Austrian court to decide: human rights for apes?
- Apr 11, 2007 - 2
You’ve probably visited a zoo and enjoyed watching the antics of monkeys as they seemed to be consciously performing for the crowd. You might have made eye contact with one and wondered what it was thinking.
But can you imagine seeing that same monkey sitting in a courtroom with an attorney at its side?
One British woman says that because apes are so like humans—they share 98% of our DNA, display personality, use tools, etc.—they also should have similar rights.
Paula Stibbe, with the support of animal rights activists and scientists from around the world, is taking the issue to court in Austria, claiming that apes deserve to be treated like humans. Specifically, Stibbe is fighting for “human status” to be granted to Hiasl, a 26-year-old chimpanzee.
As a baby, Hiasl was illegally smuggled into Austria from Sierra Leone to be used for AIDS and hepatitis research at a Baxter laboratory. At customs, however, officers discovered Hiasl and sent him to the animal sanctuary where he resides today. But the sanctuary is facing bankruptcy, and Hiasl could once again find himself headed to the Baxter lab.
In an effort to save Hiasl from this fate, an Austrian businessman has donated over $9,000 to be used for Hiasl’s personal care. The problem is that without a legal guardian, a right granted only to humans, the money will be given to the bankruptcy court instead.
This dilemma has ultimately spawned Stibbe’s case, in which she must first fight for Hiasl to be considered “human” before she can fight for his legal guardianship.
One of the major arguments supporting Stibbe’s case are the many genetic similarities between chimpanzees and humans, in addition to recent discoveries showing that apes hunt with homemade spears, fight battles against other animals and have the ability to settle disputes, all of which show “humanity.”
Prior to Hiasl’s case, a major step toward gaining human rights for apes was made in New Zealand in 1999 when they were granted special rights as “non-human hominids,” which protected them from maltreatment, slavery, torture, death and extinction.
Many believe that if Stibbe is successful in crossing the “species barrier,” a wave of similar cases will quickly follow.
“Where do you stop?” asked Steve Jones, professor of genetics at the University of London, who believes the concept of human rights cannot possibly be enforced on animals.
“It seems to be that being human is unique and nothing to do with biology,” Jones explained. “Say that apes share 98% of human DNA and therefore should have 98% of human rights. Well mice share 90% of human DNA. Should they get 90% of human rights? And plants have more DNA than humans.”
It is also quite ironic that chimps are being considered for human rights while most unborn human babies are not granted legal human status. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, or “Laci and Connor’s Law,” protects unborn children from assault and murder, but 4100 of America’s unborn children are killed by abortions every day.
Another problem with granting human rights to animals is that they would then have the right to file lawsuits as “persons.” This is exactly what lawyers are planning for Hiasl.
Martin Balluch is president of Austria’s animal rights organization and has worked to bring Hiasl’s case to court. “We argue that he’s a person and he’s capable of owning himself, as opposed to being owned, and that he can manage his money,” Balluch explained. “This means he can start a court case against Baxter, which at the very least should mean his old age pension is secure.”
In response to hearing this outrageous news, Wesley J. Smith, special consultant for the Center for Bioethics and Culture, said, “What I find most depressing about all of this is the increasing inability of many people to defend intrinsic human dignity and the unique moral status of human beings.”
In Smith’s opinion, “Humans are having an identity crisis. And it doesn’t bode well for our moral understanding of the importance of being human.”
Further Learning
Learn more about: Citizenship, Human Rights, Science, Bioethics
2 comments (post your own) feed
1 On Apr 13th, 2007, at 7:15am, Dr. Kermit P. Soileau wrote:
With the extension of social contracts BEYOND the social & biblical norms of the last 1000 years billowing out to include same sex relationships, one notes the meteoric pace at which animal rights have grown at the same time. The inevitable result of these 2 movements dovetailing in the next 10 years will be the extension of social contracts, i.e. “marriage,” to the relationship between humans & animals/pets. In the U. S., pets are already assuming a legal position in divorce settlements & other legal proceedings. With the emotion displayed over pets, it is only a matter of time until someone claims the inevitable ultimate right to grant legal status to their beloved pet by entering into a “social” contract to make the pet a legal part of their lives - marriage being the next step up from calling them their “four-footed” children. If this assumption seems radical to you, compare the status of “pets” today with the status of animals in society only a short 50 years ago.
2 On Jun 26th, 2007, at 12:10am, fabio magnelli wrote:
i believe that all apes should have human rights because they are us and we are them except we can talk, and actual reality in certain situation we do act like apes,they deserve to be equals like us.