Rights for Other Apes, They Insist. Are They Serious?
by Lee Hall
Now this is real news: A group of influential Homo sapiens has resolved to grant rights to other apes. Spain’s environmental ministers accepted a declaration from scientists and philosophers; the parliament is now expected to fill in a nonbinding resolution with laws forbidding the use of nonhuman great apes in harmful experiments, or on stage.
Amnesty International has expressed its alarm: What about the rights of the world’s many detained and degraded human beings?
And yet, is there any reason why basic rights to life and liberty should only be discussed with reference to humanity? Can’t we humans act decently - to human beings and others? Surely, respect should be nurtured in all its forms.
…And taking the rights of apes seriously would be a boon to entire forest biocommunities that need us to stop breeding cattle and logging ancient forests and extracting everything we can get our drills into. The best possible outcome from the Spanish resolution would be the start of a robust movement to defend the planet’s untamed places. That would help apes and tree frogs alike, and they all should have the simple right to live as they will.
Click to read Lee Hall, Rights for Other Apes, They Insist. Are They Serious? Dissident Voice (27 Aug 2008).
Post your comment
Comment Guidelines: We welcome your expressions of opinion on this subject. Please avoid false commentary about individuals or groups. Facts must be verified by the person posting. Off-topic comments, and comments inappropriate for a readership of all ages, may be deleted. E-mail addresses will never be published. Only comments with valid e-mail address will be published.
1 Comments
On September 20, 2008, chris kelly wrote:
Re the comment from Amnesty International, “Amnesty International has expressed its alarm: What about the rights of the world’s many detained and degraded human beings?”
Why, why, WHY do human rights groups fail to recognize the connection between humans and other species? When will they see that their limited thinking adds to the us-v-them mentality rooted in the apathy toward HUMANS who possibly look and/or live differently from their donor base? Opening the discussion to include all species would be helpful (and I believe essential) in changing the selective thinking, the us-v-them thinking, deeply embedded in the minds of many humans.
I’m old enough to remember this mentality in the southern US, that certain people were only partially human; therefore, they were not entitled to full rights. This thinking, that others are different, therefore, not worthy, has been the excuse to oppress others throughout history. It needs to change —Amnesty International, and other groups that wish to restrict basic rights need to evolve and realize it would be in the best interest of humans to be species inclusive….and if they can’t embrace all species, I wish they’d refrain from contributing to the limited thinking of the “either-or” mentality by making statements as in the above quote.