As I can see – according to the interpretations of the lawyers of AFADA - in this story the non-human rights meant the same as human: it made possible to apply habeas corpus. They (and the court) didn’t speak about bad conditions, but they considered the ‘captivity in zoo’ as an illegal act. The next question: how could define the group of species which deserves the “non-human rights”? Where would be the dividing line? At gibbons… or at baboons… or at macaws, perhaps dogs? Why would the intelligence be the chosen feature – only because the main feature of humans? Lot of “more primitive” animals are much more sensitive to captivity than apes… I think this case was not the intention to improve the animal welfare in zoos (which I support very), their goal was stop keeping many species in any zoos. Using habeas corpus would lead to this, as the judge of Tomy case (in New York) recognized it.
I agree with Elajos opinion in this article. If the orang cannot keep in zoo against her will, so no other animals cannot keep in captivity too... But what is it that animals want? Here is an orang was born in Rostock Zoo, and live all her life in detention... She doesn't know what it means that living free... For animals were born in zoos the captivity is "natural habitat", because they don't know the life outside the bars. However, of course good conditions are very important for captive animals, so I think that ensuring of good conditions would be the best solution in similar cases. (but I've never been in Buenos Aires Zoo, so I don't know the conditions of the orang in this zoo, and I also don't know the conditions of the sanctuary in Brazil)
Let me point out another aspect. Aside from me not agreeing with the court's decision there is the question whether it helps AFADA in achieving their goal of giving more rights to animals. I think this one "victory" for them may easily be a setback in the overall fight for the extension of animals' rights. People - especially those who feel that they are being deprived of some of their human rights by social injustice (and there are plenty of them all around the world) - tend to get irritated when it comes to animals' rights. I used to take part in a (successful) campaign to collect signatures for my country's legislature to make a law that would punish animal torture by imprisonment about a decade ago. A lot of people replied as follows: "I will not sign your petition until the law allows humans to be tortured!" which is absurd, since, of course the law does not allow such a thing. The explanation for this sentiment is probably that there was (and is) great social injustice in my country (Hungary) and poor people feel that the law does not protect them (and they are often right) and that the improvement of their conditions would be far more important than that of animals'. Of course, these two things are not only not exclusive, but would strengthen each other, but - believe me - most people think with their hearts (or rather their stomachs) not with their heads. I have never been to Argentina, neither have met too many Argentinians, but as far as I know that country also has its share of economic problems, poverty and injustice, and I suppose that the basic thinking mechanisms of people are quite the same around the globe. So, I'm afraid that this court's decision may cause a wave of anti-animal rights sentiment as a reaction. Otherwise I think that animals' rights should be extended, but this is not the right way to do so, neither the good direction. I agree with those who say that capitive animals should be provided the best possible conditions, but this is far more a matter of science and money. As for lawyers: I recommend that they concentrate their efforts on the rights of WILD animals, THEIR non/human right for a healthy environment, for example, is gravely jeopardized worldwide! PS.: Will I have to kick my dog out if a court decides that dogs (as sentient and sapient beings) cannot be held captive???
I have an impression that the only goal of some animal rights organizations and lawyers is getting money and publicity. So they concentrate on high-profile individual animals and rich institutions (like entertainment parks), where sufficient money and spotlight can be found. As the court in NY pointed, improvement of apes' condition can be done using animal welfare laws. As many pointed, biggest threat to apes is cutting rainforest and hunting for bushmeat trade - both of which zoos run active campaigns. However these paths were not pursued by animal rights organizations, presumably because they require actual work but do not generate money and publicity. This is not helping animals and ultimately dangerous for them. It means that anybody trying to help animals will be plagued by false 'animal helpers' trying to get a slice of money and publicity. But real threats will go as they are, and if animals are dead then no more laws apply for them. No problem if killer whale dies, or the whole species of orangutans goes extinct. No animal rights broken there, much as no human rights are broken after extinction of native Mohicans or Tasmanians.
And the latest in the fight comes from New York: Chimpanzees Take a Huge Step Toward (Some) Human Rights | WIRED
Indeed. One of the psychology books I read in college suggested that a lot of human behaviors have less to do with actually solving problems, real problems, and more to do with displaying how much of a certain trait they have(how much of a certain trait they have, I know I'm doing a clumsy job of explaining this) e.g. how liberal they are, how conscientious they are, etc.
You're pretty much on the money there. No animal is gonna be getting true personhood status anytime soon. These trials are all for show and publicity. I guess one could argue that it brings attention to the issue, but I still don't think it's a good idea. It's sort of like how PETA does a lot of sexualized advertisements and protests. It's not so much to discuss the issue as it is to get attention, but is all attention good attention? I think it just makes the cause look stupid. On a side note, I don't always blame people for tackling smaller or easier issues. Sometimes you gotta do what you can, and it's not like issues are always mutually exclusive. (after all, if you went to a zoo that was really awful, you could still be horrified and it wouldn't take away from your concern for wildlife) Some issues and some governments are easier to work with than others. It's probably easier to get protections for captive chimps in the US than it is for apes out in the wild.
Judge backpeddles on chimpanzee personhood Chimpanzee ?personhood? case sows confusion : Nature News & Comment
Breaking news, surely this will appear soon in english news, AFADA tried to gain another habeas corpus for an elderly chimp named Cecilia at the Mendoza zoo, just like the legal status obtained for Sandra the female orangutan at the Buenos Aires zoo. The argentine federal court has stated that only humans are qualified to a habeas corpus, and though primates have certain rights and deserve to be maintained under adequate and special care they should not be considered humans. Sandra the orangutan is still at Buenos Aires zoo. She is a mature hybrid. it is impossible to rehabilate her to life in the wild and she is a hybrid. Brazil did not authorize the move to a sanctuary in that country. Brazilian government has enough problems with the human rights of its own citizens to recieve an elderly ape with habeas corpus.
I went to the Buenos Aires zoo last week. It was a hot sunday morning. Sandra, the orangutan who is also a non human person with a habeas corpus was there. her exhibit was renovated by Coca cola argentina, which is now supporting Buenos aires zoo. It is actually adequate for a single ape. Much better than various all indoor exhibits for apes that i have seen in the U.S. Sandra was quite content, watching people under her blanket and looking for insects or seeds in the grass. She displayed no neurotic behavior. i spoke to a young woman who is one of her keepers. She told me this, "Sandra esta muy bien cuidada, tiene espacio amplio y enriquecimiento. Tiene ya trienta años con nostros. Sandra se debe quedar en la Argentina". I have posted some picture on the gallery.
Nice to hear that Sandra is doing well in her old, renovated zoo. Carlos, in your opinion, did this lawsuit change anything for Sandra at all?
Estimado Jurek, the lawsuit allowed Coca Cola company to hear about Sandra´s situation and the financial plight of the Buenos Aires zoo. It is ironic that it was a transnational U.S. company that actually stepped in a realistic manner to aid an ageing ape and the zoo she lives in. The animal rights activists and their lawyers did nothing to help Sandra. I suppose this surprises no one.
Probably it (the lawsuit) had less to do with actually helping her and more to do with trying to dictate other peoples relationships with animals.
