NO, we will not post the video of the AR propaganda but of course you can find it yourself.
Questions about issues in the news for students 13 and older.
Our legal system divides the world into people and everything else. People (and associations of people) have legal rights. Everything else does not. But should animals — or at least certain highly intelligent animals — be given some of the same legal rights as people?
In the Op-Doc “Animals Are Persons Too,” Chris Hegedus and D. A. Pennebaker tell the story of the lawyer Steven Wise and his campaign to expand the legal rights of certain animals with a high level of intelligence:
How does a thing become a person? In December 2013, the lawyer Steven Wise showed the world how, with a little legal jujitsu, an animal can transition from a thing without rights to a person with legal protections. This Op-Doc video follows Mr. Wise on his path to filing the first-ever lawsuits in the United States demanding limited “personhood” rights for certain animals, on behalf of four captive chimpanzees in New York State.
Mr. Wise (who is also the subject of The New York Times Magazine’s cover story this Sunday) has spent more than 30 years developing his strategy for attaining animal personhood rights. After he started his career as a criminal defense lawyer, he was inspired by Peter Singer’s book “Animal Liberation” to dedicate himself to justice for animals. He helped pioneer the study of animal rights law in the 1980s. In 2000, he became the first person to teach the subject at Harvard Law School, as a visiting lecturer. Mr. Wise began developing his animal personhood strategy after struggling with ineffective welfare laws and regulations that fail to keep animals out of abusive environments. Unlike welfare statutes, legal personhood would give some animals irrevocable protections that recognize their critical needs to live in the wild and to not be owned or abused.
The current focus of Mr. Wise’s legal campaign includes chimpanzees, elephants, whales and dolphins — animals whose unusually high level of intelligence has been recognized by scientific research. The body of scientific work on chimpanzee cognition, in particular, is enormous, and scientific testimony is crucial to Mr. Wise’s legal arguments. His team, the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP), selected as its first plaintiffs four chimps living in New York: Tommy, Kiko, Hercules and Leo. He chose these animals in large part because New York’s common laws are favorable to habeas corpus lawsuits, and because there are great ape sanctuaries that could accommodate them.
This fall, the cases will be likely to go to New York’s intermediate appellate courts. If Mr. Wise wins, he will have successfully broken down the legal wall that separates animals from humans. His plaintiffs, the four chimps, will be deemed legal persons and relocated to outdoor sanctuaries around the United States. In many ways, the lawsuits have already won: They have brought animal personhood to the forefront of the conversation surrounding our society’s relationship with animals.
Students: Read the entire article, then tell us …
— Should certain highly intelligent animals — such as chimpanzees, elephants, whales and dolphins — have some of the same legal rights as people? For example, do chimpanzees have the right not to be kept in a cage? Or orcas the right not to be held in captivity?
— Does our society need to make a complete paradigm shift in the way we think about animals, as Mr. Wise advocates?
— Or would granting legal rights to animals open up a hornet’s nest that could eventually do away with zoos, pets or even agriculture? In other words, is it absurd to declare that animals have legal personhood instead of just being either wildlife or private property?
— Do you feel confident that animals have enough legal protections under current law? If not, do you think a better way to protect animals would be to strengthen animal-welfare laws instead of trying to grant them legal personhood?
PD note: Below we only show 3 AR examples of people, possibly students who have followed the AR indoctrination, the AR propaganda train, the AR emotional “show abuse” then take the “$$$”, from the dumbdowned public: in other words, the AR propaganda about animals being people, about animals and people, about animal rights, about the 12 Steps of Animal Rights–which you all should know–and if you don’t, make sure to memorize the 12 Step theory of ELIMINATION of the pet trade and the breeding of pets (for people)……..which is why SELLING is supposedly ILLEGAL but “adoption” is just fine and dandy.
People— AR laws are designed against economics and use of animals, period. The Pet trade is equivalent to all the Walmarts combined? About $53 billion give or take a few?
We can almost guarantee— the Courts are not going to give legal personhood to animals. It will be a cold day in hell if such nonsense should actually occur………..AND if they do, there should be virtual uproar galore because it will dismantle many common laws and the way courts work in general, impacting humans to boot, laying precedent groundwork for economic harm, due to foreseeable and even unforeseen circumstances. We think Mr. Wise is a clear and present danger. Our opinion of all AR wingnuts, no matter what degree they have. Of course, we do not believe in actual animal abuse–but much of “abuse” touted by AR wingnuts is not abuse, but simply making laws which TURN EVERYTHING INTO “ABUSE.” This is prostitution of the law when a dirty dog=abuse; when misrepresentation is used to conjure up “abuse.” Owners have rights, and they seldom try to enforce them. If enough owners DID stand up for themselves, we might get somewhere.