Great Ape Rights and Human Rights

Legal standing of great apes and the legacy of child exploitation

Chimpanzees are regularly used for biomedical experiments in the US

Image: Martin OC
Earlier I posted on the court cases that challenged the conventional framework of great apes as property and would offer them some protections as sentient beings (see Trapped Between People and Property, Primate Experimentation Under the Microscope and Courts Dismiss Great Ape Personhood). Since the European Union is moving towards granting more expanded rights to great apes it's high time that the United States got on board, and perhaps even stepped up to take a leadership role on this issue.

Pagan at Beacon Broadside has a terrific post on the issues that these legal cases raise and offers an insightful historical perspective on how animal rights may directly impact human rights.

The whole argument may seem trivial, but consider this: Laws that protect animals often change the nature of human rights. In the early 1870s, no laws existed in the United States to protect children from cruelty. And so, when advocates for an abused child wanted to defend her in court, they had to go to Henry Burgh, the founder of the American Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Animals; having managed to outlaw the torture of horses and dogs, it was Burgh who helped to extend similar rights to children.

The issue boils down to a very simple question: since great apes are known to have the emotionally rich lives and intellectual depth of four-year old human children, is it appropriate to categorize these beings as objects to be bought and sold on the open market. Obviously granting more expanded 'personhood' rights wouldn't mean that apes could vote (human children are full persons and can't vote either, and no one is suggesting apes would even have all the same rights as children).

However, considering that GAP Kids was recently found to be using child slaves in their factories (and considering that international law is becoming more and more important in our globalized economy and that countries can sue companies for such international crimes) these are not tenuous concerns. Personhood rights for apes would be a powerful precedent to aid international authorities in combating such child abuse in the future. What court wouldn't recognize the hypocrisy of having laws in place to protect chimpanzees that are more expansive than for poor children?

[Read more →]

Courts Dismiss Great Ape Personhood

Austrian court case hits a snag, but the campaign is ongoing.


Matthew Hiasl Pan, a 28-year-old chimpanzee orphan is in legal limbo.

In my earlier post Trapped Between People and Property I highlighted the recent court cases raising the issue of primate personhood and legal standing. It seems there has been a temporary setback in the case of Matthew Hiasl Pan, a chimpanzee that has been making headlines in Austria.

The Associated Press is reporting that Pan’s case was dismissed from the provincial court on a technical issue because the judge ruled that his human advocates “had no legal standing to argue on the chimp's behalf.”

According to the AP:

The association, which worries the shelter caring for the chimp might close, has been pressing to get Pan declared a "person" so a guardian can be appointed to look out for his interests and provide him with a home.

…

Their upkeep costs about €4,800 (US$6,800) a month. Donors have offered to help, but there's a catch: Under Austrian law, only a person can receive personal gifts.

Organizers could set up a foundation to collect cash for Pan, whose life expectancy in captivity is about 60 years. But they contend that only personhood will give him the basic rights he needs to ensure he isn't sold to someone outside Austria, where he's now protected by strict animal cruelty laws.

The animal rights group, the Vienna-based Association Against Animal Factories who brought the case, is now appealing to the Austrian Supreme Court. According to group President Martin Balluch:

"The question is: Are chimps things without interests, or persons with interests? A large section of the public does see chimps as beings with interests. . . We are looking forward to hear what the high court has to say on this fundamental question."

As one who strongly agrees with the premise that apes should have legal rights (as have such notable figures as Jane Goodall, Richard Dawkins, Jared Diamond, Douglas Adams and Peter Singer – see The Great Ape Project) I’d say it’s long past the time that we regard other sentient beings as mere things and begin breaking down these barriers between human and non-human. Biologists and anthropologists have been breaking down this barrier for fifty years, when will this be reflected in our jurisprudence?

[Read more →]