Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

U.S. Court Recognizes Chimpanzees As “Legal Persons” [Darleen Click]

Hailed as “historic moment for animal rights” …

Hercules and Leo, who are currently used for biomedical experiments at Stony Brook University on Long Island, were granted habeas corpus by Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Barbara Jaffe.

Habeas corpus is a legal petition that detainees use to seek relief from unlawful imprisonment, and by granting habeas corpus to chimps, Jaffe endorsed the idea that they deserve the rights of a human being.

Advocates argue great apes are highly intelligent and self-aware beings with complex emotional lives that deserve basic rights, including the right to be free of inhumane punishment.

One million unborn human beings killed by abortion last year were unavailable for comment.

65 Replies to “U.S. Court Recognizes Chimpanzees As “Legal Persons” [Darleen Click]”

  1. cranky-d says:

    I read the headline and thought of your tagline. I was going to comment to that effect.

  2. cranky-d says:

    Having said that, I have seen the great apes at the San Diego wild animal park and their behavior lead me to believe that they should not have been there. They appear, at least, to have more going on than one might expect. However, since we tend to observe intelligent behavior and ascribe intelligence to it without other means of verification, one can never be sure.

  3. John Bradley says:

    I remember something like this happening in Europe a few years ago, and we all had a good laugh about it at the time. “Oh Europe, you so crazy!”

    It’s fun the way things always slide down a slippery-slope (and idea first promulgated by Isaac Newton, a dead white male who probably would have liked to own some slaves), and yet it’s always the people warning about the slope who are the “crazy” ones.

    It’s as if having Western Civilization piled up an a huge wreck at the bottom of an icy hill is the end goal.

  4. John Bradley says:

    OT: actual USA Today headline:

    Amour: Another Tim Tebow try that is certain to fail

    Them sportwriters sure do hate themselves a white christian. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a “what a loser, don’t even bother!” written about any other player. Runs counter to the whole “on any given Sunday” optimism necessary to sports and sportswriting.

    Imagine writing such a headline about that openly-gay guy from last year, you know, the one that was cut in the preseason for not being good enough. Unlike the guy who actually started in the NFL and led his team to the playoffs that one year.

  5. Given the type of absolute fucking idiots we have wandering around Kentuckiana these days, Chimpanzees are a step up.

    also, to get this out of the way… You know what else is a “legal person”? My penis.

    … and, the best thing about Tebow going to my Iggles is what it’s doing to certain members of my family who hate, Hate, HATE Tim Tebow.

    Honestly though, if Tebow would just get over the QB thing he could be the next Edelman. Sanchez can throw the short ball OK. We won’t talk about the elephant in the room, he broke my heart and my fantasy team (twice) and his knees, and his ankles, and his elbows, and his ribs, and his…

    Back on a plane, see you all in a month.

  6. Shermlaw says:

    . . .yet it’s always the people warning about the slope who are the “crazy” ones.

    One always hears the sneering application of the word “fallacy” when one talks about a slippery slope. The problem is the slippery slope is a fallacy only where the person advocating for a change also establishes an end point which is rationally justified and then agrees to live with that end point. The surest way to know and advocate for change is being disingenuous is to try to pin them down on that end point. If they won’t be pinned down, the slippery slope is not a fallacy.

    @Cookies, I agree. Tebow should try to be a receiver. See, e.g. Brad Smith.

  7. McGehee says:

    I blame Roddy McDowall.

  8. McGehee says:

    The surest way to know an advocate for change is being disingenuous is to try to pin them down on that end point.

    And “because we say so” doesn’t qualify.

  9. Sigivald says:

    Advocates argue great apes are highly intelligent and self-aware beings

    Well, yeah, they do, and that’s very plausible.

    But what does it have to do with chimpanzees?

  10. Sigivald says:

    (To clarify, “they do” refers to the activists in fact arguing that.

    “Very plausible” refers to the content of their argument.)

