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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
PAGE:
1 | 2
Comments
Pheme
USA
August 2007
OCT 05, 2007 04:33 AM
rickets
Seattle, WA
March 2003
OCT 05, 2007 05:03 AM
CherryCoke
Derry, NH
May 2007
OCT 05, 2007 05:09 AM
Alfaduetto
Greeneville, TN
May 2004
OCT 05, 2007 05:18 AM
SnowgodCCR
Derry, NH
November 2006
OCT 05, 2007 05:49 AM
naveed
Calgary, AB
January 2005
OCT 05, 2007 07:19 AM
derekdikdik
Euless, TX
June 2006
OCT 05, 2007 07:21 AM
Heathen_Dave
Birmingham, AL
July 2005
OCT 05, 2007 07:44 AM
JohnnyForeigner
United Kingdom
July 2003
OCT 05, 2007 07:51 AM
sickboyedd
United Kingdom
January 2004
OCT 05, 2007 08:31 AM
JoLeigh
SUICIDEGIRL
Florida, USA
OCT 05, 2007 08:50 AM
dorklord
Rialto, CA
May 2006
OCT 05, 2007 09:34 AM
jahpuch
Washington, DC
May 2007
OCT 05, 2007 09:42 AM
thefreak
NEWSWIRE
Gardner, MA
OCT 05, 2007 10:07 AM
OhSoOrdinary
New York, NY
July 2006
OCT 05, 2007 10:08 AM
PAGE:
1 | 2