Senate Court: Orangutans are non-human Persons with legal rights

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6363582

Interesting development.

 

Getting closer and closer to that Planet of the Apes future.

 

Might as well have necro'ed that old dolphin thread from...hey wait, you're the guy who started that topic too!

 

Yeah uh this is in Argentina I think. The Huffpo article does a terrible job of actually stating which court and where this ruling was made. I'm assuming Argentina.

 

great apes, dolphins and certain cephalopods should basically be treated as persons not gonna lie

 

Read that article on New Yorker now, did you?

 

Ape shall never deny due process to Ape.

 

So does this mean that they are now raman or that we are now raman?

 

I'm all for more rights for higher mammals like Great Apes, Elephants & Cetaceans.
However, this sort of ruling will only aid groups like PETA which see all zoos & aquariums as prisons without factoring in the conservation work.

It would be wonderful if all Great Apes could live wild in their natural habitat, but some are critically endangered and would likely go extinct if captive breeding and research was ended.

 

That's nice. I feel an affinity with the great apes.

It does beg a question, though. What do you guys do with beezel?

 

So, now they're just going to have to figure out where the dividing line is between non-human animals and non-human persons are, I guess. But the article says that the issue was illegal detention and that the zoo couldn't show habeas corpus (or whatever the Argentinian equivalent would be). But wouldn't the bigger issue be that the orangutan was owned by somebody? And is going to still be presumably owned by someone. I mean, that's kinda the foundational right of a human, right? Not to be purchased and owned by someone?

I'm all for animal rights, but I don't know that declaring them to have all the rights of people is the way to go. It just seems, well, I guess I don't even know what "non-human person" means. The article says that they can't treat it like an "object." But . . . no one was treating it like an object; they were feeding it, I'd reckon, and cleaning it and giving it shelter. I'm just curious about the legal status that exists between "non-human person" and "object," and why this particular court seemed to not see there as being one. I would imagine there has to be one of some kind, right? And I don't even know what "non-human person" entails. Apparently, it means that a being can't be held without showing habeas corpus, which kind of definitely shoots zoos (and pet owners) in the face. But who exactly is going to "own" this orangutan? I would think that would be the pressing legal issue here - not that a being with personal rights is being illegally detained, but that that a being with personal rights is owned by another being. And the article says they're transferring him to a sanctuary . . . which means they're going to be illegally detaining him, based on the ruling of the very case they just won! And presumably someone is still going to "own" him. It's just weird and it opens up a whole nest of thorny legal questions.

I'd really love some law expert to help me understand some of this. Is this orangutan going to still be "owned?" Why does the sanctuary not count as illegal detention? What limits are placed on the typical rights of personhood by the limitation of also being non-human? What is the legal status of a living being that exists between object and non-human person? Of course, this is Argentina, from what I can see, so experts on US law wouldn't know these things down to the ground, but still, maybe someone could clarify these things in a general sense at least.

 

Yeah, this. Maybe I don't see the distinction, but is there a difference between animal "rights" and simply ensuring that animals are treated humanely? Giving animals rights sounds really problematic legally and maybe politically...whereas humane treatment, well you can pretty much get most people on board with that.

 

Are we gonna let Orangutans freely walk around without fear of persecution? Will we provide them with all the same opportunities as the rest of us? Will they have to pay taxes?

 

I don't know or really care about the legal questions, but a sanctuary tends to be quite different than a zoo. The primary purpose is not displaying the animals, for one.

 

As for legality and ownership, I'm in favor of a category for "nonhuman persons" as the ruling calls them, or what have you.
Just as a person who is mentally handicapped, incapacitated or otherwise unable to function in modern society have legal proxies to represent them, I suspect Orangutans in captivity will be under the care of their guardians, rather than owned by them.
This enables conservation, research, and sanctuary groups who are doing good work to make the decisions they need to, while putting safeguards in play against abuses of that power, and remains a strong condemnation of the "exotic pets" trade.

 

It's about time. I'm all for apes, elephants and cetaceans having some basic foundational rights. But as SithLordDarthRichie pointed out, habitat loss should be taken into account before release back into the wild.

 

The issue shouldn't be having animals such as Apes and Elephants in captivity, it's how they are treated.
Enrichment is important, but zoos and other places should basically be sanctuaries that allow visitors to come & see living exhibits in an educational way (some argue only endangered species should be kept in zoos, they actually need to be there).
Shows are where problems start occurring. Making animals perform for entertainment of the masses is not the way any modern zoological institution should operate if it wants to be taken seriously.
Minimal human contact & expansive realistic enclosures is the way forward. Otherwise people seeing zoos as places that just want their money & treat animals like commodities is not going to change.

 

Sure, I can understand that, but it seems there would be a legal channel based on the negative treatment he was (presumably) getting at the zoo. But instead they went with this very strange idea that it's just illegal to detain the animal without . . . I don't even know . . . filing charges? Or something? I mean, supposedly, the case didn't have anything to do with the quality of the detention; just that he was detained.

I mean, I'm sure he'll be better off in the sanctuary; it's just odd that the case declared it was illegal for him to be detained and then just . . . detained him again. It seems to me, the only legal action possible, once you've said that he can't be imprisoned without habeas corpus, is to set him free. That's what we'd do with a person. I mean, it wouldn't satisfy the legal question if a human was being jailed without probable cause and the courts just moved him to a nicer jail. They'd have to just release the person.

 

A captive orangutan cannot take care of himself in the wild. Not to mention orangutan habitat is rapidly dwindling.

You seem to be acting as though "legal person" means we have to give them voting rights and let them ride the subway.

 

Well, no, I'm acting like I don't have a clue what it means. Because I don't. I'm also suspicious that this court doesn't really either.

 

Listen, guys, they're people too. I know their orange hair is a bit freaky but you can't stop them voting or riding on the subway.

We could all take a leaf out of Australia's book. I'll have to check with Ender Sai but I believe they have an official 'hug a ranga' day once a year to help them feel included.