The Nonhuman Rights Project, a group of attorneys, legal experts, and scientists led by lawyer Steven M. Wise, is asking a judge to recognize Tommy not as property but a “complex autonomous legal person with the fundamental legal right not to be imprisoned.” As such, the lawsuit says, the chimp must be freed. And let’s not forget, in San Diego Peta claimed whales had rights not to be slaves (at Sea World)and that lawsuit took nearly 2 years to prepare.
The group says it’s the first-ever lawsuit demanding that writ of habeas corpus — a basic protection against illegal imprisonment — apply to a captive animal.
“Not long ago, people generally agreed that human slaves could not be legal persons, but were simply the property of their owners,” Mr. Wise said in a statement. “We will assert, based on clear scientific evidence, that it’s time to take the next step and recognize that these nonhuman animals cannot continue to be exploited as the property of their human ‘owners.’”
The lawsuit is the first of three chimp suits to come, the group says. The other two, expected to be filed this week, involve a deaf chimpanzee living in a private home and two other animals who are owned by a research center and are being used in locomotion experiments. The group wants all of the animals moved to a sanctuary affiliated with the North American Primate Sanctuary Alliance.
OK OK OK we have said it for 13 years, over and over and over. The biggest AR theory for animals to find them to be NON PROPERTY.
Non property status is generally what Animal Rights wants for all animals. That way, humans cannot actually own, buy, sell, kill, use, etc. Animals are used for food (that would be outlawed) and for entertainment (that’s already being outlawed) and for medical research (that is disappearing) and for pets (that is becoming more difficult since if rescues owned every animal many people would not qualify to own one; if breeders are taken out, no one could buy a pet.)
The biggest legal issue with animals becoming non property is the law; ARs want recovery rights for emotional distress for loss of an animal— even if loss of a relative or friend would not result in damages for a human, (a family member), it could result in damages for loss of the animal. And since most ARs are bordering on being crazy in the first place, we can see it would open up a Pandora’s box so big, it would make Obamanightmare and the foreclosure scams seem like child’s play. We are talking about the tort litigation that would ensue?
Believe us– every AR and their friend would have the courts so clogged with bogus lawsuits it would not be funny. Every movie with animals in it, every farm, every zoo, every aquarium, rodeo, petting zoo, probably any groomer, any kennel, any breeder, any dog show, anywhere you would see animals would be potential for lawsuits claiming harm to animals.
It is not new. Cities in California have outlawed the circus, petting zoos, rodeos, probably even dog shows, and possibly the sale of animals in pet stores. Oh yes, we forgot, that already happened years ago. It remains to be seen what will happen in San Diego but we are putting our bets on the lawsuit and relief sought will focus on protesters and stopping them. We could be wrong, but sheesh– we are seldom wrong on these things. We hope attorney “Wise” smartens up.