'Rights' for apes approved by Spanish parliament

[Pawn Power]

To bring up one of the more controversial issues here at revleft...

Though it doesn't appear that they will be given access to checking accounts or universal suffrage they are on the road to 'life' and 'freedom.'


Spanish parliament approves 'human rights' for apes

Great apes should have the right to life and freedom, according to a resolution passed in Spanish parliament, in what could become the first national legislation to enshrine human rights for chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and bonobos.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/26/humanrights.animalwelfare

[Vanguard1917]

This is what happens when you let monkeys run your country.

[Wanted Man]

So will homeless, unemployed apes get a roof over their heads and welfare? If one ape steals food from the other, will they be arrested and tried for theft?

[Lector Malibu]

Yeah !!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Have apes actually shown any ability whatsoever to articulate their desire for rights?

Unless the apes actually fight for their rights themselves, this is a meaningless gesture.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

In light of this, I'm definitely rooting for Russia today
:lol:

[ckaihatsu]

Yeah, keep it up -- you're now on record for ever and ever with those remarks, and you're only dissing our future overlords...! Enjoy the laughter *while* *you* *can*...! = )

[ckaihatsu]

'Cause you know that's what'll happen once they form a... (wait for it) ... *** gorilla *** army!!!

(Hey, *someone* had to -- it was just sitting there...!) = )


Chris



--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

[Panda Tse Tung]

So, now they can go and vote and live in a house, work, etc...? AWESOME!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So, now they can go and vote and live in a house, work, etc...? AWESOME!

:rolleyes: It's not awesome, it's stupid. No primate apart from humans has ever expressed a desire to vote. This isn't Chit-Chat, so stop treating the place like it is with no-substance posts that add nothing to the conversation.

[ckaihatsu]

Sorry, NoXion, but I agree with Mao Chi X -- the Spanish politicians may have just found their new SWING voters!!! (hahahahahahahaha!)

[Bear MacMillan]

housing apes in Spanish zoos, of which there are currently 315, will remain legal, supporters of the bill have said the conditions in which most of them live will need to improve substantially.


So they have human rights but they're still kept in zoos?:confused:
How would they be able to tell if the ape didn't want to stay in the zoo? would it be released, and where?

[ckaihatsu]

How would they be able to tell if the ape didn't want to stay in the zoo? would it be released, and where?


Better call in the lawyers...! = )



So they have human rights but they're still kept in zoos?:confused:


Seriously, though, this is about the *dignity* of the higher apes, not about *personhood* for them -- it just calls for better treatment.... The headline is a bit sensationalistic, and therefore misleading.... (Did you actually read the article?)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

How can they have any dignity if they're locked up?
What are the ape standards of dignity? Why should we respect these standards?

[ckaihatsu]

Jeeeeezus, you're asking me? Well, just chalk it up as one more reason to have a worldwide workers' revolution -- if I had my way they'd have custom-built mansions and flushing toilets and bidets and everything.... Maybe for now they just need some cable tv with gorilla-oriented programming -- fuck if I know....

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

So if you had it your way, we'd be working for gorillas?

[R_P_A_S]

i seriously don't understand why most of you have this fucking really perverse, selfish out look on other living things. Of course the fucking apes are not going to "demand rights" they are animals that only have instincts and can't generate intelligent decisions.

Is up to us humans, the "smart ones" to preserve as much as possible no? I understand the argument that people should be first and this and that. but for fuck sakes some of the shit i read around here sounds like the biggest egoistic rhetoric its fucking disgusting. Some of this animals are being slaughter indiscriminately, for fun. and you guys think that by protecting them is going to "slow down" the revolution or progress for better human rights? give me a break.

chillax nah?

[R_P_A_S]

How can they have any dignity if they're locked up?
What are the ape standards of dignity? Why should we respect these standards?

is this really necessary for such deep thought? please tell me. because stuff like this drive me "bananas" :laugh: LOL! sorry! couldn't help it.

but they are just apes for fuck sakes. are they going to drain resources from the workers??? gees. :blink:

[ckaihatsu]

So if you had it your way, we'd be working for gorillas?


Um, okay, *yes*, Dr. Penis, if I had it my way I'd force everyone to be working for the gorillas.... And I would call it -- wait, get this -- *primitive* communism!!!!!!!! (A-hahahahahahaha...!)

(Jeeeezus, how did the fucking apes get their human rights and then invade this message board so fucking quickly? I *swear*...!)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Is up to us humans, the "smart ones" to preserve as much as possible no?

To preserve the ecosystem and the plants and animals that constitute it is one thing. To give them rights is another thing altogether, and quite simply doesn't make a shred of sense.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

is this really necessary for such deep thought? please tell me. because stuff like this drive me "bananas" :laugh: LOL! sorry! couldn't help it.

but they are just apes for fuck sakes. are they going to drain resources from the workers??? gees. :blink:

It has nothing to do with resources. It has to do with the principle of us giving animals rights. Beings that are in no way a part of our society and can never be. What's the point and logic in giving them rights?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Um, okay, *yes*, Dr. Penis, if I had it my way I'd force everyone to be working for the gorillas.... And I would call it -- wait, get this -- *primitive* communism!!!!!!!! (A-hahahahahahaha...!)

