But if a corporation is a “person,” why not an animal? That seems to be a common fallback question by those who either support the idea, or just hate Citizens United enough to use it whenever possible. But its leading proponent, Gary Wise, is on a mission:
Mr. Wise began developing his animal personhood strategy after struggling with ineffective welfare laws and regulations that fail to keep animals out of abusive environments. Unlike welfare statutes, legal personhood would give some animals irrevocable protections that recognize their critical needs to live in the wild and to not be owned or abused.
Before you knee-jerk shout, “are you kidding me,” Wise has not only pursued this course for more than 30 years and taught it at Harvard, but he’s now got a case pending in New York:
His team, the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP), selected as its first plaintiffs four chimps living in New York: Tommy, Kiko, Hercules and Leo. He chose these animals in large part because New York’s common laws are favorable to habeas corpus lawsuits, and because there are great ape sanctuaries that could accommodate them.
This fall, the cases will be likely to go to New York’s intermediate appellate courts. If Mr. Wise wins, he will have successfully broken down the legal wall that separates animals from humans. His plaintiffs, the four chimps, will be deemed legal persons and relocated to outdoor sanctuaries around the United States.
And if you think this cause won’t muster support, think again. The causes of animal rights, animal law and concerns about our treatment of animals (remember the animal abuse registry laws) have significant support.
What does all this mean? That’s the problem. It’s unclear that any proponents really have a clue what the ramifications might be if they got their way. While the analogy to corporations is poor and unavailing, it appears that the argument isn’t that animals are people, but “persons.” It appears this means that we’re allowed to be different species, but by being persons, animals have rights.
What rights? Well, apparently the right to live as they should, or at least as Gary Wise believes they should. The right to not be abused. The right to self-determination?
The problem is that if an animal isn’t property, but has rights, then does it have all the same rights as other “persons”? All of them? Some of them? The ones that aren’t as ridiculous as others?
Is eating meat out of the question? After all, we murder animals for food. If they have rights, would that include the right not to be murdered? And kidnapped, and held as slaves in our homes, where we feed them and love them? Does your terrier really want to be on a leash? And if the dog is a person, isn’t it his job to clean up his own poop? Certainly, a human can’t be liable for failure to scoop the poop of another person.
After he started his career as a criminal defense lawyer, he was inspired by Peter Singer’s book “Animal Liberation” to dedicate himself to justice for animals. He helped pioneer the study of animal rights law in the 1980s.
Criminal defense lawyers tend to gain a certain respect for rights, and apparently that can include the rights of animals. Few people would argue that an animal doesn’t have a right to not be beaten and abused. Fewer still would take issue with this, as abusing animals is just a sick, awful thing to do. But that we choose to treat living things kindly because that’s our nature is a far cry from imbuing them with the bundle of rights that our Constitution provides to persons.
No doubt, there are a million permutations of questions of what this could possibly mean. Is there a principled way to distinguish which “rights” might be appropriate for an animal and which are just totally nuts? And does this mean all animals get rights? Are some pigs more equal than others? And don’t bacteria have feelings too? Well, maybe not, but they’re certainly living until we wipe them away with an anti-bacterial cloth.
Like anti-bullying laws, anti-revenge porn laws, victims rights laws, to argue against such notions is decried as being in favor of the wrong they seek to stop. But reasonable people realize that’s not the point or the truth. Wise’s appeal is largely emotional, what about the poor animals, and questioning his mission is not the same as being callous toward them.
It’s more a problem of what does it mean, where would it end, what are the unintended consequences of even cracking the surface of such a concept. While it’s unclear, it seems that it can’t be good, and that it can prove very bad for a species of carnivores, leather-wearers and pet-lovers.
I would never kick a cat. I would, however, take another helping of bacon. This may not be principled and consistent, but that’s also a pretty human way to deal with such things.