  11. sdferr says:

    Still looks to me to be about the humans, who seem (most of the time, not to say absolutely always) a capacity or inborne urge to see their kin in the light of right, “justice”, in old-speak. So the humans see right in doing right by these kin-kinds. That’s still a good thing about the humans.

  12. Bob Reed says:

    At first, upon seeing the headline, I was tempted to rend my garments over what I saw as the notion being asserted, that chimpanzees and humans were equivalent and equal in every way. But then Darleen’s final sentence made the situation abundantly clearer. They have greater rights that some humans…

  13. bgbear says:

    Fine by me but, I ain’t going to bake a cake for Hercules and Leo.

  14. Early AFWI returns:

    1) Washington, D.C.

    2) Kentuckiana, U.S.A.

    3) Chicago, Illinois

  15. dicentra says:

    So will they be required to sign up for the draft and jury duty?

  16. sdferr says:

    Are trisomy sufferers?

  17. geoffb says:

    I hadn’t realized just how hard up for voters the Democrats are.

  18. McGehee says:

    Apes would be a dangerous constituency. They’d figure out that the offer of a banana for their vote is patronizing, and bite the offeror’s face off.

    Or something.

  19. gahrie says:

    Chimps are great apes, and are actually our closest living relatives. If you believe in evolution..they are sort of our cousins.

    We are only about 1.2% genetically different from Chimps and Bonobos {a chimp sub species}, and all three of us are over 3% different from gorillas, the next most closely related animal.

    They’re still not human, and they’re still not capapble of respecting the rights of others; thus they do not possess rights.

    As humans, we have a responsibility to treat animals with respect, but that is an obligation to ourselves, not to the animals.

  20. bgbear says:

    What about bears?!

    black bears’ lives matter

  21. Merovign says:

    I think eventually there will be some sort of accepted hierarchy of animal “rights” not equivalent to but analogous to human rights, depending on the animals. Some people do that now, religiously or culturally or personally. I don’t think we’ve reached a point where governments have both the accepted authority and credibility to do that, so instead we’ll keep fighting about it.

    Highly intelligent (apes, porpoises, some whales, elephants), service (cats, dogs, horses) or pet, food animals, nuisance animals… some of those lines will probably always be blurred.

    I mean, if anything were actually ever settled, you couldn’t fight over it, and what fun would that be?

  22. McGehee says:

    For the person watching people spoiling for a fight and finding no excuse for one, I think it would be hilarious great fun.

    Until they decide they don’t need an excuse. They are, after all, only human.

  23. newrouter says:

    >But that is not all: if our observer had the opportunity to study the formal side of the policing and judicial procedures and practices, how they look “on paper,” he would discover that for the most part the common rules of criminal procedure are observed: charges are laid within the prescribed period following arrest, and it is the same with detention orders. Indictments are properly delivered, the accused has a lawyer, and so on. In other words, everyone has an excuse: they have all observed the law. In reality, however, they have cruelly and pointlessly ruined a young person’s life, perhaps for no other reason than because he made samizdat copies of a novel written by a banned writer, or because the police deliberately falsified their testimony (as everyone knows, from the judge on down to the defendant). Yet all of this somehow remains in the background. The falsified testimony is not necessarily obvious from the trial documents and the section of the Criminal Code dealing with incitement does not formally exclude the application of that charge to the copying of a banned novel. In other words, the legal code-at least in several areas-is no more than a facade, an aspect of the world of appearances. Then why is it there at all? For exactly the same reason as ideology is there: it provides a bridge of excuses between the system and individuals, making it easier for them to enter the power structure and serve the arbitrary demands of power. The excuse lets individuals fool themselves into thinking they are merely upholding the law and protecting society from criminals.<

    link

  24. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Does this mean they can contribute to political causes?

  25. cranky-d says:

    They’re still not human, and they’re still not capapble of respecting the rights of others; thus they do not possess rights. [emphasize added]

    So, progressives aren’t human, then?

    Big surprise.

