Current Events

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92

 ... 487

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next

thefreak

thefreak

NEWSWIRE

Gardner, MA

OCT 04, 2007 05:23 PM



Back in May, I brought to your attention the story of a chimp named "Hiasl", and the quest by Austrian animal rights activists to have him recognized as a "person," thereby granting him basic legal rights. The chimp, who's full name is now Matthew Hiasl Pan, has had his case thrown out by a judge. But the simian supporters aren't going down without a feces-flinging fight.

Animal rights activists campaigning to get Pan, a 26-year-old chimpanzee, legally declared a person vowed Thursday to take their challenge to Austria's Supreme Court after a lower court threw out their latest appeal.

A provincial judge in the city of Wiener Neustadt dismissed the case this week, ruling the Vienna-based Association Against Animal Factories has no legal standing to argue on the chimp's behalf.

The legal tussle began in February, when the animal shelter where Pan and another chimp, Rosi, have lived for 25 years filed for bankruptcy protection.


To bring you up to speed, Matty Boy was smuggled from Sierra Leone to be sold for pharmaceutical testing, before being brought to his current home after intervention by international customs. However, with the shelter in dire straits and Our Man Pan with veterinary and upkeep bills of almost $7000 a month, the AAAF is fighting to get him "personhood" and keep him living in Austria. But the chimpy court conundrum hasn't been without its setbacks.

Donors have offered to help, but under Austrian law, only a person can receive personal gifts.

...

In April, a district court judge rejected a British woman's petition to be declared Pan's legal guardian. The court ruled the chimp was neither mentally impaired nor in danger, the grounds required for a guardian to be appointed.

In dismissing the Association Against Animal Factories' case, the provincial court said only a guardian could appeal. That doesn't apply, the group contends, since Pan lacks a guardian.


A hearing date has not been set for the group's appeal to the Supreme Court. AAAF President Martin Balluch had this to say about their fight:

"The question is: Are chimps things without interests, or persons with interests?" Balluch said.

"A large section of the public does see chimps as beings with interests," he said. "We are looking forward to hear what the high court has to say on this fundamental question."


In closing, for all you naysayers out there, watch these YouTube videos and then I dare you to try and tell me chimps aren't little hairy people!

Besides the fact we're 96% alike on the genetic level, of course.







thefreak, as mentioned in his previous story, would love to one day have a chimp as a roommate. Fox would pick up the sitcom rights in a heartbeat.

Pheme

Pheme

USA
August 2007

OCT 05, 2007 04:33 AM

Funny, I'm trying to have my children legally declared animals!

Rickets

rickets

Seattle, WA
March 2003

OCT 05, 2007 05:03 AM

I've fucked lots of chimps and have yet to produce any viable offspring, so by most biological criteria, I'd say they're not people.

Just dead sexy.

CherryCoke

CherryCoke

Derry, NH
May 2007

OCT 05, 2007 05:09 AM

Chimps are a lot smarter than alot of people I know.

Alfaduetto

Alfaduetto

Greeneville, TN
May 2004

OCT 05, 2007 05:18 AM

The fact that the court ruled that he was "neither mentally impaired nor in danger" would indicate that the courts were applying rules of human rights to the chimp. It is a precedence at that point and should allow further argument for his case.

SnowgodCCR

SnowgodCCR

Derry, NH
November 2006

OCT 05, 2007 05:49 AM

Alfaduetto said:
The fact that the court ruled that he was "neither mentally impaired nor in danger" would indicate that the courts were applying rules of human rights to the chimp. It is a precedence at that point and should allow further argument for his case.



That's a really good point, actually.
While I don't believe that the Chimp should be legally declared as a person, since chimps are in fact, not people by any reasonable definition, I think that the austrian court and the people involved in this case are making this far more difficult than it needs to be. Allow the person claiming responsibility for the animal to recieve the gifts and donations.
Basically, if the chimp case has a website, under the donations page it should now say "Please make all checks payable to Johann Chimp Lover, not to Matthew Pan". Bing, simple as that, IMO.

naveed

naveed

Calgary, AB
January 2005

OCT 05, 2007 07:19 AM

umm... the second video is of a bonobo, so that completely invalidates your argument.

derekdikdik

derekdikdik

Euless, TX
June 2006

OCT 05, 2007 07:21 AM

Ever heard of the chimp named Oliver? He walked upright, and look much more human than most chimps. They called him the Humanzee. I think he lives in San Antonio, Tx now.

Heathen_Dave

Heathen_Dave

Birmingham, AL
July 2005

OCT 05, 2007 07:44 AM

naveed said:
umm... the second video is of a bonobo, so that completely invalidates your argument.



Yeah, and it sucked at pacman anyway, and that game is easy.

JohnnyForeigner

JohnnyForeigner

United Kingdom
July 2003

OCT 05, 2007 07:51 AM

thefreak, as mentioned in his previous story, would love to one day have a chimp as a roommate. Fox would pick up the sitcom rights in a heartbeat.



Just so we know... would you be the uptight conservative or the slovenly liberal?

sickboyedd

sickboyedd

United Kingdom
January 2004

OCT 05, 2007 08:31 AM

Seriously, $7000 a month! What are they feeding it, caviar? I say give it a typewriter, even though the numbers are way below infinite, I bet just the one chimp banging away at random could produce better scripts than the recent Transformers movie.

JoLeigh

JoLeigh

SUICIDEGIRL

Florida, USA

OCT 05, 2007 08:50 AM

Alfaduetto said:
The fact that the court ruled that he was "neither mentally impaired nor in danger" would indicate that the courts were applying rules of human rights to the chimp. It is a precedence at that point and should allow further argument for his case.



that is a very valid point

dorklord

dorklord

Rialto, CA
May 2006

OCT 05, 2007 09:34 AM

Ironically I think creationists should be declared apes, in a legal sense.

jahpuch

jahpuch

Washington, DC
May 2007

OCT 05, 2007 09:42 AM

where's Michael Jackson when you need him?

