Orangutan recognised as "non-human person"

[Sentinel]

(Reuters) - An orangutan held in an Argentine zoo can be freed and transferred to a sanctuary after a court recognized the ape as a "non-human person" unlawfully deprived of its freedom, local media reported on Sunday.
Animal rights campaigners filed a habeas corpus petition - a document more typically used to challenge the legality of a person's detention or imprisonment - in November on behalf of Sandra, a 29-year-old Sumatran orangutan at the Buenos Aires zoo.

In a landmark ruling that could pave the way for more lawsuits, the Association of Officials and Lawyers for Animal Rights (AFADA) argued the ape had sufficient cognitive functions and should not be treated as an object.

The court agreed Sandra, born into captivity in Germany before being transferred to Argentina two decades ago, deserved the basic rights of a "non-human person."

[...]

The Buenos Aires zoo has 10 working days to seek an appeal.

[...]

Full Reuters Article

While I've grown tired of debating the issue, especially oldtimers here may remember that I'm a fairly unapologetically anthropocentric guy. In any case I see the concept of animal rights as a complex and a bit problematic issue. But this made me happy.

I generally tend to lean towards the opinion that very intelligent and sentient animals such as great apes, but also whales etc should be granted elevated rights, and this seems a concrete step towards that end.

Congrats Sandra, hopefully the decision is final.

[Palmares]

Wow. That's really interesting.

Though, I would love this to set a precedent, I'm unsure if it will. All industries that domesticate animals could be threatened by this. So depending what happens, some serious legal teams will probably try to contest this, or similar possible cases.

What I didn't read, perhaps I missed it, is where do they propose to release Sandra to? The forest? Or?

Good luck to Sandra though.

[Sentinel]

What I didn't read, perhaps I missed it, is where do they propose to release Sandra to? The forest? Or?

I think by 'sanctuary', as it says, they mean some wildlife reservation - that's what it says in the Swedish article I first saw. I hope that involves some kind of supervised transition period.

I'm by far no expert but from what I gather it is probably for the best to not immediately release long time captive animals to full freedom, for their own sake.

[The Jay]

This is fantastic news! I've thought for some time now that the great apes should be treated as persons. They certainly have enough faculties to warrant inclusion into the category of persons.

[jullia]

Interesting and sad to notice there is an evolution in the consideration of animals but not in the consideration of humans.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Interesting and sad to notice there is an evolution in the consideration of animals but not in the consideration of humans.

Oh I wouldn't worry about that, just because there's been a backlash against keeping them and other animals in captivity, that doesn't mean the destruction of the environments they depend on has stopped.

[The Disillusionist]

Full Reuters Article

While I've grown tired of debating the issue, especially oldtimers here may remember that I'm a fairly unapologetically anthropocentric guy. In any case I see the concept of animal rights as a complex and a bit problematic issue. But this made me happy.

I generally tend to lean towards the opinion that very intelligent and sentient animals such as great apes, but also whales etc should be granted elevated rights, and this seems a concrete step towards that end.

Congrats Sandra, hopefully the decision is final.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...-shows-BANNED#

India gave dolphins personhood about a year and a half ago. Now if only they would start treating the Dalits (untouchables) like people, they'd stand to make some good progress.


(India actually has improved its treatment of the Dalits quite a bit, but I make the statement just to bring awareness to the fact that it is definitely still an issue).

[Palmares]

Seems like this doesn't fly in the US:

US chimpanzee Tommy 'has no human rights' - court

Chimpanzee Tommy is believed to be 40 years old
Continue reading the main story Related Stories

• The battle to make Tommy the chimp a person

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.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30338231

[Lord Testicles]

Seems like this doesn't fly in the US

That's hardly surprising considering that some humans don't even have rights in the US.

[ckaihatsu]

[I] generally tend to lean towards the opinion that very intelligent and sentient animals such as great apes, but also whales etc should be granted elevated rights

Free speech for whales!!


= D

[The Jay]

Well, their songs are beautiful.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

How is being confined in a sanctuary any different to being confined in a zoo? It may be the case that the sanctuary has better facilities for looking after the orangutan, but that has nothing to do with freedom - a bigger cage with padded bars and better food is still a cage. It's like moving a human from a jail cell to a small island they cannot leave of their own volition, and then saying that they've been "freed".

But that's the incoherence of the concept of animal rights for you...

[Palmares]

It's a good point.

Animals rights (like the human, bourgeois rights) as opposed to animal liberation (like the human revolution against capital).

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Replacing "rights" with "liberation" doesn't solve the incoherence. You're not liberated by being given a bigger and more comfortable cell, but by being allowed to leave the cell. Presumably the orangutan is not going to be allowed to leave the sanctuary, no?