  26. cranky-d says:

    Crap, forgot that blockquote already italicized things. I wanted to emphasize

    and they’re still not capapble of respecting the rights of others

  27. Parker says:

    If they have ‘rights’, should they not also have ‘duties’?

    That would put them ahead of many on the left…

  28. Shermlaw says:

    Does this mean they can contribute to political causes?

    How about we start by making them pay taxes first, before they can contribute to Hillary!’s campaign.

  29. happyfeet says:

    these are those lil critters that will EAT YOUR FACE OFF, yes?

  30. sdferr says:

    They’re not exactly an entire population of Jeffery Dahmers . . . they’ve got their decent sorts, just like we do, and their rat-bastards too. We win though since we’ve got the ClownCatastrophe to top them all.

  31. sdferr says:

    “to top them all” in this sense: — (graphic images warning) these are the results of the actions of ClownCatastrophe’s ally’s proxy, Dr. Assad — much worse than mere face eating — which, we must conclude, are perfectly ok with this ClownDisaster, actions which he not only does not lift a finger to stop, but actively concedes to his allies the Iranians in private letters with their Supreme Leader, Grand Ayatollah Khamenei.

  32. gahrie says:

    So, progressives aren’t human, then?

    Oh Progressives are human.

    They are capable of respecting the rights of others, they just choose not to.

  33. McGehee says:

    One orang to rule them all,
    One orang to find them.
    One orang to bring them all
    And in the darkness bite their junk off.

  34. …In the Land Of Bananas where the shadows lie.

    -Lancelot Link

  35. LBascom says:

    Are we sure this isn’t just a promo for a new Planet of the Apes film?

    Planet of the Apes, Genesis. Coming November 2016…

  36. bgbear says:

    I can understand why they wouldn’t let in those wild jungle apes, but what about those really smart ones who live among us who rollerskate and smoke cigars? – Homer Simpson (referring to Heaven)

  37. dicentra says:

    Santayana was wrong: Knowing history doesn’t stop it from being repeated. It doesn’t even slow it down. All it means is that the educated can see what’s coming and then spend decades in agony playing Cassandra to a brick-stupid populace and their craven leadership.

    The fact that the Nazis elevated dogs and other critters to quasi-human status — which was part and parcel of their dehumanization of the Untermenschen — registers not a whit with today’s wannabe fascisti.

    Except perhaps to serve as a cookbook for achieving those dizzying world-domination heights.

    It leads where it leads, me hearties. I am not aware of ONE example from history where a society, headed for the cliff, applied the brakes in time to save itself in a paroxysm of wisdom and prudence.

    It never happens.

    Never.

  38. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Santayana was wrong: Knowing history doesn’t stop it from being repeated. It doesn’t even slow it down. All it means is that the educated can see what’s coming and then spend decades in agony playing Cassandra to a brick-stupid populace and their craven leadership.

    Because the brick-stupid don’t know history and the craven don’t care, yes?

  39. McGehee says:

    All it means is that the educated can see what’s coming and

    invest accordingly and get filthy rich like they wish they’d done the first time around.

    What, too mercenary?

  40. dicentra says:

    Because the brick-stupid don’t know history and the craven don’t care, yes?

    Beats me.

    The craven definitely don’t care; however, even when the masses know history, what can they do about it, given that their leaders don’t care?

    Like I said, for Santayana to be right he’d need to provide an example of people remembering history, thereby averting disaster.

  41. Danger says:

    On judgment day I’m quite certain that Barak Obama will have his nose rubbed in the images that sdferr linked above and he’ll be asked to justify his action in Libya versus his inaction in Syria.

  42. McGehee says:

    Did Santayana ever claim those who DO remember history AREN’T doomed to repeat it?

  43. sdferr says:

    Does Santayana mention historical occurrences of a people voluntarily electing into the chief magistracy a man who while posing as a lover of their nation secretly hates their nation and aims all his policy, all his purposes and acts, surreptitiously to undermine and punish that nation in the name of History and vengeance (sorry) justice? That’s the one case we should have studied, if Santayana does cite such a case.

