PETA Lawsuit Against SeaWorld Seeking Constitutional Rights For Whales

SAN DIEGO (AP) — A federal court is being asked to grant constitutional rights to five killer whales who perform at marine parks — an unprecedented and perhaps quixotic legal action that is nonetheless likely to stoke an ongoing, intense debate at America's law schools over expansion of animal rights.

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.

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.

Ugh. I really dislike PETA. Suing based on the thirteenth amendment? Whales are not people. If I were a whale I think I would prefer to be a show whale. Food all the time, stimulation, adoring crowds. Dangerous precedent. I don't want to be sued by a damn hamster. I'm looking to get a dog soon. Would that be slavery? 'Sit boy' I'll say. In response I get 'F you I'm union!'. No thanks. Why can PETA never seem to focus? Why all the ridiculous publicity stunts that make normal people cringe? Can't they just promote spaying and neutering pets like Bob Barker?

Link

Good lord...

This will get tossed out of court very quickly.

PETA people are insane.

reply to post by Domo1


Actually the life of a show whale is really bad. If anything they need to make sure that no whales are ever captive again. The do not keep whales in a large enough area so that they can really get any stimulation. Whales swim, they need a lot of water to swim. We lock them away. It's not right.

The practice of keeping killer whales in captivity has proven to be detrimental to the health and safety of animals and trainers alike. On Christmas Eve, 2009, trainer Alexis Martinez was killed by a male captive bred orca named Keto, who was on loan from Sea World to a facility called Loro Parque, in the Canary Islands, Spain. Two months later, on 24 February 2010, trainer Dawn Brancheau was killed by Tilikum, an animal involved with two previous human fatalities. Medical Examiner (ME) reports described massive trauma to both Dawn and Alexis. Neither death was accidental.

So, they just happen to kill trainers with an alarming regularity.....

In one particularly brutal example, Kandu V, a female orca at Sea World of California (SWC), bled to death after 11.9 years (4332 days) in captivity when an artery was severed at the upper jaw (See Appendix A). The wound was self-inflicted as she collided with another whale in a display of dominance. Over the next 45 minutes, and in view of the public, she slowly bled out, spouting blood from her blowhole until she died.

Bleeding to death and spouting blood through her blowhole? What a way to die, suffocating on your own blood because your captor is too cheap to buy another tank for to live in. There's a picture on the page for your viewing pleasure.

After “tooth drilling” is complete, trainers must irrigate (flush) the bored out teeth two-three times each day, for the rest of the orca’s life, to prevent abscess, bacteremia, and sepsis. (Kalina’s reported cause of death, “acute bacterial septicemia,” should make one ponder how bacteria entered her bloodstream.

So they do a root canal and leave the tooth wide open? Oh yea, they're taking good care of them!

source

The list goes on. Read the article. They may not need the same rights as a person, but something needs to be done. You can't have things like this happening and not hold the captors responsible.

Originally posted by projectvxn
Good lord...

This will get tossed out of court very quickly.

PETA people are insane.

Yeah you're right. So are the people who fight for women's rights, same sex marriage and all other passionate folks who fight for rights of other beings.

I'm with you man, as long as someone can profit I don't think entities should have any rights.


Khar

After we stop the fed and the global bankers we MUST take out PETA next

reply to post by Kharron


Ok.

Try and find the Constitutional justification for it and see if a judge entrusted to interpret constitutional law does laugh you out of his chambers. And rightfully so.

Well, of course it will get tossed quickly, as it should. My only question is, will PETA and their attorneys be sanctioned for filing a frivolous law suit?