(Jeeeezus, how did the fucking apes get their human rights and then invade this message board so fucking quickly? I *swear*...!)

http://barney.gonzaga.edu/~tlarson1/JeannieDarcy.jpg

Don't get me started,
don't even get me started!

[piet11111]

they only got these rights to prevent them from being used in medical experiments.

otherwise they could have done by sharpening animal cruelty laws (but they didn't while it would have helped other animals other then apes too)

apes are essential for medical experiments and because of this i think this decision is a very bad one.

[Bear MacMillan]

they only got these rights to prevent them from being used in medical experiments.

otherwise they could have done by sharpening animal cruelty laws (but they didn't while it would have helped other animals other then apes too)

apes are essential for medical experiments and because of this i think this decision is a very bad one.

True, without animal testing, we would have no biomedical science, and with no biomedical science, we would have no public medicine, and medical research would come to a halt. Off the top of my head, I can name alot of medications based off animal research like the polio vaccine, smallpox vaccine, insulin, penicillin, some pain killers, pacemakers and alot of body part transplants. If there are laws passed that prevent animal testing to any degree, our medical future could suffer greatly.

[Luís Henrique]

Next on Absurd News: Morrocan immigrants in Spain demand equal treatment with apes. Stay tuned!

Luís Henrique

[FreeFocus]

I don't think the right to live and not be held in captivity are just human rights, but natural rights of every creature alive (while human rights also encompass these, they also include numerous political and social rights, which obviously would not be extended to animals). That there could be any debate about whether or not humans have the "right" to deprive another organism, human or non-human, of their life on such dubious grounds as "it's for sport" or "they're in the way" is rather unsettling. Animals do not exist to benefit humans, and we must understand this. I support science wholeheartedly, but before we turn to unethical testing on animals, we need to exhaust every other avenue..and before unethical treatment, we need to exhaust every other avenue, and even then if something needs to be done, it ought to be done in the most respectful way possible, perhaps not by killing animals, but by transporting them to another area.

In conclusion, we need to draw distinctions between the various rights enjoyed: natural, political, social, economic, etc. All organisms have natural rights - the right to live and if that right is threatened, the right of self-defense. Organisms enter the world in freedom usually and have the right to preserve the said freedom (and if they're not born into freedom, they have the right to it). No one is proposing that apes or other animals be allowed to vote, buy a house or anything like that.

[Unicorn]

Have apes actually shown any ability whatsoever to articulate their desire for rights?

Unless the apes actually fight for their rights themselves, this is a meaningless gesture.
So is intelligence and the ability to express thoughts really the criteria you use to determine the worth of individuals? Do you think that humans who are less smart than apes (i.e. infants, the severely retarded and comatose people) should be stripped of their rights?

[Jazzratt]

I take it then that spain has eliminated homelessness, poverty and inequality among humans and is now trying to expand this society to creatures it has, through scientific modification, granted sapience?

No?

Then what the fuck is this government playing at?

[Trystan]

That ridiculous. The more anthropomorphic or "cute" an animal is to humans, the more protection it deserves. So when do we close down chicken farms? Stop animals eating other animals because animals have right . . . oh, wait.

[BobKKKindle$]

I don't think the right to live and not be held in captivity are just human rights, but natural rights of every creature alive

If every living creature possess rights, then should we also extend legal protection to organisms such as ants, even though they are not capable of understanding abstract concepts such as freedom? Should we also fight for the rights of vegetables which are unfairly pulled from the soil to provide humans with a source of nutrients? If one is sick, is it right to take medication, with the knowledge that innocent bacteria will die as a result?

The concept of a "natural" right is flawed because rights are ideas which are created by human society. Animals do exist to meet the needs of human beings. Through our ability to take advantage of the natural world and adapt to changing conditions, humans have become the most advanced species on the planet, and we face no moral obligation to defend the welfare of less intelligent species. Socialists should actively oppose all legislation which has the potential to restrict the use of animals as test subjects or undermine the ability of humans to use animals in any way.

[Module]

So is intelligence and the ability to express thoughts really the criteria you use to determine the worth of individuals? Do you think that humans who are less smart than apes (i.e. infants, the severely retarded and comatose people) should be stripped of their rights?
Infants, the severely retarded and comatose people should in no way be granted rights equal to that of regular human beings, no.
However, these people are, let's say, the 'social property' of human society, in the same way that people's pets are.
It would be unethical to harm comatose people simply because they are meaningful to those who actively participate in human society.
And infants and the severely retarded (not meaning to sound patronising, but 'retarded' is a rather archaic term) still have the capacity to participate in our social community through others, such as their family or caregivers.
They are, I suppose, secondary participants, in that whilst they are not a direct part of human society, they effect and are effected by human social interaction.

