It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Chimp in Court Case to be Classified as Human

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Chimp in Court Case to be Classified as Human


news.yahoo.com

Matthew, a 26-year-old chimp, is headed to court in Europe as part of a human effort to classify him as a person.

Beyond the legal challenges, anthropologists say chimpanzees are not humans, though without a clear definition of what it means to be human, backing that claim up is a challenge perhaps fit for some great courtroom drama.

Animal rights activist and teacher Paula Stibbe, along with the Vienna-based Association Against Animal Factories (AAAF), says she wants the chimpanzee, named Matthew Hiasl Pan, declared a person. That way, Stibbe says she can become the primate's legal guardian if the bankrupt animal sanctuary where Matthew lives closes. (Under Austrian law, only humans are entitled to have guardians.)
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit: bbcode causing all bold text]

[edit on 29-5-2008 by 12m8keall2c]




posted on May, 29 2008 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Utterly wrong-headed, but nonetheless true.

I wonder if the chimp will take the stand to testify on his own behalf?

news.yahoo.com (visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Well, the Great Ape is considered as equal of mentaly retarded humans in facoring of law, why cant a chimp be graced in such a way?



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 10:17 AM
link   
I would agree to this on one condition:

The chimp can be classified as a human only if the lawyer who brought this case is classified as a chimp.

Fair is fair, you know.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Maybe this question could use a little more tact than I will give it... Oh well.

If I kill and eat a chimp now - that's just wrong... But done correctly (humanly slaughtered) then not wrong in the eyes of the law. (so far as I know - don't quote me!!)

What would happen if the chimp wins his case? Would everyone who sits down to roast chimp of a Sunday actually be cannibal's? Cos if that was the case I don't think I could stomach another one



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Great - So long as it pays it taxes and insurance contributions can't see a problem.
Man this world really is going to the wall ...LOL
Animals in court in Mexico Chimps in court in Europe.......



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Besides being so laughable I almost didn't even read this thread for fear of hurting something laughing too hard... there is a scarier side to this.

Being human is something we take for granted. Everyone knows what a human is. A retarded human is still human. A disabled human is still human. A blind human is still human.

But now, we need a definition of human, just to satisfy some idiot's desire to 'make' one human. So, great, the chimp gets to be human. But when that definition is handed down by a court, now some humans can run the risk of being declared not human legally.

Suppose brain size is used as a legal basis for humanity. Now suppose a child is born with a malformed brain. Are they not human anymore? No medical attention would be available, since non-humans (animals) do not qualify for such.

How about DNA? Does that mean that in order to be human, you must fall inside of some boundary of DNA variations? Suppose you're one genome off? Do we have enough knowledge of the human genome to define how much variation is possible and yet still be human? Even the article hinted at this problem.

OK, chimps live in a jungle and humans don't. Define jungle. I could fit that description. Oh, but I live in a house, so that's a distinguishing characteristic. So homeless people are now at risk?

Suppose IQ is used as a distinguisher. A retarded human can then be classified as non-human. No matter what you use for a distinguishing characteristic, the possibility exists for someone, somewhere, to be classified as not a member of the human race. People could be caged in zoos.

And don't tell me I'm being paranoid. Legal precedents can be and have been used to make some terribly ludicrous decisions in a society where lawyers and judges write, interpret, and define the laws of the land without any 'legal' requirement as to common sense.

Besides, it's not really paranoia if everyone really is out to get me, right?


TheRedneck



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


It's obvious on its face that the human race is the human race. Full stop. It does not include the higher primates--or elephants, dolphins or whales for that matter, even though these species have been proven to be quite intelligent and social creatures.

But the question of degree arises, and just as we afford legal protections domestic pets, it seems quite valid that we should also afford protections to these obviously intelligent beings. But classifying them as humans is clearly not the answer.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by gottago
I don't have any problem with affording some animals certain legal status; my concern is that this could go so far as to prevent people from having human status. Depending on the outcome of course, but does anyone here trust anyone in a black robe with the nickname "Your Honor"?

TheRedneck



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 12:13 PM
link   
This is just ridiculous. What about places where chimps run wild, run across the road and you hit them with your car...? Would you face some sort of 'man'slaughter charges? I can't say it enough... this is just ridiculous. If she wants the monkey *IF* the place closes, let her keep the damn monkey!! Wtf?



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Wait, maybe the solution isn't to make the chimp Human to fit the Human requirement of the law... but maybe the real solution here is to change the "Human" part in the law books to "Intellectual", or "Conscient".

I mean... imagine the problems we'll have when we finally do meet another intelligent species... they won't have any rights to begin with. So we'll have to change it eventually anyways.



As for the Chimps cause. I support it.
Let the animal rights activist be the Chimps guardian. I can't think of anyone who would protect the animal better than her if the bankrupt sanctuary closes.



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Why can't they just let her keep the chimp??? Problem sovled!



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by gottago
I don't have any problem with affording some animals certain legal status; my concern is that this could go so far as to prevent people from having human status. Depending on the outcome of course, but does anyone here trust anyone in a black robe with the nickname "Your Honor"?

TheRedneck


Thats just what groups like PETA are trying to do. Take animal rights and elevation of they're status by use of the courts. Putting any other species on the same status as humans only denegrates the human race. Like it or not, Humans are the superior entities on this planet. Regardless of whether you believe in manipulation of the humans by offworlders. Guardianship of animals should be allowed with proper oversight.

Zindo



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
But now, we need a definition of human, just to satisfy some idiot's desire to 'make' one human. So, great, the chimp gets to be human. But when that definition is handed down by a court, now some humans can run the risk of being declared not human legally.


What about human-animal-hybrids? (to quote one with too much power) Don't forget what's waiting in the wings thanks to the miracles of biotechnology.


However, there is an important distinction here.
Without going into the merits of the story or the court case the goal is to have the chimp declared a person not a human.

"Person"

Like a corporation is a "person" under the law. If a corporation can be a person why not a chimp? or a plant? or my big toe?

Kinda sheds some light on the ridiculousness of corporate personhood, no? The greatest scourge to ever befall humanity since the invention of organized religion. Anyways, I digress.


Legal precedents can be and have been used to make some terribly ludicrous decisions in a society where lawyers and judges write, interpret, and define the laws of the land without any 'legal' requirement as to common sense.


100% agreed.
.

edit: spelling

[edit on 5/29/2008 by Gools]



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 01:01 PM
link   
at the rate were gettin at now, it doesnt matter, we treat all life forms on this planet the same..... without their wellbeing at mind. Some care but they are considered activists.... an therefore labeled looney by the masses..

Very interesting concept thoe, why not since this chimp isnt clearly a human, doesnt this person just buy them, thats what anything that isnt human can be, a purchasable item......

in all honestly, were all in this life together, an just by detection of a presence, should be entitled to a healthy an bountiful Lifestyle seeing how most the people selling what you need in some way shape or form didnt have to pay what you are.

Human, chimp, planet, or sassquach

let em live, let em be, help em out if need be.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join