Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Elephant's personhood up for debate in New York's top court


Myles
 Share

Recommended Posts

I hope the court would rule against this.  There must be some other way to help the elephant than by making it be a human, on paper.  Heck, he wouldn't be able to crap outside because a "person" would be arrested for crapping in public.  

A court will decide Wednesday whether an elephant can be a person.

Happy the Elephant, a resident of the Bronx Zoo in New York, is being considered for release by the state's top court. Happy, 51, has lived in the zoo since 1977. However, an animal rights group launched a coordinated campaign to free her in 2018, declaring Happy eligible for the rights of a "person" under New York law.

Nonhuman Rights Project launched their efforts to free Happy four years ago with a petition for a common law writ of habeas corpus. The petition demanded the state recognize Happy as a legal person with all rights associated with the designation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

R0e87760f9b561e343e75e91b4385a273.jpg.ab8ac0ac17220fff89254fea180099b1.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

They don't need to humanize the elephant to recognize its rights.

They only need to recognize it's 'beingness'.

 

As a being, it does not have to classify as human, yet may be recognized as whole, present and worthy of not being mistreated, abused, or neglected.

It's not hard.  It does take some critical thinking and a smidge of compassion however, and this,  is decidedly challenging for some 'humans' to manifest I recognize.  Remember, civilization is decidedly uncivilized.

Edited by quiXilver
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, quiXilver said:

They don't need to humanize the elephant to recognize its rights.

They only need to recognize it's 'beingness'.

 

As a being, it does not have to classify as human, yet may be recognized as whole, present and worthy of not being mistreated, abused, or neglected.

It's not hard.  It does take some critical thinking and a smidge of compassion however, and this,  is decidedly challenging for some 'humans' to manifest I recognize.  Remember, civilization is decidedly uncivilized.

I just think the lawsuit is stupid and should be thrown out.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meh. If Corporations and Zygotes are people then so too can Elephants be I guess.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Myles said:

There must be some other way to help the elephant than by making it be a human, on paper.

I hope so too.  Maybe it could be placed in a safari park with other elephants.  We have several of those around the US.

Doug

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, itsnotoutthere said:

R0e87760f9b561e343e75e91b4385a273.jpg.ab8ac0ac17220fff89254fea180099b1.jpg

Well now there are some issues around Elephant Cognition, they're very intelligent and DO express emotion. They're not on the same level as humans in terms of cognitive ability, but they're closer than the vast majority of all other species. I would argue that you can do stuff with say, fish and lizards that wouldn't be acceptable for Elephants. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
Posted (IP: Staff) ·

Happy the elephant isn't a person, top New York court rules

New York's top court on Tuesday rejected an effort to free Happy the elephant from the Bronx Zoo, ruling that she does not meet the definition of "person" who is being illegally confined.

The 5-2 decision by the state Court of Appeals affirms an earlier court decision and means Happy will not be released through a habeas corpus proceeding, which is a way for people to challenge illegal confinement.

The majority decision written by Chief Judge Janet DiFiore said that "while no one disputes that elephants are intelligent beings deserving of proper care and compassion," a writ of habeas corpus is intended to protect the liberty of human beings and does not apply to a nonhuman animal like Happy.

The case had been closely watched by animal rights activists and industries that depend on animals. The zoo and its supporters warned that a win for advocates at the Nonhuman Rights Project could open the door to more legal actions on behalf of animals, including pets and other species in zoos.

https://phys.org/news/2022-06-happy-elephant-isnt-person-york.html

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is nice to see a sane decision made.  I do wonder about the 2 who voted that the elephant is a person.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Myles said:

It is nice to see a sane decision made.  I do wonder about the 2 who voted that the elephant is a person.

Quote

Two judges, Rowan Wilson and Jenny Rivera, wrote separate, sharply worded dissents saying the fact that Happy is an animal does not prevent her from having legal rights. Rivera wrote that Happy is being held in "an environment that is unnatural to her and that does not allow her to live her life."

"Her captivity is inherently unjust and inhumane. It is an affront to a civilized society, and every day she remains a captive—a spectacle for humans—we, too, are diminished," Rivera wrote.

Th earguemnet is that hebus corpus should apply to teh elephant, since she subject to unlawful detention or impiriomeny considering she was "born in the wild in Asia in the early 1970s, captured and brought as a 1-year-old to the United States."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hm, it still looks better than my x-wife, and she was barely human...
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
On 5/19/2022 at 5:54 AM, quiXilver said:

They don't need to humanize the elephant to recognize its rights.

They only need to recognize it's 'beingness'.

While on the other corner of the world..

New Zealand river granted same legal rights as human being's

After 140 years of negotiation, Māori tribe wins recognition for Whanganui river, meaning it must be treated as a living entity

 

Prince Harry paddles down the Whanganui river during a visit to New Zealand in 2015.

 
 
Eleanor Ainge Roy in Dunedin
Thu 16 Mar 2017 04.50 GMTLast modified on Mon 11 Jan 2021 

In a world-first a New Zealand river has been granted the same legal rights as a human being.

The local Māori tribe of Whanganui in the North Island has fought for the recognition of their river – the third-largest in New Zealand – as an ancestor 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, as we don't speak Elephant, there is no way to know how cognitive and self aware she really is. We are still discovering how smart animals really are. We just like to put ourselves above animals when in reality we are just another animal. Also it really disgusts me to see a comment or to here of obvious subtle trans-phobia. FOR SHAME ON YOU. I wont rattle off how assine you come a cross as sounding.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, as we don't speak Elephant, there is no way to know how cognitive and self aware she really is. We are still discovering how smart animals really are. We just like to put ourselves above animals when in reality we are just another animal. Also it really disgusts me to see a comment or to here of obvious subtle trans-phobia. FOR SHAME ON YOU. I wont rattle off how assine you come a cross as sounding.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although zoo's, aquariums, wildlife parks, etc. have been essential in humans better understanding the needs of animals in their care which has translated into our being able to better help animals in the wild, I do believe that for the most part they are ultimately inhumane the way the y have been historically run.  There are cases that are exceptions such as the mountain lion cub recently found in a classroom.  Those cats require their mother to provide for them for a few years and are taught how to survive by that parent without which they are doomed in the wild so a facility run by people may be the best option in some cases.  There is also good conservation work done on behalf of the animals and nature in general in places like those  But I do feel it's time to start shrinking such places down and concentrate more on ensuring animals in the wild have less competition from humans.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.