Apes, however, are completely divorced from human society and henceforth should not be granted any rights whatsoever.

[FreeFocus]

If every living creature possess rights, then should we also extend legal protection to organisms such as ants, even though they are not capable of understanding abstract concepts such as freedom? Should we also fight for the rights of vegetables which are unfairly pulled from the soil to provide humans with a source of nutrients? If one is sick, is it right to take medication, with the knowledge that innocent bacteria will die as a result?

Well, I didn't say legal protection necessarily, but a common moral understanding accepted by the majority of people. Vegetables and fruits lack nervous systems, the ability to perceive/sensory organs, etc. They don't feel pain. They don't know (since they can't think, reason, etc) whether they're being eaten, laying on the ground, or still on the vine/tree. You're grossly misinterpreting my argument in a fit of ridiculousness.

The concept of a "natural" right is flawed because rights are ideas which are created by human society. Animals do exist to meet the needs of human beings. Through our ability to take advantage of the natural world and adapt to changing conditions, humans have become the most advanced species on the planet, and we face no moral obligation to defend the welfare of less intelligent species. Socialists should actively oppose all legislation which has the potential to restrict the use of animals as test subjects or undermine the ability of humans to use animals in any way.

I would concede that some rights are ideas created by human society, such as those political, economic, and social rights that I referenced in my previous posts. Even these stem from our understanding of natural rights, and logically extending them to cover our circumstances in human society. No living organisms exist to meet the needs of human beings, considering the fact that many species (or their close ancestors) pre-date human existence. What you're describing, Bobkindles, is a cutthroat, dog eat dog world. Interestingly enough, social Darwinists, capitalists, imperialists, etc. have adapted this logic to extend to humans. If you're unable to see the connection between the problems of the lower classes in human society and the treatment of the environment and animals, then that's quite sad, and perhaps we should open a debate about it. I'm a libertarian socialist, and I support environmental sustainability and a decent respect towards fellow creatures. This is one of the things that repulses me about some leftists, the notion that humans should have the unhindered ability to run wild on the world, using each and every thing it encounters for its benefit, damn the consequences any which way.


If you want to smash capitalism and other forms of oppression, you should want to attack the logic that perpetuates it, regardless of its manifestation. There's a very close connection between the way humans treat animals and the way some humans treat the rest, and it stems from a common logic of domination.


Infants, the severely retarded and comatose people should in no way be granted rights equal to that of regular human beings, no.
However, these people are, let's say, the 'social property' of human society, in the same way that people's pets are.

This is absolutely horrendous in ethical terms. Other individuals are not "social property" merely because they are unable to carry out "normal" tasks or pursue normal things. They should be cared for and respected by society, as any other individual, but more so because they lack the capacity to do for themselves. They are not the equivalent of pets.

It would be unethical to harm comatose people simply because they are meaningful to those who actively participate in human society.

So if he/she were an abandoned person with no demonstrable ties to anyone "actively" participating in human society, it would be legitimate to murder or harm them?

And infants and the severely retarded (not meaning to sound patronising, but 'retarded' is a rather archaic term) still have the capacity to participate in our social community through others, such as their family or caregivers.
They are, I suppose, secondary participants, in that whilst they are not a direct part of human society, they effect and are effected by human social interaction.

Apes, however, are completely divorced from human society and henceforth should not be granted any rights whatsoever.

I'll elaborate later, got to go.

[Dean]

Infants, the severely retarded and comatose people should in no way be granted rights equal to that of regular human beings, no.
However, these people are, let's say, the 'social property' of human society, in the same way that people's pets are.
It would be unethical to harm comatose people simply because they are meaningful to those who actively participate in human society.
And infants and the severely retarded (not meaning to sound patronising, but 'retarded' is a rather archaic term) still have the capacity to participate in our social community through others, such as their family or caregivers.
They are, I suppose, secondary participants, in that whilst they are not a direct part of human society, they effect and are effected by human social interaction.

Apes, however, are completely divorced from human society and henceforth should not be granted any rights whatsoever.

No, I don't think you can make any real distinction here. Human beings have lived alongside most members of the animal kingdom for ever. How our society treats animals is indicative of the degree to which we have developed tolerance for difference in my opinion.

But Jazzrat did make a good point... a society which grants animals rights and still badly mistreats large portions of the human population is sick indeed.

[R_P_A_S]

It has nothing to do with resources. It has to do with the principle of us giving animals rights. Beings that are in no way a part of our society and can never be. What's the point and logic in giving them rights?

i agree but maybe it should be rephrased? the apes can't have rights. but maybe take away the from humans the rights to abuse other living things in their natural habitat?

[Lost In Translation]

Wow... Human rights for apes. Not exactly the most politically meaningful thing the Spanish parliament have done. I really don't see how there will be a difference. I doubt the apes know our customs. I don't think they care who is in the government, much less vote for the government. What's next, the parrots get equal rights?