    I sure don’t recollect one.

  44. McGehee says:

    Santayana: “Saw that coming.”

  45. sdferr says:

    Ol’ ClownDeceptor said of his anti-terror drone program back a few years: * I’m good at killing people *. So now we see what he meant.

  46. sdferr says:

    But when it comes to having perfect knowledge of Iranian nuclear weapons sites, you gotta just trust his claims he’ll know what’s what. And then act.

    Yeah.

  47. sdferr says:

    I don’t think of Caesar hating Rome exactly. Did he? Is it necessary to make that case in order to explain his opportunistic behaviors?

  48. sdferr says:

    I guess I should say that I don’t view ClownDeceptor’s power grabs as merely for the sake of power alone, but as instrumental to actions necessary to achieve his nefarious aims (i.e., seeing to it that America’s chickens come home in fact to roost). That he personally benefits from the trappings of office is icing on cake. The key, though, as I see his own view of the matter, is delivering justice (punishments) to the miscreant west, whether measured as the west of Christianity free to hold its upper hand lo these many centuries, acting where it list, or upon capitalism writ in the broad strokes of classic Marxism, i.e. upon such American and western allies as the Sauds, the Israelis, the NATO bunch, the Ukraines, the hapless Japanese, Australians, etc.

    ClownDeceptor holds a very high opinion of himself and his aims. Nothing, from his point of view, so lowly as mere power acquisition.

  49. sdferr says:

    By way of contrast: RICO?

  50. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Does Santayana mention historical occurrences of a people voluntarily electing into the chief magistracy a man who while posing as a lover of their nation secretly hates their nation and aims all his policy, all his purposes and acts, surreptitiously to undermine and punish that nation in the name of History and vengeance (sorry) justice? That’s the one case we should have studied, if Santayana does cite such a case.

    The only example I can think of is cinematic. And the American people were saved from their own naivity, insipidity, stupidity (as the case may be) by a Hollywood ending.

  51. The Jarrett Junto may be unique then in it’s motives, it’s casus belli, as it were.

    If so, lessons can still be learned from, say, the Fall of The Roman Republic, but some creative thinking will also be needed.

    Because, if we are truly Servants Of The Good, it is our Duty to see that: Jarrett Junto Delenda Est!

  52. sdferr says:

    What was it, Ernst, something like Dave?

  53. FYI: I expand on my last comment here…

    http://thecampofthesaints.org/2015/04/23/jarrett-junto-delenda-est-learning-the-right-lessons/

    …and take the liberty of quoting two of you.

  54. sdferr says:

    Just to note: It’s Israeli Independence Day . . . and of course today rockets are fired from Gaza into Israel. Strange right, to send “We see you!” congratulations like that? I guess Israelis should be all the prouder.

  55. Squid says:

    It’s just a fireworks display. Don’t the Mexicans fire artillery over our border every 4th of July?

  56. sdferr says:

    Funny thing, what Mauldin didn‘t tell us was that the beloved jeep’s name was Hillary and the G.I. ‘s nickname was DNC.

  57. If it had been named ‘Hillary’ it would have ended-up being called a Cheep.

  58. Ernst Schreiber says:

    something like Dave?

    The Manchurian Candidate actually. Maybe Keeper of the Flame albeit to a lesser extent.

    They don’t come immediately to mind because the fascism that’s always descending on American and landing in Europe is supposed to be a rightwing reimport.

    That’s the communists’ story, and they’re sticking to it!

  59. mileycyrussays says:

    What’s more sentient, a Chimpanzee or a 16 week fetus?

  60. newrouter says:

    >What’s more sentient, a Chimpanzee or a 16 week fetus?<

    axs 16 week chimpanzee fetus

  61. LBascom says:

    They are equally sentient.

    Now what?

  62. LBascom says:

    Newrouter, you would probably be arrested for aborting a chimp fetus…

  63. […] Darleen Click on Protein Wisdom: U.S. Court Recognizes Chimpanzees As “Legal Persons” […]

Comments are closed.