This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/04/court-denies-legal-personhood-of-chimpanzees

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
New York court denies 'legal personhood' of pet chimpanzee New York court denies 'legal personhood' of Tommy the chimpanzee
(about 2 hours later)
In the first case of its kind, a New York appeals court has rejected an animal rights advocate’s bid to extend “legal personhood” to chimpanzees, saying the primates are incapable of bearing the responsibilities that come with having legal rights. A chimpanzee is not a legal person, a New York appeals court has decided, saying that no matter how great apes are, they cannot give back to society in a way that merits human rights.
A five-judge panel of the Albany court on Thursday said attorney Steven Wise had shown that Tommy, a 26-year-old chimp who lives alone in a shed in upstate New York, was an autonomous creature, but concluded it was not possible for Tommy to understand the social contract that binds humans together. Rejecting an animal rights group’s bid to expand the definition of “legal person” to chimpanzees, a five-judge panel found that although the animals are autonomous beings they do not take part in the societal bargains that guarantee rights like bodily freedom.
“Needless to say, unlike human beings, chimpanzees cannot bear any legal duties, submit to societal responsibilities or be held legally accountable for their actions,” presiding justice Karen Peters wrote. In October the attorney Steven Wise, representing the Nonhuman Rights Project, made a case that a privately owned chimpanzee named Tommy was unlawfully imprisoned in New York, and should be transferred to a Florida sanctuary. Wise argued that chimpanzees, having shown self-awareness, intelligence and empathy, are close enough kin to humans as to deserve some rights.
Wise, representing the Nonhuman Rights Project, which he helped found in 2007, was seeking a ruling that Tommy had been unlawfully imprisoned by his owner, Patrick Lavery. Wise argued that the chimp should be rellocated to a sanctuary in Florida. But while the court granted that chimpanzees share much with humans and are not simple objects, like chairs or tables, justice Karen Peters wrote in the court’s decision that apes cannot contribute to society or suffer legal consequences of their actions.
According to Wise and other experts, it is the first case anywhere in the world in which an appeals court has been asked to extend human rights to an animal. “Needless to say, unlike human beings, chimpanzees cannot bear any legal duties, submit to societal responsibilities or be held legally accountable for their actions,” Peters wrote.
Wise was not immediately available to comment. He had said that if he lost Tommy’s case, he would ask for it to be heard by the court of appeals, New York’s top state court. Wise’s cases on behalf of Tommy and three other chimpanzees are the first to argue that habeas corpus can apply to a non-human. The writ would have forced Tommy’s owner, Patrick Lavery, to prove to the court he could justify Tommy’s imprisonment.
Lavery said in an interview that he agreed with the judges. Tommy, he said, received state-of-the-art care and was on a wait-list to be taken in by a sanctuary. From his home in Florida, Lavery told the Guardian he found the idea of giving Tommy certain human rights “a ridiculous statement, in my opinion”.
“It will be my decision where he goes, and not someone else’s,” he said. Lavery has declined to appear at any of the case’s hearings and learned of the court’s decision from the Guardian. He defended the small building in which he keeps Tommy as “an excellent home” with TV, several rooms and outdoor enclosures. “He’s happy there,” Lavery insisted.
Peters wrote for the court that while chimps were not currently eligible for legal rights, Wise could lobby the state legislature to create new protections for chimps and other intelligent animals. “He’s not being illegally detained. He’s legally there, and of course we have to abide by the rules. Tommy’s got an excellent home, and he never knew what it was like to have a home where he was loved and cared for before.”
The decision, which upheld a 2013 ruling by a state judge, came after Wise on Tuesday urged a separate court in Rochester to order the release of a deaf chimp named Kiko from a cement cage at his owner’s home in Niagara Falls. Wise did not immediately respond for a request for comment. He has said he will take the case to New York’s highest appeals court.
Wise has filed a third case on behalf of two chimps that live at a state university on Long Island. Peters wrote that the courts have not left Tommy and other chimpanzees defenseless, pointing out that New York has a ban on keeping primates as pets. She said that Wise could lobby the state to pass laws granting greater protections of chimpanzees.
Wise’s suit does not allege that Lavery has broken the law in his treatment of Tommy, and Lavery said that he follows all federal and state regulations. Lavery said he found the central premise of Wise’s suits mystifying.
“From what I understand, after he frees the chimps he’s gonna go after the elephants, he’s got other species on his list,” he said. “But they’re not gonna be free at another sanctuary.
“It’s different if an animal’s been pulled out of the wild, but an animal that’s raised domestically, by humans, they’re used to being fed and cleaned up after.”
In many of his arguments, Wise notes that habeas corpus was used in the 18th century to help free a slave, a comparison Lavery considered inappropriate.
“If a slave means you have somebody wait on you and feed you and clean up after you and do all that, to me that’s not the definition of a slave, in my opinion,” he said.
Wise has also argued chimpanzees should have legal “visibility” as children do, but Peters was careful to include a riposte to that line of thinking.
“To be sure, some humans are less able to bear legal duties or responsibilities than others. These differences do not alter our analysis, as it is undeniable that, collectively, human beings possess the unique ability to bear legal responsibility,” Peters wrote.
The appellate court’s decision upholds a state judge’s 2013 ruling. Before a separate court on Tuesday, Wise argued on behalf of a deaf chimp named Kiko, who lives with his owner in Niagara Falls.