A frivolous lawsuit is a lawsuit which lacks both legal and evidentiary support. It may present arguments that not only lack legal support but also lack any logical or rational support. It is a claim that does not just have weak evidence, but lacks any evidence. Even where the law does not currently recognize a claim, there may be logical reasons that such a claim should be recognized now and in the future. Likewise, evidence which may appear weak to some may be persuasive to others. However, on occasion a claim may lack both a logical basis and any evidentiary support. These are the claims that are frivolous

reply to post by projectvxn


I actually agree with you. The constitution is the wrong way to fix this. They obviously can't do anything legally. They should consider forming a good old fashioned picket line around sea world until the bull# stops. That's all they want. Sadly, they aren't willing to do that, so they go after them in every way that they can, and in any way that gets them publicity. It's not wrong to seek publicity to the people when something has been covered up for years.

reply to post by Domo1

I find this quite cerebral. At last, someone standing up (or trying to) for Animal Rights. I wish them all the luck in the world. As a previous poster noted, life as a show animal is basically awful. I do not visit zoos, circuses, sea worlds or any other place where animals are exploited and forced to live in unnatural conditions for profit and so-called entertainment. I vote they toss the judge in the pool if he throws it out of court.

While their legal grounds might not be as good as they could be, (not something I know much about) anyone attempting to improve the lives of exploited animals deserves a little attention.

Disclaimer: I am a pescetarian, not a vegan.

reply to post by Domo1


im really suprised at people being against this
whales are huge animals that in their natural life can travel for thousands of kilometres every half a year..
they make huge migrations, travel from the surface to hundreds of metres into the deeps.
the keeping of animals is so inhumane its crazy, people only worry about issues that are infront of their face; and since a whale cant speak, people just dont care.
oh if a whale could speak english, the things we could learn.
it may not be human intillegnce but they certianly are smart if not as smart as humans.

great work peta
animals should get the same rights as humans because humans are animals.. isnt it as simple as that?
no apparently not because of humans inflated sense of importance.

I'm going o have to give it to you guys saying a show whale has a hard life. I may have been way off base. I just don't want to see animals granted human rights. I think the lawsuit is ridiculous. Do more to sway public opinion, the business will dry up and then no more whales in captivity.

Perhaps SeaWorld could just put Michael Moore and Roseanne in the tanks instead. Actually

reply to post by Evolutionsend


I'm all for them trying to rally up public support for their cause.

But to try to pervert the meaning of the Constitution and waste the time and money of tax payers by bringing this before a court is simply pathetic at best.

reply to post by projectvxn


Agreed. It obviously will no accomplish anything (to be fair though I guess I'm sort of changing my opinion about hales in captivity.). Seems like a huge waste of their funds, and the taxpayers as well.

reply to post by projectvxn


I think the majority of the taxpayers would rather just drown the owner of sea world if they knew the truth, to be honest. Let it ride because those tax payers like animals. I think a day in court to get the word out is a reasonable use of the judge's paycheck.

Judicial review also means that you can't say for sure what will happen.

Hamilton had written that through the practice of judicial review the Court ensured that the will of the whole people, as expressed in their Constitution, would be supreme over the will of a legislature, whose statutes might express only the temporary will of part of the people.

If the supreme court does it's job in spirit, and they feel that the majority of the people want something done, they could actually win.

source

reply to post by Evolutionsend


Indeed.

But I seriously doubt a sitting judge would allow the personhood of a whale to be decided by judicial decree.

It is absurd and such would be impossible to enforce:

How do you enforce a whales free speech?

How do you enforce a bear's right to bear arms?

It's get sillier from there.

The case gets thrown out. And no legal maneuvering is going to prevent it.

reply to post by projectvxn


The judge may do something completely different than that. You don't know for sure until the day comes, because the supreme court wields a lot of power.

reply to post by Domo1


humans are animals, why shouldnt they get the same rights?
i agree its sad they need to file lawsuits but thats how the world works.. its near impossible to make change with public opinon

reply to post by Evolutionsend


The basis of this argument is the 13th amendment:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

How does one apply this to animals?

reply to post by ShortMemory

humans are animals, why shouldnt they get the same rights?

Probably because it would be impossible for any law enforcement to enforce such ridiculousness.

reply to post by projectvxn


It doesn't say the person, it says the "party". If a judge decides party can mean a captive whale, that's Seaworld's butt right there.