This is a case study in the misguided human need to interfere and control nature.
Why? That is not clear.
What would be the problem with just letting nature take its course, whatever the outcome?
And explains what she is all about:
My favourite story about Ingrid Newkirk, the founder and head of Peta, the animal-rights organisation, involves her storming the dining room of the Four Seasons hotel in New York, depositing a dead raccoon onAnna Wintour‘s dinner plate and calling the veteran editor of American Vogue a “fur hag”. Wintour, a long-time Peta hate figure for her support of the fur industry, calmly covered it with a napkin and then ordered coffee…[snip]
Is it Peta’s strategy to upset everyone, I ask Newkirk. “No,” she says. “Our mission is to provoke thought. People have been taught to disregard what happens to pigs or chickens, to not think about the suffering they go through. Our job is to make them think. We’re not out to be popular.”
No matter what you think of PETA and its tactics, they have helped supercharge animal rights, and done some good undercover work:
We all have animals we care about, and we all do what we can to defend them. That is important, and makes a difference. But the single most important obstacle to more humane treatment of animals globally is that they have no legal rights. None. Change that, and you put the fight to defend and protect animals onto an entirely new playing field.
That’s exactly what the Nonhuman Rights Project is trying to achieve, and that’s why it is potentially the single most powerful campaign for animals there is. It can sometimes be hard to understand what the NhRP is all about and what their approach is. But recently, in a series of brief posts on their website, they have perfectly captured what they are up to and why it could be such a breakthrough for animals.
First, NhRP explains the hard fact that, despite what you may think, animals have no rights at all in the eyes of human law:
Hundreds of organizations say they work for “animal rights.” But the only animal with legal rights is the human animal. No other animal has any rights at all. None.
To have a legal right, one must have the “legal capacity” for a right. If one has this capacity for a legal right, one is a legal “person.” No nonhuman animal has been recognized as a legal “person,” This means that no animals, other than humans, have legal rights.
Statutes provide some protection for some nonhuman animals. It may be illegal to starve a circus elephant or withhold medical care from a chimpanzee in a zoo. But the elephant and the chimpanzee have no legal right to that kind of care. (Similarly, statutes may prevent you from stealing someone’s car, but the car has no legal rights, as the car is not a legal person with the capacity for any legal right.)
Second, they explain how they hope to bestow legal rights on animals in the same way that civil law, thanks to Lord Mansfield, Chief Justice of Court of King’s Bench, first granted legal standing to slaves in the case of James Somerset:
In Western law, every nonhuman animal has always been regarded as a legal “thing.” We buy, sell, eat, hunt, ride, trap, vivisect, and kill them almost at whim. The reason is that legal “things” don’t exist in law for their own sakes. They exist for the sakes of legal “persons,” which we humans all are.
Legal “things” are invisible to civil law judges. They possess no legal rights and have no hope of ever having them.
A court confronted by a claim to any legal right need begin by determining the plaintiff’s species. If the plaintiff is human, the answer is “It is possible. She is a legal person.” If the plaintiff is a nonhuman animal, the answer is “Impossible. He is a legal thing.” [snip]
…A similar [to James Somerset] common law transformation of a nonhuman animal from legal “thing” to legal “person” is a primary objective of the Nonhuman Rights Project which seeks, through litigation and education, to persuade American state high courts to transform a nonhuman animal plaintiff the way Lord Mansfield transformed James Somerset: by declaring she is a legal “person” capable of possessing legal rights.
Once a court recognizes this, its next legal question will appropriately shift from the irrational, biased and overly simplistic question, “What species is the plaintiff?”, to the rational, nuanced, value-laden and policy-enriched question, “What qualities does the plaintiff possess that are relevant to the issue of whether she is entitled to the legal right she claims?”
And if any court were to ask that question, NhRP knows exactly the initial rights it will try to pursue:
We begin by seeking two kinds of fundamental rights for our nonhuman plaintiffs: bodily liberty and bodily integrity.
Bodily liberty means not being held in captivity. For a chimpanzee, it means not spending life in a laboratory; for an elephant, it means not being chained in a circus; for a whale it means not being imprisoned in a park.
Bodily integrity means not being touched without consent or in one’s best interests. For a chimpanzee, it means not being subjected to biomedical research. For an elephant it means not being beaten at a circus. For a whale it means not being forcibly inseminated to make her pregnant.
Do not confuse these fundamental rights of nonhuman animals with so-called “human rights.” Human rights are for humans. Chimpanzee rights are for chimpanzees. Dolphin rights are for dolphins. Elephant rights are for elephants.
To get there, NhRP is looking for the right animal, in the right state (Lolita is a potential candidate), to try and achieve the same breakthrough achieved with the James Somerset case. They are planning to file the first lawsuits by the end of this year, and be litigating them in state courts in 2014.
This could be huge, and NhRP is well worth keeping a close eye on (and supporting).
This is nice to see. Michael Mountain, at Earth In Transition, takes note of the journey
two three elephants are making from the Toronto Zoo to the PAWS Sanctuary:
The three elephants at the Toronto Zoo have been cleared for take-off, and will soon be on their way to a new life at the PAWS sanctuary in California.
How are they getting there? They’re being flown door-to-door by the Royal Canadian Air Force. (Yes, that would be aboard one of their jumbo jets …..)
How much will it cost? More than $500,000, but less than the $850,000 that Bob Barker has already pledged to the effort. (Yes, the price is right ….)
Why are they flying, not driving? Four or five days on the road, shaking around in a truck would be too stressful on these senior citizens who already have foot troubles from standing around in a zoo for so many years.
Would love to see a lot more of this sort of retirement from zoo service,including for orcas and other species. In fact, it should be required past a certain age, or a certain number of years of service. That would be the right thing to do. And the cost of retirement should be paid for by whatever entity the animal has served all those years, as part of the life cycle cost of using the animal (sort of like a pension system). Yes, that would increase the costs of ownership. And, yes, that would reduce the number of businesses and facilities that decide to use an animal. Which would be a good thing.
Emily Meredith, a meat industry flack, tries to put a positive spin on factory farming (note to Meredith and industry: if you want to get your spin out there, don’t hide it behind a registration requirement), via a field trip to a sow breeding facility. Robert Grillo of Free From Harm, is having none of it.
Here’s the setup to the takedown that follows:
As I was browsing the meat industry news site, MeatingPlace.com, I came across an article called “My Week on a “Fact”ory Farm: Part I” by Emily Meredith who is the communications director for the Animal Agriculture Alliance and who also writes a column called “Activist Watch” on the same site. Meredith defends the practices of the industrial pig farms she recently visited in her attempt to bring out the facts and debunk what she sees as distortions from the activist community. In the following article, I responded to various excerpts of Meredith’s original post.
Here’s a sample of the cutting that is done:
Meredith: “No matter the industry practices I observed that first day—from tail docking to castration to artificial insemination—that theme of respect carried through.”
What a disturbing oxymoron. How is it possible to “respect” someone that you are dismembering, amputating, impregnating and ultimately breeding for the sole purpose of slaughtering them against their will?
There’s lots more where that came from. This is the kind of ultimate fighting that is worth supporting.
The twisted politics and false dilemmas of trying to save the American wolf. These conflicts between human culture and economics on the one hand, and species survival on the other hand, are increasingly legion. So far, the sensibilities and priorities we bring to these issues don’t bode well for the animals.
I have to say, I have particular disdain for claims regarding the romance and pleasure of hunting as a priority or rationale for killing animals.
What about the romance and heritage of one of North America’s iconic species?
But what the heck, maybe we can undo it all later.