Nonhuman Rights Project

[JeffNOK]

I have recently become aware of a project whereby basic "human" rights are being sought for certain animal species. The idea of the project is that up until now, non human animals are considered property and do not have rights similar to those given to humans. The group is hoping to have courts bestow "personhood" on some animal species. This project has chosen 4 animal classes as "plaintiffs" to be used to seek legal recognition of their special sentient nature. The four classes chosen are: apes, cetaceans (dolphins and whales), elephants, and African Grey Parrots. I have attached a link below. I'm curious how forum members feel about the project.

 

 

http://www.nonhumanrights.org/

 

It seems to be a pretty organized and determined group trying to make history for animals.

Edited January 11, 2014 by JeffNOK

[Greywings]

This reminds me of the "Uplift War" series by David Brin, very good reading. It could be a better world if we did have more respect for all species even those we eat should be granted kindness and dignity. Legally they may have a tough row to hoe as they would have to show why these certain species are at a different level, at our level. Cockatoos and Amazons have great intelligence and the Too's have mechanical and engineering skills as well. Crows and Ravens are wonderful problem solvers with a sharp intelligence, Honeyguides (passarine birds) have been leading humans to bee trees for centuries to share in the honey found, surely that takes complex thought. Dogs and cats as well can show amazing ability to adapt to situations and save lives of their" pet" humans.

[JeffNOK]

This reminds me of the "Uplift War" series by David Brin, very good reading. It could be a better world if we did have more respect for all species even those we eat should be granted kindness and dignity. Legally they may have a tough row to hoe as they would have to show why these certain species are at a different level, at our level. Cockatoos and Amazons have great intelligence and the Too's have mechanical and engineering skills as well. Crows and Ravens are wonderful problem solvers with a sharp intelligence, Honeyguides (passarine birds) have been leading humans to bee trees for centuries to share in the honey found, surely that takes complex thought. Dogs and cats as well can show amazing ability to adapt to situations and save lives of their" pet" humans.

 

You make an excellent point. The choice of the four animal classes is somewhat limited and an argument could be made for so many more. It is my guess that the project chose "high profile" species for inclusion in order to get support. They probably chose African Greys because they wanted a bird included and since the Alex research is the most well-known in that category, they picked greys. I suppose the idea is to start with a small number of "plaintiffs" and then possibly expand once (if) recognition is given. I think if the full truth were known, the list of sentient animals would be enormous.

[Inara]

Certainly the project will garner a lot of publicity for the lawyers and others involved. "Personhood" is going to be a major barrier, because it is equated with "human-ness." So if a human's IQ or cognitive abilities are below a certain level, then if we follow this thinking to its logical end, that person would no longer be considered a person. While I appreciate the spirit of the organization, I think they would have a much better chance at success for saving specific animals, Kiki, Billy, etc. if they petitioned and filed suit toward "sentient animal" status and therefore lobbied to enact protective laws that would prohibit torture, continued trapping and capture for commercial gain/use, etc. Without a good, solid, operational definition of what "personhood" actually means, most humans and judges will say, "No." But approaching State legislators with proposed bills to enact "sentient animal" status for specific species, would narrow the scope, would not threaten "human-ness" and would likely be (albeit a less sensational and less charismatic) a way of getting some laws into place about the confinement, treatment, and future trapping/selling of specific species.

[JeffNOK]

Certainly the project will garner a lot of publicity for the lawyers and others involved. "Personhood" is going to be a major barrier, because it is equated with "human-ness." So if a human's IQ or cognitive abilities are below a certain level, then if we follow this thinking to its logical end, that person would no longer be considered a person. While I appreciate the spirit of the organization, I think they would have a much better chance at success for saving specific animals, Kiki, Billy, etc. if they petitioned and filed suit toward "sentient animal" status and therefore lobbied to enact protective laws that would prohibit torture, continued trapping and capture for commercial gain/use, etc. Without a good, solid, operational definition of what "personhood" actually means, most humans and judges will say, "No." But approaching State legislators with proposed bills to enact "sentient animal" status for specific species, would narrow the scope, would not threaten "human-ness" and would likely be (albeit a less sensational and less charismatic) a way of getting some laws into place about the confinement, treatment, and future trapping/selling of specific species.

 

I agree Inara. There is a danger in quantifying "personhood" that could potentially rob actual humans of basic rights if they fail to meet the standard. I like your idea of defining a class of "sentient animal". The only issue there is determining what the rights of sentient animals are. I have mixed feeling about the project on many levels, but I admire the spirit and intent of it nonetheless.

Edited January 11, 2014 by JeffNOK

[Candi]

I watched a documentary the other day where they did an MRI scan on the brain of a killer whale. The scan showed that the limbic area of a killer whales brain, where emotion is processed, is far more developed than that of a human brain. Which poses evidence that a killer whale could possibly have emotions that human beings cant even grasp. Even after all we have learned in the last few decades, we still know so little about the creatures we share this earth with. Yet humans continue to treat animals from every species like we own them. They were here long before us and I'm sure most will thrive long after we are gone. This group may have a hard road ahead of them, but I salute their courage and their effort. To make big changes, sometimes you have to start small...but you have to start somewhere.

