Judge Recognizes Two Chimpanzees as Legal Persons, Grants them Writ of Habeas Corpus

[Keith&Co.]

Why are people saying chimps are white? While chimps tend to have skin tones that are light relative to their fur when they are young, adult chimps tend to have quite dark skin.

I just remember someone claiming on TV that maybe Blacks were evolved from apes, then someone else shaved part of a chimp and it was pretty white underneath, so 'whites-from-apes' was just as logical. That's when the studio started to experience technical difficulties.

oh, gosh, are there white AND Black chimps? Are some going to be upset if their cage is in the back of the zoo?

 

[ronburgundy]

There are two completely disctinct issues here: a purely ethical one and then a legal/logical one.

The ethical issue is whether chimps should be granted some degree of protection against being treated badly (in ways that its likely they find unpleasant) that we do not grant other non-human animals.

The completely separate issue is on what basis should we enforce this societal rule. There are countless ways it could be done and this judges way is only one and among the most absurd and foolish. The approach mush be a philosophically principled, logically coherent legal basis that does not arbitrarily allow the courts to pick and choose who can detain this chimps and for what purpose.

A writ of habeas corpus cannot be applied to non-persons. The law specifies and clearly intends it to only apply to persons (and to human persons). The judge must declare these chimps legal "persons" at minimum, and arguably must declare them human persons, otherwise she is blatantly misapplying the clear intent of the existing law. Anything the Non-human rights groups claims to the contrary is dishonest bullshit on their part.

Note the following:

The writ [of habeas corpus] requires Stony Brook University, represented by the Attorney General of New York, to appear in court and provide a legally sufficient reason for detaining Hercules and Leo.

Guess what? Unless the chimps are just allowed to walk out the court doors (or just hang out if they want), then they will only leave the court under detention and be brought to a place against their will where they are detained against their will. IOW, it is philosophically, scientifically, and legally absurd to claim that their "person" rights are violated any more by Stony Brook detaining them than by anyone detaining them. In fact, it is highly likely the chimps are attached to their handlers and would prefer to stay with them than go with strangers. Thus, any removal of them from Stony Brook custody would objectively be an even greater violation of their will and thus their presumed "rights". "Detention" against their will can have nothing to do with the basis for why they are removed from Stony Brook, because their is no principled or legal basis on which to do it.

It must be based upon the manner in which they are treated their, and a principled scientific basis for assuming beyond reasonable doubt that they would prefer to be elsewhere. Stony Brook are their current caretakers and thus guardians if they are to be thought "persons". Thus, their removal would be akin to removal of a child from their parents. The State needs to prove abuse warranting removal. Children are allowed to be detained against their will by their guardians. They are not allowed to just roam the streets. If granted the person status similar to children, then at least it would make sense to keep "detaining" them but change who and how they are detained. But doing that still requires a change to existing law to allow for non-human persons to be covered by laws that refer to persons, and it must specify which non-human are and which are not covered. Also, once done then the chimps would have all the rights of non-adult humans, and criminal laws would also apply to them and their guardians for any of their actions.

Far more sensible would be the creation of new laws that apply specifically to chimps and any other non-humans we want to grant special protections to and enumerate what those protections are. Then nothing in current law in reference to "persons" would apply to them, which is far better for the integrity of the law than courts arbitrarily deciding which do and which not apply, even though the sole basis for apply any is that they are now "persons".

 

[Bronzeage]

Why are people saying chimps are white? While chimps tend to have skin tones that are light relative to their fur when they are young, adult chimps tend to have quite dark skin.

I just remember someone claiming on TV that maybe Blacks were evolved from apes, then someone else shaved part of a chimp and it was pretty white underneath, so 'whites-from-apes' was just as logical. That's when the studio started to experience technical difficulties.

oh, gosh, are there white AND Black chimps? Are some going to be upset if their cage is in the back of the zoo?

There you go again. Why isn't it White chimps?

