Porpoises are People, Too
Here is a fairly absurd lawsuit that gives rise to a much more legitimate question.
PETA is bringing SeaWorld to court for purported violations of the 13th Amendment--the constitutional ban on slavery. From the AP:
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is accusing the SeaWorld parks of keeping five star-performer whales in conditions that violate the 13th Amendment ban on slavery. SeaWorld depicted the suit as baseless.
The chances of the suit succeeding are slim, according to legal experts not involved in the case; any judge who hews to the original intent of the authors of the amendment is unlikely to find that they wanted to protect animals. But PETA relishes engaging in the court of public opinion, as evidenced by its provocative anti-fur and pro-vegan campaigns.
The suit, which PETA says it will file Wednesday in U.S. District Court in San Diego, hinges on the fact that the 13th Amendment, while prohibiting slavery and involuntary servitude, does not specify that only humans can be victims.
Jeff Kerr, PETA's general counsel, says his five-member legal team — which spent 18 months preparing the case — believes it's the first federal court suit seeking constitutional rights for members of an animal species.
The notable debate here is not whether SeaWorld treats its animals like slaves. After all, the marine park is already regulated by the Marine Mammals Protection Act. In fact, the interesting question is whether animals should be treated as more than legal property. The article continues:
However, the field of animal law has evolved steadily, with courses taught at scores of law schools. Many prominent lawyers and academics have joined in serious discussion about expanding animal rights.
Rutgers University law professor Gary Francione, for example, contends that animals deserve the fundamental right to not be treated as property. Law professor David Favre of Michigan State University has proposed a new legal category called "living property" as a step toward providing rights for some animals.
It seems to me that categorizing the whales at SeaWorld as slaves is ridiculous. However, I think the notion of animals as more than simple property does bear consideration.
- Comment (22)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Jul '11
Re: Porpoises are People, Too
I can hardly wait to a future that we get to watch our legal system wrestle with other leading edge progressive issues such as:
It should be fun to watch.
Re: Porpoises are People, Too
Animal rights have become very trendy in liberal legal circles. Some years ago Larry Tribe proposed, I believe, that chimpanzees be deemed "persons" under the 14th Amendment -- but oddly, Tribe and his colleagues would never think of extending the same honor to a human fetus.
As to your question, I don't think that there is anything to be gained by trying to come up with a special category for animals. They are, effectively, already in a class of their own due to the web of laws regulating their treatment (which I generally support). Yes, they are property in the sense that they can be bought and sold like a toaster, but nobody has ever been convicted of cruelty to toasters. We're better off with anti-cruelty laws that are as specific as possible. Vague laws that elevate animals into a new class of being will generate endless litigation, because an activist judiciary will be empowered to define the implications of being "living property" or whatever nonesense they come up with.
Aug '10
Re: Porpoises are People, Too
If animals have the same rights that humans have, that means animals also have the same responsibilities that humans have.
As such, animals should be charged with crimes whenever they:
Dec '10
Re: Porpoises are People, Too
If animals are suddenly declared not property will we still be allowed to eat them?
Sep '10
Re: Porpoises are People, Too
Commit murder against other animals. (I'm looking at you Pseudodionysus!)
First, there's a typo in my name, which invalidates your search warrant. Second, fingerprint evidence is problematic. And witness testimony is conflicting and witnesses have been known to commit perjury over a can of albacore tuna.
As my updated hometown in my online portfolio attests, I have friends in cramped spaces.
Sep '11
Re: Porpoises are People, Too
Interesting that PETA claimed they "owned" the animals they euthanized in an animal cruelty case in Virginia.
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/Trial_Day8.cfm
May '10
Re: Porpoises are People, Too
Well, "living property" encompasses Rubber Duckie's chrysanthemums. I wonder if they will require that we bring them in for the Winter?
Aug '10
Re: Porpoises are People, Too
Power to the peas!
All we are saying is give peas a chance!
Jun '10
Re: Porpoises are People, Too
If you set a cow free and she comes back to you, can you kill and eat her?
May '10
Re: Porpoises are People, Too
I think federal courts have already ruled in the past that animals do not have standing...right? Where are Yoo and Epstein when we need them? ;)
Link to case
Dec '10
Re: Porpoises are People, Too
As soon as Willey, Asta, Lassie, Rin Tin Tin, Bambi, J. Fred Muggs, Cheeta, and Bugs Bunny start paying taxes, they can have the same rights as humans.
May '11
Re: Porpoises are People, Too
Misthiocracy
Power to the peas!
All we are saying is give peas a chance! · Oct 26 at 9:43am
Imagine whirled peas! Imagine there's no "peas-a".
May '10
Re: Porpoises are People, Too
I'm all for laws against cruelty to animals. But I think it's wrong and deeply problematic to speak of animals as subjects of rights--a term that is rightly predicated only of persons.
Edited on October 26, 2011 at 9:06pmAug '10
Re: Porpoises are People, Too
Agreed. There is a big difference between a "good" and a "right".
Something can be a "good" without being a "right", and a "right" isn't necessarily always a "good".
Re: Porpoises are People, Too
If, as Cass Sunstein suggests, animals have legitimate standing to sue, does that mean we can hold them liable? I don't see why we shouldn't if we're theoretically supposed to be able to sue on behalf of animals.
Oct '11
Re: Porpoises are People, Too
Animals are already treated as more than simple property. There are laws against mistreatment of animals, and that's all we need. And since all of the people involved in the adoption of the 13th amendment used horses for transportation, farm work, etc., I don't think you can make a serious argument that they intended animals to be protected from involuntary servitude.
Aug '10
Re: Porpoises are People, Too
Eric Ames
If, as Cass Sunstein suggests, animals have legitimate standing to sue, does that mean we can hold them liable? I don't see why we shouldn't if we're theoretically supposed to be able to sue on behalf of animals. · Oct 26 at 2:26pm
If animals have the same rights as humans, they shouldn't need humans to sue on their behalf. They should get off their lazy animal asses and file suit themselves!
Seriously, are humans able to sue on behalf of other humans without their consent? If not, then how can humans sue on behalf of animals without their consent?
I look forward to seeing porpoises carrying signs that say, "NOT IN MY NAME!!!"
Edited on October 27, 2011 at 12:03amJan '11
Re: Porpoises are People, Too
My fear is that the designation of rights will be attached to some subjective measurement of "intelligence." Sure, they'll say, chimpanzees and dolphins deserve more protection because they're more intelligent.
And then human rights will follow the same pattern.
And then the "quality of life" will depend on quality of intelligence.
And then we're all up the creek ...
Apr '11
Re: Porpoises are People, Too
By what principle do you make that distinction?
I regard all animal welfare regulations that intrude on private behavior as illegitimately intrusive. To be explicit, if your neighbors want to forbid you to beat your horse on the public thoroughfare, fine, but it is none of their business or interest that you practice recreational vivisection in your basement, so long as the soundproofing is adequate.
The only argument I have heard against mistreating animals is what it means to my character to be an unfeeling monster, but that is not my neighbors' business. Maybe I'm just training my sensibilities to be a properly dispassionate, objective lawyer or EPA administrator.
Edited on October 27, 2011 at 2:06pmOct '10
Re: Porpoises are People, Too
There is a valid point to be made against animal abuse. Laws for this exist, however this is a myopic approach. Case in point, if a bear or cougar eats one of your family members, do you have the right to sue the furry offender that has been granted the same rights as a human ?
Just how would the offending critter provide testimony on its defence ? Animal translators for the defence ? Run that one out...