ARCO's Abolitionists - A Vegan Forum

beforewisdom · by **beforewisdom** » Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:17 pm

VIENNA, Austria - He's now got a human name — Matthew Hiasl Pan — but he's having
trouble getting his day in court. Animal rights activists campaigning to get Pan, a
26-year-old chimpanzee, legally declared a person vowed Thursday to take their
challenge to Austria's Supreme Court after a lower court threw out their latest appeal.

Read the rest at:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070927/ap_ ... _challenge

EcoTribalVegan · by **EcoTribalVegan** » Thu Sep 27, 2007 3:25 pm

They should instead argue the illogical definition of humanity. Once you break that down, it's obvious there is no grounds for species descrimination.

panthera · by **panthera** » Thu Sep 27, 2007 10:31 pm

Not sure what you mean by the illogical definition of humanity. Humanity not personhood? Species definition?

The Association Against Animal Factories points out that it's not trying to get Pan declared a human, but rather a person, which would give him some kind of legal status.

Otherwise, he is legally a thing. And with the genetic makeup of chimpanzees and humans so strikingly similar, it contends, that just can't be.

"The question is: Are chimps things without interests, or persons with interests?" Balluch said. [emphasis mine]

"A large section of the public does see chimps as beings with interests," he said. "We are looking forward to hear what the high court has to say on this fundamental question."

This sounds like the exact right question to be asking, to me.

A provincial judge in the city of Wiener Neustadt dismissed the case earlier this week, ruling that the Vienna-based Association Against Animal Factories had no legal standing to argue on the chimp's behalf.

The association, which worries the shelter caring for the chimp might close, has been pressing to get Pan declared a "person" so a guardian can be appointed to look out for his interests and provide him with a home.
...
Donors have offered to help, but there's a catch: Under Austrian law, only a person can receive personal gifts.

Organizers could set up a foundation to collect cash for Pan, whose life expectancy in captivity is about 60 years. But they contend that only personhood will give him the basic rights he needs to ensure he isn't sold to someone outside Austria, where he's now protected by strict animal cruelty laws.

In April, a district court judge rejected a British woman's petition to be declared Pan's legal guardian. That court ruled that the chimp was neither mentally impaired nor in danger, the grounds required for an individual to be appointed a guardian.

In dismissing the Association Against Animal Factories' appeal this week, the provincial court said only a guardian could appeal. That doesn't apply in this case, the group contends, since Pan hasn't gained a guardian.

There is legal precedence in Austria for close friends to represent people who have no immediate family, "so he should be represented by his closest friends, as is the case," said Eberhart Theuer, the group's legal adviser.

The district court judge and a provincial court judge treated him as a person, by basing their denials on other conditions that hadn't been met (not mentally impaired or in danger; not represented by a guardian).

EcoTribalVegan · by **EcoTribalVegan** » Fri Sep 28, 2007 3:20 pm

panthera wrote:Not sure what you mean by the illogical definition of humanity. Humanity not personhood? Species definition?

Definition of a human: has 22 + 1 sex chromosome from each parent for a total of 46 chromosomes. Derived from the Human Genome Project's website. Notice how it states, "On December 1, researchers in the Human Genome Project announced the complete sequencing of the DNA making up human chromosome 22." So I've decided it's safe to make this assertion. I've also read other places that verify this.

Definition of a species: "A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding."

These two combined would eliminate infertile/sterile beings (that are wrongly labelled as humans), Down's Syndrome, Turner's Syndrome, and other beings wrongly labelled as humans containing XXX, XXY, XYY and any other genetic modifications I'm missing. I've also heard that to be part of the same species one has to be able to produce VIABLE offspring (to eliminate grouping animals like donkeys, horses and mules together. This would further eliminate people who did not produce non-sterile offspring.

Maybe this is why you can see how the definition of human is flawed.

