The
Nonhuman Rights Project is a nonprofit organization holding this in its mission
statement:
“Our mission is to change the common law status
of at least some nonhuman animals from mere ‘things,’ which lack the capacity
to possess any legal right, to ‘persons,’ who possess such fundamental rights
as bodily integrity and bodily liberty, and those other legal rights to which
evolving standards of morality, scientific discovery, and human experience
entitle them.”
Historically
animals, since they are viewed as “things,” have had no rights. Animal welfare laws as we know them have been
largely born out of the rights of humans,
namely, the right to not have to witness or tolerate animal cruelty or
suffering.
Founded by
attorney and law professor, Steven Wise, the Nonhuman Rights Project seeks to
change that. In an April 2014 cover
story entitled “Should A Chimp Be Able To Sue Its Owner?” the New York Times
Magazine reported that Wise started with his mission back in 1981 after he read
the seminal book Animal Liberation by
Peter Singer. However, only now, starting in late 2013 has he, with the backing
of the NhPP and others, begun filing habeas corpus lawsuits, with animals as
plaintiffs and their captors as defendants.
A habeas corpus – literally meaning
“you have the body” – is a proceeding which simply seeks to release the
plaintiff from unlawful restraint.
The first
habeas corpus court cases have as their plaintiffs chimps by the names of Kiko,
Hercules and Leo, all of whom are in captivity in New York state, including two
of whom are research animals at Stony Brook University. All of the suits
brought in December 2013 have been dismissed because – no surprise – each of
the state court judges hearing these cases has decided that New York law does
not recognize the standing of a petitioner who claims to possess “nonhuman
personhood.” This conclusion was reached in the face of papers filed by the
plaintiffs setting forth in elaborate detail, with world-class experts, the
ability of the petitioners to know their past and contemplate their future,
among other cognitive and emotional attributes.
I was aware of
Steven Wise’s studies and teachings when I wrote The Hot Monkey Love Trial. I read his book Rattling the Cage: Toward Legal Rights for Animals, published in
2000. It was about the only book to be found that discussed the notion of
animals capable of being treated as legal “persons,” and I used it for
historical facts and to better understand the line our laws have drawn between
a living nonhuman being, seen as having no rights, and a human being with rights.
But is there really anything
shared in common between these habeas court cases brought by plaintiffs, claiming
to be nonhuman persons, and The Hot
Monkey Love Trial? After all, one is
very real; one is fiction. One is a very serious matter; one is intended to be
mostly comic. One raises the question: Should a monkey – with stunning
cognitive powers and the ability to communicate, even empathize with other
animals, including humans – have a right to personal liberty upon petition to a
court where there’s proof of pervasive bondage, cruelty, and suffering? On the
other hand, the novel asks: Can someone who is part genetically nonhuman – that
is, whose genome contains genetic material that is unique to monkeys – be
deemed a person who can be held accountable for crimes? Isn’t the answer to
both yes? Or stated differently, it takes twisting of common sense, if not the
wrong kind of blind justice – one tragically and ironically pigheaded and one comically absurd – to
answer both questions no.
The Court granted a habeas corpus hearing –
something that to date has only been granted to full-fledged humans – and the
hearing was held on May 27 ,2015. Stay tuned
for more on the cases filed, now on appeal, and this fascinating and developing
area of law.
