Have you ever been sued by your dog? So maybe your cat is not trying to kill you, but is she trying to sue you for all you have?
These questions may lose their outlandish nature soon as animal rights defenders progress in their pursuit of “animal standing,” the ability for an animal to sue in court. Do not laugh. This is real.
In 2010, Switzerland voted on a law that would have appointed animals free lawyers for cases of abuse. This law was smartly rejected by 71 percent of Swiss voters. My question is simple: what was the other 29 percent of the population thinking?
The law put forth was 160 pages of regulations to “protect” animals, not only outlawing of cruelty and abuse simultaneously simultaneously worthy goals in my view – but also restrictions as precise as the water temperature in which domestic frogs must reside.
But the absurd movement of “animal standing” does not end there. In early February of this year people for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) attempted to sue SeaWorld on behalf of the killer whales on the grounds of their “enslavement,” citing the Thirteenth Amendment’s rejection of slavery and involuntary servitude and the fact that this Amendment does not mention humans.
The Amendment is as follows:
“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.”
PETA’s effort to free the liberally-fed killer whales that are “slaves” kept in generously sized, well maintained tanks is a valiant venture in the colossus that is the attempt to vastly expand the rights of animals.
However, if PETA planned to free the whales with a master plan basing their defense in a document that begins with, “We the People,” they apparently need to fire their lawyer. Tilikum, Katina, Corky, Kasatka, and Ulises, five orcas et al. v. SeaWorld concluded with a ruling from District Court judge Jeffrey T. Miller that basically confirmed what we all knew: humans, not animals, are covered by the Constitution.
This case was seen as another PETA publicity stunt, got a few national giggles, and did not succeed in dissuading people from visiting the killer whales of SeaWorld.
This failure, along with the flop in Switzerland and other cases of the like, is not a deterrent to the “animal standing” movement that ultimately seeks to abolish any industry that uses animal testing and plans to eventually eradicate the domestication of animals. In this fight, it would take only one judge with sights on his name in history books ruling in favor of the movement to create a domino-fall straight to being arrested for owning a fish.
In an interview with the New York Times, lawyer and president of the Nonhuman Rights Project Steven M. Wise warned that in 2013, cases will be taken to court that will “use the latest science to help persuade state court judges that such creatures as whales and chimpanzees should be accorded common law personhood and rights.”
As science advances, there may be something to Wise’s claim. More and more frequently, you can find reports about dolphins using language to communicate or chimpanzees able to solve advanced puzzles. There is no doubt that animals may be smarter than humans have believed.
But seeking personhood for something nonhuman is an absolute contradiction of the definition for person; according to Merriam Webster, “person” is defined, first and foremost, as “human.”
It can also not be ignored that many of these pro-“animal standing” advocates are also pro-choice. Some “animal-standers” even view infanticide as a legitimate practice and do not view a fetus as a human.
Seems a little backwards to me. If you do not even consider a human to be human, how can you argue for the personhood of animals?
Animal cruelty is wrong and inhumane. This fact cannot be denied. And though an animal is unquestionably a higher entity than a pencil or rock, I cannot see why my cat should be represented by a lawyer for any injustices she feels I have done to her.
But maybe soon, granted PETA and other groups like it pushing for “animal standing” win in the end, she will be able to sue me for all of my livelihood because of that one night I got home late and did not feed her until almost midnight rather than her regular 8:30 pm meal.