But i dont get it: what happens if he doesn't get personhood? Is he "deported" to Sierra Leone? Euthanized?

I'm pretty sure that chimps and greater apes have emotions, self-awareness, fears, etc (and even other animals can show signs of these solely "human" traits), but that doesn't make them a person. I mean, would he have to be prosecuted if he committed a crime, like perhaps, being naked in public?

however i do think that this is just another example of how protective we are of our human traits. For so long, it was thought that we were the only species to use tools and defined humans as such, but it was discovered that apes can use tools and then that other species could too, like some birds and other monkeys. And in terms of feeling emotions, I'm sure any dog owner can tell you when their dog is "happy" or "sad" or "scared."

stop antrhocentrism! emotions for some miniature american flags for others!

thefreak

thefreak

NEWSWIRE

Gardner, MA

OCT 05, 2007 10:07 AM

naveed said:
umm... the second video is of a bonobo, so that completely invalidates your argument.


Actually, all it does is invalidate the intelligence of whoever posted the video in the first place. They put "chimp" in the title.

-TM

OhSoOrdinary

OhSoOrdinary

New York, NY
July 2006

OCT 05, 2007 10:08 AM

I don't see why this organization doesn't adopt him and bear responsibility for him. They could take donations on his behalf.

thefreak

thefreak

NEWSWIRE

Gardner, MA

OCT 05, 2007 10:12 AM

jahpuch said:
But i dont get it: what happens if he doesn't get personhood? Is he "deported" to Sierra Leone? Euthanized?


That's basically the crux of their argument. Getting him "personhood" would keep him from being sold, and keep him in Austria (they have strict animal abuse laws).

SnowgodCCR said:

Alfaduetto said:
The fact that the court ruled that he was "neither mentally impaired nor in danger" would indicate that the courts were applying rules of human rights to the chimp. It is a precedence at that point and should allow further argument for his case.


That's a really good point, actually.
While I don't believe that the Chimp should be legally declared as a person, since chimps are in fact, not people by any reasonable definition, I think that the austrian court and the people involved in this case are making this far more difficult than it needs to be. Allow the person claiming responsibility for the animal to recieve the gifts and donations.
Basically, if the chimp case has a website, under the donations page it should now say "Please make all checks payable to Johann Chimp Lover, not to Matthew Pan". Bing, simple as that, IMO.


Austrian law states only a person can receive personal gifts. The "neither mentally handicapped nor in danger" bit is basically the requirement for a guardian to be legally appointed.

-TM

thefreak

thefreak

NEWSWIRE

Gardner, MA

OCT 05, 2007 10:15 AM

FashionFuneral said:

thefreak, as mentioned in his previous story, would love to one day have a chimp as a roommate. Fox would pick up the sitcom rights in a heartbeat.


Just so we know... would you be the uptight conservative or the slovenly liberal?


I think a chimp dressed in a power suit, holding up a sign w/pictures of fetuses and throwing poo @Planned Parenthoods is:

1. A thought-provoking statement on the common opinion of the fanatic right,

and, more importantly:

2. Fucking hilarious.

Take any regular human activity, and once you put a monkey or ape in there, it makes it funny. It's science.

-TM

thefreak

thefreak

NEWSWIRE

Gardner, MA

OCT 05, 2007 10:21 AM



-TM

thefreak

thefreak

NEWSWIRE

Gardner, MA

OCT 05, 2007 10:24 AM

OhSoOrdinary said:
I don't see why this organization doesn't adopt him and bear responsibility for him. They could take donations on his behalf.


The article doesn't really explain Austrian law in fuill depth, but I took out a few snippets from the article.

A provincial judge in the city of Wiener Neustadt dismissed the case this week, ruling the Vienna-based Association Against Animal Factories has no legal standing to argue on the chimp's behalf.

...

In dismissing the Association Against Animal Factories' case, the provincial court said only a guardian could appeal. That doesn't apply, the group contends, since Pan lacks a guardian.

There is precedent in Austria for close friends to represent people who have no immediate family, "so he should be represented by his closest friends," said Eberhart Theuer, the group's legal adviser.

"On these grounds we have appealed this decision to the Supreme Court in Vienna," he said. A hearing date has not been set.


-TM

Formus

Formus

Milwaukee, WI
May 2007

OCT 05, 2007 10:50 AM

Chimp? What do you mean, chimp? That's my sister, asshole!

_kungfoo_

_kungfoo_

Los Angeles, CA
April 2005

OCT 05, 2007 11:05 AM

I think I could take that chimp in a Atari competition.

Cigarette

Cigarette

Cleveland, OH
April 2004

OCT 05, 2007 11:14 AM

thefreak said:

"The question is: Are chimps things without interests, or persons with interests?" Balluch said.



Seems like a false dichotomy to me. You can have laws that give animals rights and protections without declaring them people.

I wonder how Charlton Heston would feel about this. "Soylent green is... damn dirty apes!"

nice_pun_bro

nice_pun_bro

Irvine, CA
January 2007

OCT 05, 2007 11:24 AM

thefreak said:


-TM



Hail to the Chimp makes a very important point, a 100-150 fully grown chimp can very easily tear your limbs off. I've yet to meet a person that could eat someone's face... and still retain all of their rights, at least.

Gringo

Gringo

Spokane, WA
May 2006

OCT 05, 2007 11:31 AM

I believe that most primates are more intelligent than we give them credit for but giving a primate "human rights" for being smarter than others would/should open cases where you could deem humans who were mentally handicapped as an animal.

Holy run on sentence, Batman!

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next