[Sentinel]

Replacing "rights" with "liberation" doesn't solve the incoherence. You're not liberated by being given a bigger and more comfortable cell, but by being allowed to leave the cell. Presumably the orangutan is not going to be allowed to leave the sanctuary, no?

Hmm, I was under the impression sanctuary here meant like large size natural park, talking endless square kilometers, an area guarded so the animals therein can not be hunted down or captured?

Obviously if it is only a bigger cell then it matters fuck all.

[Palmares]

Replacing "rights" with "liberation" doesn't solve the incoherence. You're not liberated by being given a bigger and more comfortable cell, but by being allowed to leave the cell. Presumably the orangutan is not going to be allowed to leave the sanctuary, no?

I don't disagree with you, but you've missed the point of my post.

By making the distinction of animal rights and animal liberation, it's a reference to the different endgoals of these two branches of those who struggle for animals. The first wanting simply the fair treatment of animals, retaining the domestication - their cages. And by implication, animal liberation refers to the autonomy of the animals - freedom from their cages, domestication - and thus, a place back in their natural habitat.

[Rudolf]

And by implication, animal liberation refers to the autonomy of the animals - freedom from their cages, domestication - and thus, a place back in their natural habitat.

This i find quite interesting and difficult.


With alot of domesticated animals, due to their domestication and selective breeding over time, there technically isn't a natural habitat. Some animals we could get away with reintroducing and mating with wild populations (such as chickens which can mate with jungle fowls) but there comes a serious problem... We've been fucking with their genes for thousands of years! We've been breeding animals to be docile and some to have serious health problems (fuck you dog breeders!)

The problem i find about this is what about the animals that weren't domesticated? Should we really introduce domesticated animals into wild populations? In the long term it might be ok as the gene expressions get diluted but i'd imagine it could easily cause a detrimental effect on the evolutionary arms race between species.

Maybe the best method is a relative one based on the levels of domestication.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Hmm, I was under the impression sanctuary here meant like large size natural park, talking endless square kilometers, an area guarded so the animals therein can not be hunted down or captured?

Obviously if it is only a bigger cell then it matters fuck all.

Unless the orangutan is permitted to go where it pleases to the same level as humans are (among other things), then it is just a bigger cell. It's range of action is still circumscribed in a manner that most humans would find intolerable.

I don't disagree with you, but you've missed the point of my post.

By making the distinction of animal rights and animal liberation, it's a reference to the different endgoals of these two branches of those who struggle for animals. The first wanting simply the fair treatment of animals, retaining the domestication - their cages. And by implication, animal liberation refers to the autonomy of the animals - freedom from their cages, domestication - and thus, a place back in their natural habitat.

What this ruling effectively does is say that yes, it is acceptable that some persons should have different rights to others (presumably the organgutan is not being given the vote, for example). Now I don't know about you, but it's my understanding that a lot of past struggles for social and political justice have involved abolishing that sort of thing and replacing them with something more universal. Why is it now considered acceptable, even laudable, to go back on that?

[ckaihatsu]

Orangutan Sam for County Judge.

('Nuff said.)

[Palmares]

This i find quite interesting and difficult.


With alot of domesticated animals, due to their domestication and selective breeding over time, there technically isn't a natural habitat. Some animals we could get away with reintroducing and mating with wild populations (such as chickens which can mate with jungle fowls) but there comes a serious problem... We've been fucking with their genes for thousands of years! We've been breeding animals to be docile and some to have serious health problems (fuck you dog breeders!)

The problem i find about this is what about the animals that weren't domesticated? Should we really introduce domesticated animals into wild populations? In the long term it might be ok as the gene expressions get diluted but i'd imagine it could easily cause a detrimental effect on the evolutionary arms race between species.

Maybe the best method is a relative one based on the levels of domestication.

Indeed. I was actually just referring to the theory, making no reference to the practical realities of it. It's a can-of-worms.

The problem with domestication is that it is predicated on the dependence on the domesticator. And as you say, some forms of animal domestication go far back in human history. Thusly, their dependence on humans has been stretched ever so far, their previous state of evolution has largely disappeared - and without this evolutionary biology, survival in their previous natural habitat would be difficult at best.

Of course it is possible, as you can see demonstrated by feral animals. This is just an example, as this clearly more suits more adaptive species. But thats kinda how evolution works. Thus re-introduction can be bad for indigenous species however, at least in the short term.

I'm not trying to proscribe what animal liberation is, or could be. I think we would figure out how best to liberate animals through experimenting with different methods and using our common sense. We don't understand omnipotently how natural ecological functions work, so any approach we take can't be mathematically deduced.