michaelmountain

Thanks, all, for your interest in the Nonhuman Rights Project. A few notes re various points in this thread: 1. The reason we chose great apes, certain cetaceans, elephants and African Grey parrots as potential plaintiffs is that these are the only species for whom there is currently clear scientific evidence of complex cognition, self-awareness and autonomy. If and when similar evidence becomes clear in relation to other species, they'll be added to the list. Our approach is very focused and straightforward: We have to persuade a judge and/or a state high court that the conditions that apply to recognizing humans as "legal persons" apply equally to these animals. 2. I know David Brin and, with great respect to him, there are no parallels with what he advocates. Brin, as a human exceptionalist, believes that humans are superior to other animals and that those other animals would be happier if their brains were meddled with to make them more like humans. He and I were both speakers at a recent conference where he propounded this view. At the Nonhuman Rights Project, we assert that nonhuman animals have the right not to be meddled with by humans. 3. >>an argument could be made for so many more.<< Not in a court of law. These are currently the only nonhuman animals for whom the required evidence exists. It's a complicated subject with centuries of legal precedents. We're not just arguing that these animals are "intelligent" or have remarkable skills. That would not persuade a judge to recognize them as "legal persons" - i.e. entities that qualify for at least one legal right. 4. When we went to court on behalf of four chimpanzees last month in New York State, we presented affidavits from a team of internationally acclaimed scientists to support our arguments. However intelligent or skilled other animals may be, we could not have made the case for them. Such evidence may well be presented in peer-reviewed journals in the future, but it's not there now. 5. Just in case anyone is wondering, we're not planning on having an African Grey as a plaintiff - at least not currently. There are hundreds of chimpanzees, elephants, dolphins and orcas who are being held in insufferable conditions, and our goal is to have as many of these as possible released to sanctuaries where they can live with others of their own kind in an environment that's as close as possible to what they'd experience in the wild. 6. Personhood is certainly equated with "human-ness" among the general public, but not in court. Corporations, for example, are viewed as "legal persons" with certain rights (e.g. the right to sue). So are ships. And of course there are heated debates going on as to whether (and/or at what stage) a human fetus can be considered a legal person. Yes, judges are not going to be falling over themselves to recognize nonhuman animals, but the arguments we make a very solid and have been put together over 25 years of preparation. 7. There is no danger of humans being "robbed of basic rights". The single right we seek for our plaintiffs is the "right to bodily liberty." Granting such a right to chimpanzees would not affect human rights in any way. 8. >>a killer whale could possibly have emotions that human beings cant even grasp.<< This does indeed appear to be the case. Same is true for elephants. 9. How it all works in filing such a suit, and what the arguments are - including all the documents we filed in court and transcripts of the hearings that were held, is all available on our website at nonhumanrights.org. Thanks again for your interest in this. Michael Mountain The Nonhuman Rights Project.