Diana · by **Diana** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 7:59 pm

Martin Balluch, who is at the origin of this initiative, is a very well-known Austrian activist. He gave a talk at an Animal Liberation Workshop about Haisl the chimp in Switizerland a few months ago. At first, I was very sceptical because Balluch is a new-welfarist. (A great pity because with his spunk and ability to get things done he could do a lot more for animal rights if he made that final step to being an abolitionist). But as he talked, I realised that this initiative was a good one and if he can achieve his goal in getting recognition for Personhood for Haisl, it will open up a whole new era. At first, when they made the first administrative steps, they did not mention that Haisl was a chimp. They referred to him as if he was a human and it was only later that it was revealed that he is a non-human animal.

teddy bear · by **teddy bear** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 1:28 am

Diana wrote:Balluch is a new-welfarist.

What makes him a new-welfarist?

Diana · by **Diana** » Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:55 am

Well, for instance, he only campaigned in Austria for the abolition of so-called "wild" animals in circuses, leaving out all the others, the so-called "domesticated" animals, which is senseless and has put back animal rights for circus animals back for years and years and years - and this not only in Austria, but the whole of Europe, because Austria will probably be used as the yardstick if ever a European interdiction takes places. He is a strong believer in "small steps". He has spent a lot of energy fighting against battery cages for instance.

teddy bear · by **teddy bear** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 7:33 am

Diana wrote:He has spent a lot of energy fighting against battery cages for instance.

From what I know, this campaign was quite successful, not from abolitionist perspective, but battery cages were banned.

What should an abolitionist campaign look like? Release all poultry, make big fenced yards for them where they can roam free, sterilize them so they don't breed anymore, give them food and water until they die of natural causes, all 10 million of them (I just made that number, don't know how many there are in Austria). Am I going to far or is that the message abolitionists should send out to the world in their campaigns? I would like to advocate that message.

Diana · by **Diana** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 11:22 am

I asked Martin once if, through his battery cage campaign, the consumption of eggs had gone down.

He said he didn't know but admitted that it was possible that it had not been reduced.

It would be better to campaign for people to stop eating eggs. If people stopped eating eggs, even a few percent a year, the number of egg laying chickens would also be reduced, as it would become less and less profitable for the farmers to raise their chickens. What Bullach and others are doing is making people feel happy about eating eggs and I would think that, if Martin is one day able to find the statistics, he will see that egg consumption has gone up.

teddy bear · by **teddy bear** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 3:51 pm

Diana wrote:It would be better to campaign for people to stop eating eggs.

Sure, why not. But how do you campaign for it? Which approach do you take? Which argument are you going to offer to egg-eating people to stop eating eggs? Hens feel pain? Or eating eggs is not healthy? Not healthy for people, not healthy for hens, not healthy for environment? Or hens should not serve a purpose to humans, and should not be property?

Obviously, as you try to make people stop eating eggs, you can expose the cruelty of industry farms (such as battery cages). As more people stop eating eggs, the industry will try to stop that by making the exploitation less cruel (or at least try to advertise it that way). So how do you stop the industry from getting those customers back? Should we teach about the nature of all exploitation- that there are always some rights and basic needs being neglected or denied?

Is Martin exposing the exploitation of hens? If yes, can his actions be negative? Is he cooperating with the egg industry or is the egg industry trying to counteract his measures? You said it would be better if he campaigned for people to stop eating eggs. If exposing the nature of exploitation towards hens is not the way, can you tell me what does campaigning for people to stop eating eggs really comprise of?

ARCO's Abolitionists - A Vegan Forum

Vegans exploring the abolitionist approach to Animal Rights

Court won't declare chimp a person

Court won't declare chimp a person

Re: Court won't declare chimp a person

Re: Court won't declare chimp a person

Re: Court won't declare chimp a person

Re: Court won't declare chimp a person

Re: Court won't declare chimp a person

Re: Court won't declare chimp a person

Re: Court won't declare chimp a person

Re: Court won't declare chimp a person

Re: Court won't declare chimp a person