Sandra the Orangutan Granted Freedom with Limited Human Rights Ruling

A Christmas good news story.
Sandra the Orangutan has been held in captivity since birth but has spent her last 20 years in a cage at Buenos Aires Zoo , following the court ruling she could soon be on her way to freedom .

Animal rights campaigners filed a habeas corpus petition to decide whether she is a thing or a person , the court has passed a landmark ruling that says she has been illegally deprived of freedom and deserved the basic rights of a "non-human person" , this leaves the door open barring an appeal from the zoo for her to move to an animal sanctuary in Brazil where she will enjoy more freedom and peace to live out the remainder of her days.

In a landmark ruling that could pave the way for more lawsuits, the Association of Officials and Lawyers for Animal Rights (AFADA) argued the ape had sufficient cognitive functions and should not be treated as an object.
The court agreed Sandra, born into captivity in Germany before being transferred to Argentina two decades ago, deserved the basic rights of a "non-human person".
www.telegraph.co.uk...

Hopefully there will be no appeal from the zoo and other courts around the world will follow the fine example set by this Argentinian court.


Now America it's time for you to act and free Tommy the Chimp

originally posted by: gortex
Now America it's time for you to act and free Tommy the Chimp

There was already a ruling in this case denying the chimpanzee habeas corpus.

a reply to: gortex

I hate Zoos, circus and animal venues in general.

Imagine being caged for who knows what, for who knows how long…

They'll probably let her out of zoo prison for all the money they figure her lifetime of captivity will bring.

The zoo owners should be required to spend the rest of their lives imprisoned and gawked at by zoo goers. After a while they'll go crazy and sling feces at the crowd.

About time....It is time to take over my primate ginger apes!!.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

There was already a ruling in this case denying the chimpanzee habeas corpus.

I know , but that doesn't make it right nor does it mean there can't be an appeal as a consequence of this ruling.
Although being America it probably does.

a reply to: gortex

Although being America it probably does.

Especially if it makes money. Everything else is secondary to that god in which we trust.

originally posted by: gortex

I know , but that doesn't make it right nor does it mean there can't be an appeal as a consequence of this ruling.
Although being America it probably does.

There can absolutely be an appeal but based on the legal precedent used in the case I would wager that the Supreme Court, if it even took the case being that there are no dissenting decisions, would rule in the same manner.

The ruling suggested the avenue of legislation as available but I do not see 'personhood' status being granted to animals either by this method.

There is a really good organization which works on these issues, The Great Ape Project. To cage these people (yes, I consider all animals people) without a right to appeal, a trial, without any wrongdoing, and to disconnect them from the type of natural environment they and their ancestors have lived with for many millions of years, makes me question the personalities of humans who would set up these facilities, and punish these innocent inmates, in the first place.

maybe she can be happy now. this story reminded me of these guys. just think about it when you watch what it must have been like after30 years of never being out in the sun.


sometimes i hate being human.

a reply to: gortex


That's good. Part of the evolution of our species, that makes us more human, is recognizing the "humanity" in others.

As we progress along this line, we will be more and more ready to interact with other intelligences.

How would we treat aliens? What rights would they have?


Cool video above me there

Humans are cool too we just got too smart too fast. We knew how and not why to do things. It's catching back up. We have the capabilities to be the best and most caring of all.

a reply to: gortex

It is an orangutan. Not a human. There are no "Human" rights to give to a Non-Human.

This is stupidity amplified.

a reply to: macman

There are no "Human" rights to give to a Non-Human.

Which is why she was given basic rights of a "non-human person" , no one is saying she is human but she is defined as a person according to the judgement.

This is stupidity amplified

Why , because a sentient creature has been awarded the rights a sentient creature deserves ?

a reply to: gortex

Using similar logic, this ruling in Argentina doesn't make their ruling right, just because you agree with it over the American ruling.

I certainly do believe that there is a difference between caging a hamster and a great ape (I sincerely believe that apes, monkeys, dolphins, whales, elephants, etc., fully understand that they're contain in an unnatural habitat), and every time I've been to a zoo and see the look on the apes' faces (sometimes), I truly feel that they desire freedom, and it does make me a bit sad for them.

That said, an ape is not a "person" anymore than a worm is a person.

person n.
1) a human being.
2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person. Counties and cities can be treated as a person in the same manner as a corporation. However, corporations, counties and cities cannot have the emotions of humans such as malice, and therefore are not liable for punitive damages.

Source

a reply to: gortex

It is an animal. There are no rights to be had.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

That said, an ape is not a "person" anymore than a worm is a person.

A non-human person is different to a human person so the definition is not definitive.
In a ruling last year India declared that Dolphins are Non-Human Persons , the world is changing and thankfully some of us understand the difference between a sentient being and a worm.

a reply to: macman

It is an animal. There are no rights to be had.

Luckily attitudes change with time and education.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey


That said, an ape is not a "person" anymore than a worm is a person.

person n.
1) a human being.
2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person. Counties and cities can be treated as a person in the same manner as a corporation. However, corporations, counties and cities cannot have the emotions of humans such as malice, and therefore are not liable for punitive damages.

Source

You used a definition that says a corporation is a person to say that only people can be persons.. That is a recent addition to the definition of what a person is.. Definitions CHANGE...

a reply to: SlapMonkey

all animals and again i say all animals are sentient,some more than others, science be damned, and courts of law.
so what if they can't recognize themselves in a reflection, or communicate as humans do. doesn't mean they don't and they do in ways we still don't fully understand.

have you never seen any spices whether wild or not , not defend her young or mourn their loss?
have you never seen any spices whether wild or not, not leap for joy or at least acknowledge the return of one close to them?
have you never seen any spices whether wild or not, display fear, hunger, joy,anger, or any other number of emotions that are attributed to humans?
have you never seen any spices whether wild or not, use team work to accomplish a task?

now tell me that that doesn't meet this definition.

sen·tient adjective ˈsen(t)-sh(ē-)ənt, ˈsen-tē-ənt
: able to feel, see, hear, smell, or taste
Full Definition of SENTIENT
1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions
2 : aware
3 : finely sensitive in perception or feeling — sen·tient·ly adverb See sentient defined for English-language learners » See sentient defined for kids »
Sentient

hell there are even lazy animals, just like to lay around and eat and sleep. they are grouchy, funny, playful, some smarter than others, in the same species or others species. you name one emotion that humans have and it has been seen in animals.

now i'm not some buddist monk or some new age hippie type, or green peace activist,but i do recognize that they know and dare say they understand more than most humans give them credit for.

a reply to: gortex

What education?!?!?!?!

It is scientifically an animal. There isn't any education, unless you are now redefining words, that states/shows otherwise.

It is not human. It has no human rights. It has no rights.

a reply to: macman

It is scientifically an animal.

So are we.

It is not human. It has no human rights. It has no rights

Once again , no one has said she is a human but this particular animal does have rights , she has the rights of a non-human person.

a reply to: gortex

Non-human rights....Non-human person. Seriously. The amount of wordsmithing used in this is truly a wonder.


The animal is not a person, nor is it a non-human person. It is an animal. period.

There are no rights for an animal to have.

This truly is moronic on all fronts.