR is a very simple concept that can be discussed on simple terms. Splitting hairs on the meaning of words and philosophical wankering does nothing but turn away people who don't have the time, energy, or background to participate, regardless of their intentions. I'm afraid that too many people like Singer are motivated to turn AR matters into a high-level philosophical discussion to make it an intellectually aristocratic platform, where those who don't speak the proper language can't participate.

[Sevenseas]

'Person' is not "another term for human". The context here is a courtroom. Could it possibly be that in the context of a courtroom, the definition for 'person' we are looking for is:


6: one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties

Granted, they aren't ascribing legal duties to chimps, and the list above doesn't mention non-human animals, but it certainly mentions something that is not a human: a corporation.


I'm afraid that too many people like Singer are motivated to turn AR matters into a high-level philosophical discussion to make it an intellectually aristocratic platform, where those who don't speak the proper language can't participate.I don't know what Singer you are talking about. If Peter Singer, then I must have missed a lot, since I've never seen him engage in "high-level philosophical discussion" filled with special terminology. He has a very simple theoretical framework and he does practical ethics, mainly discussing empirical details (the consequences of different actions).

[abroadinSacto]

I don't know what Singer you are talking about. If Peter Singer, then I must have missed a lot, since I've never seen him engage in "high-level philosophical discussion" filled with special terminology. He has a very simple theoretical framework and he does practical ethics, mainly discussing empirical details (the consequences of different actions).

Maybe a bad choice of words, but it's all relative. Framing an ape as a "person" will leave most people (excuse me, most humans) lost at the beginning of the conversation. This is language that Singer uses, and confusing people like this is an unfortunate tactic that many people who disagree with their opponent will use not to stimulate dialog but simply to shut them down.

[sybaritik]

I'll just stress, if there's a point to be made, make it. Use existing language and invent words if you need them to describe new constructs. This Singeresque style of revising the meaning of words is a silly attempt at a lofty philosophising of the matter to a point that you practically have to be a "follower" simply to understand what the hell the discussion is about.

AR is a very simple concept that can be discussed on simple terms. Splitting hairs on the meaning of words and philosophical wankering does nothing but turn away people who don't have the time, energy, or background to participate, regardless of their intentions. I'm afraid that too many people like Singer are motivated to turn AR matters into a high-level philosophical discussion to make it an intellectually aristocratic platform, where those who don't speak the proper language can't participate.



I would make this criticism of Francione rather than Singer, but that's precisely the way I feel about how AR matters are presented.....too many out of touch academics directing the show.