 

[PyramidHead]

An interesting question. Firstly, the idea that rights also confer responsibility is not a settled matter. Severely mentally disabled human beings are not held responsible in the same way as non-disabled humans, but they have pretty much the same rights. I suppose that is consonant with rights being inalienable and so forth. The Bill of Rights doesn't say we are also furnished by our Creator with certain inalienable responsibilities, after all.

Chimps are not mentally disabled.

What sort of chimpophobic comment is that?

lol. But the parallel has been made, specifically with regard to animal testing. Like, if you're willing to test an adult chimp against its will, why not a severely retarded human with even less mental capacity or ability to consent. I don't know how far that comparison goes, but it's not totally off the mark, as chimp testing is so much harder to justify with review boards (and so much more expensive) than just using lab rats, for example.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Chimps are not mentally disabled.

What sort of chimpophobic comment is that?

lol. But the parallel has been made, specifically with regard to animal testing. Like, if you're willing to test an adult chimp against its will, why not a severely retarded human with even less mental capacity or ability to consent. I don't know how far that comparison goes, but it's not totally off the mark, as chimp testing is so much harder to justify with review boards (and so much more expensive) than just using lab rats, for example.

That's racist.

This kind of anti-rat demagoguery may play well at a Klan rally, but we do try and have higher standards here, thank you very much.

 

[dismal]

I just remember someone claiming on TV that maybe Blacks were evolved from apes, then someone else shaved part of a chimp and it was pretty white underneath, so 'whites-from-apes' was just as logical. That's when the studio started to experience technical difficulties.

oh, gosh, are there white AND Black chimps? Are some going to be upset if their cage is in the back of the zoo?

There you go again. Why isn't it White chimps?

It occurs to me that if chimps read what goes on here they may instruct their lawyers to put the kibosh on the this whole becoming part of the human race thing.

More human, More problems.

 

[Starr]

Why are people saying chimps are white? While chimps tend to have skin tones that are light relative to their fur when they are young, adult chimps tend to have quite dark skin.

I just remember someone claiming on TV that maybe Blacks were evolved from apes, then someone else shaved part of a chimp and it was pretty white underneath, so 'whites-from-apes' was just as logical. That's when the studio started to experience technical difficulties.

oh, gosh, are there white AND Black chimps? Are some going to be upset if their cage is in the back of the zoo?

I haven't done a thorough study of this, but I presume the skin color thing in apes is due to the same reason that human skin color varies. Chimps exposed skin is quite black by the time they are adults. This grants them decent UV protection on exposed skin, same as black humans. There is no particular reason for the skin that is covered by fur to be black though, so it may in fact stay a lighter hue, I don't know for sure.

 

[Valjean]

What qualities qualify one for personhood status? It's not intelligence or social competence, or children, the mentally ill, the senile &al would not qualify.

Chimps have a claim to moral consideration inasmuch as they're sentient,"aware" creatures. They're capable of suffering, fear, joy and grief. They anticipate futurity and seek to preserve themselves from harm.

Any defense of our exploitation of them boils down to a case of might makes right, in my opinion.

 

[dismal]

What qualities qualify one for personhood status? It's not intelligence or social competence, or children, the mentally ill, the senile &al would not qualify.

One possible argument is we qualify for human rights by being human.

 

[Valjean]

Facile and circular, Dismal. You can do better.
If a couple LGM landed in your back yard and asked you to take them to your leader, would you consider them people, even though they weren't remotely human? Would you extend them the same moral consideration you would a human?

 

[dismal]

Facile and circular, Dismal. You can do better.
If a couple LGM landed in your back yard and asked you to take them to your leader, would you consider them people, even though they weren't remotely human? Would you extend them the same moral consideration you would a human?

It depends on how they treated me. Human rights are a societal construct. We recognize rights in others in part because we want others to recognize rights in us. If we all simultaneuously pretend these rights are real we are all made better off.

I'm not sure how this applies to chimps. They are not capable of pretending you, I or other chimps have rights.