[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.

[danmcq]

What an interesting topic. It is very complex and brings a flood of thoughts, soul searching and emotions. One thing I have always believed, is we as the most intelligent being on this planet (As far as we know). We are ultimately responsible for our actions when it comes to all the other creatures on this planet. The underlying and ultimate issue here, is we even enslave, murder and have hate for other humans. With this thought in mind, how can we all ever agree on this. It will never happen until we as a whole become much more enlightened or destroy ourselves.

 

This does not mean that this noble and just argument should not be made. But it is very unlikely a world wide agreement with it will probably never happen in our life time. I am going to follow this wholeheartedly, hoping and praying for a positive outcome.

[JeffNOK]

Thanks again for your interest in this.

 

Michael Mountain

The Nonhuman Rights Project.

 

 

Thank you Michael for your post. It is indeed very interesting what your organization is pursuing. Although we are a forum for African Grey companions, you will find that we often discuss the issue of animal rights generally. I appreciate the time you devoted to address some of the comments we made here. I must admit I was a little surprised to see your post, however. How did you run across this forum and this thread? Just curious.

 

Jeff

[Inara]

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.

 

I, and likely the greater majority of people who use this forum, certainly would be very supportive of that end goal. It's likely that many of those hundreds of animals will continue to suffer under those abhorrent conditions while prolonged, complex, and precedent setting lawsuits are in action. Certainly the NHRP can't tackle it all, and limiting the number of species on whose behalf the NHRP will advocate is helpful. The question of personhood, even though a status now given to corporations and ships, is also now being challenged with regard to the former at least. What the NHRP is proposing certainly is a brilliant legal strategy. What I'm not seeing (and perhaps I've missed this on the website) is what the NHRP is doing in the meantime to work with other like minded animal rights organizations to get possible injunctions to move the current list of plaintiff and potential plaintiff animals to a safer environment while the court cases are going on? Similar to having guardians ad litem or conservators appointed to abused, neglected, or cognitively incompetent humans. This does then speak to personhood, certainly, but if the NHRP is advocating for personhood status, then wouldn't also advocating for an interim order of protection while the courts are hearing the issues be warranted? (Perhaps this has been done, and if so, my apologies for having missed it.) Some loose precedent may have been set with regard to the forgoing by lawyers who practice mediation in the cases of pet custody and visitation in the circumstance of divorce etc. and in the cases of Veterinary malpractice. Both situations having the spirit of 'beloved family member' rather than property/chattel only.

 

The issue of animal rights is one that I personally have given much thought to over the past few decades. I don't believe that humans are the most intelligent animals on the planet. We only know how to measure human intelligence and we only know how to measure other creatures' intelligence by our own standards. We even today struggle with cross cultural methods of measurement within humans, and we are arrogant to think that we can measure cross species. If a human was thrown into the ocean among a pod of cetaceans and expected to adapt, which/who then would be the most intelligent? If we give equal rights to animals then we certainly could not spay/neuter nor even keep as companion animals without their informed consent. We could not take their offspring from them, we could not vaccinate them, give them medications or surgeries even life saving ones, and we could not eat them. What then happens when the millions of food source animals are allowed to roam freely, procreate without limitation, as well as the same scenarios with wild and domestic animals? It all sounds very fuzzy and warm (and I don't mean this with sarcasm) until the very real and practical aspects come into play. Who decides which animals are elevated to the status of personhoood? There is plenty of research that supports cats as being able to use logic, other birds and animals having the capacity for self recognition, etc.? Narrowing the scope by choosing those animals for which there are reproducible results in the body of research is understandable and a good place to begin, and in this area one would have to agree with the NHRP.

 

This is a very complex matter, again it is one about which I agree in spirit, and will be interested in seeing how it pans out. For now, within my own mind and heart, I subcribe to the following philosophy:

 

"We are called to treat them with kindness, not because they have rights or power or some claim to equality, but in a sense because they don't; because they all stand unequal and powerless before us. Animals are so easily overlooked, their interests so easily brushed aside. Whenever we humans enter the world, from our farms, to the local animal shelter to the African savanna, we enter as lords of the earth bearing strange powers of terror and mercy alike." -- Matthew Sculley

 

In essence practice kindness, ethical treatment, and mercy with our food source and companion animals, and be ever mindful of our stewardship for the rest of the animal kingdom. Keep a watchful eye on the treatment of those in the animal kingdom whose evolutionary process is far longer than our own and therefor for which/whom we can't accurately measure their emotional and cognitive capacities, and work toward stringent laws that protect their well being.

 

There are no easy answers, and by supporting any ethical efforts that work toward the betterment of treatment and conditions for all animals, we all win in the end. This is an excellent thread, and thank you Michaelmountain for your response, I am also curious as to how you found our forum.

 

Inara's Human