Can sasquatches in the White House be far behind?
...oops!!!
Shouldn't have said behind.
Two particular doctrines will characterize the last days in which we are living: forbidding to marry (a goal of the gay agenda) and forbidding to eat meat (a goal of the environmentalists and animal-rights groups).
Now the Spirit speaks expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God has created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth (1 Timothy 4:1-3)
Can sasquatches in the White House be far behind?
...oops!!!
Shouldn't have said behind.
Ninety-nine dead baboons,
Sitting in my living room
99 nonhuman persons,
Some drunk, passed out—others cursin’
This one’s Fred, that one’s Dinah
And there’s Big Ned in my recliner!
But at the end of the day, they’re just dirty apes, aren’t they?
Have you been in a zoo ape house on a warm summer day?
You get used to the smell. Sure you do.
Like you get used to the smell downwind of a feedlot or hog farm.
So you non-human persons can keep your hands to yourselves, you understand this one finger sign language there Koko?
A non-human person is a corporation, not an orangutan.
I would find this latest overreach of corporate law amusing, if it wasn’t so horrifying.
Personally, if an animal is not an endangered species, why sentence it to a lifetime behind bars?Can you imagine being in the same room everyday of your life? I have never much cared for zoos.
I read, and re-read, the news article and did NOT find this was a New York court. . . and if it was I was trying to figure out exactly what jurisdiction a New York state or US Federal Court in New York would have on a Zoo in a South American country. Frankly, The New York and US citations were about cases brought by animal rights activists which were TOSSED OUT!
Nowhere in the article was it stated exactly WHAT court made this inane ruling. . . and under what laws it could have made such a ruling. I have a BS meter pegged at about 95% on this story. First of all, how is “freeing” Sandra from one zoo “jail” to another sanctuary “jail” qualify as freedom for Sandra? Does she choose this residence? Does she then get to support herself? Does she get to qualify for Argentinian Social Security based on Orangutan retirement age? What are the other implications of this ruling?
Not the kind of freedom I would relish. Can't go for a burger.
No Orangutan Writ of Habeas Corpus
By Wesley J. Smith — National Review Article
November 22, 2014 12:16 AMHow does one type the words–”Organugan writ of hapeas corpus”–without the laptop exploding.
It should be ludicrous. But animal rights activists are suing, or planning to sue, all over the place looking for just one judge willing to go radical and grant one animal “personhood,” Here in New York, for example, the NonHuman Rights Project has brought a similar suit, to a laudatory cover story in the New York Times Magazine.
A Brazilian (Sic) judge came close a few years ago to granting a chimp the Great Writ. But the animal died,, forcing the disappointed judge to dismiss the case as moot.
Now, a Brazilian judge has thankfully said no to making an orangutan a “person.” From the Merco Press story:
“Sandra is in captivity, living in absolute solitude in the Buenos Aires city zoo” argued AFADA, which requested the orangutan be transferred to a sanctuary to preserve the species. “She is being treated as a prisoner and has to suffer the presence of the public staring at her”.AFADA said in the presentation that it was appropriate “to question the deprivation of liberty of the primate, based on illegitimacy and the acknowledgement she is a non human person”. The animals-rights activists’ organization anticipated they would be appealing the ruling and demanded Sandra’s protection on “at least three basic rights, the right to life, the right not to be tortured or ill treated physically or psychologically”.
Those putative rights come from Peter Singer’s, The Great Ape Project.
Previosly, PETA sued Sea World seeking to have orcas declared “slaves.” The case was tossed out, but only because the judge ruled only humans can slaves, based on pre Civil War definitions describing African-American slaves as persons.
So, for now, human exceptionalism has not been hit with a sledge hammer. But animal rights anti-humanists will keep trying. And very rich and powerful people keep donating tens of millions for the cause.
Of course, human exceptionalism supports proper animal welfare practices as a duty. But proper care of animals isn’t the ultimate goal of animal rightists and utilitarians like Peter Singer, rather, their goal is to reduce us to just another animal in the forest.
So sleep well, tonight. Sandra the orangutan should be cared for properly. But she remains legally what she is: by definition, not a person.
But don’t sleep too well: Remember: It takes only one judge wanting to go down in history.
So, unless something is very wrong in Denmark, we've had TWO judges ruling on the same case in less than a month. . . and that does not make sense at all. This last case again comes from just one source. . . and every other article cites that source verbatim without citing court or judge. . . and of course neither does this one. What's going on here? That is just poor reporting in either story. Of course, the last time I looked, Buenos Aires IS the capitol of Argentina. . . and what jurisdiction a Brazilian Judge would have adjudicating Sandra's case I just don't know. . . or believe. So there are some really weird things going on here!
OK . . . more research, and getting to the bottom of this. I found the original article from MercoPress.com, Montevideo, which DOES name the court and the judge in Argentina from back in November:
Friday, Noves not apply to Sumatran orangutan in Buenos Aires zoo
MercoPress.com —Friday, November 21st 2014 - 22:55 UTCSandra, a 20-year Sumatran orangutan must remain at the Buenos Aires zoo following the rejection of an habeas corpus request presented by a group in defense of animal rights. The magistrate ruled that the 'non human person' presentation was not applicable to Sandra as pretended by AFADA, Association of Staff and Lawyers for Animals' rights.
“Sandra is in captivity, living in absolute solitude in the Buenos Aires city zoo” argued AFADA, which requested the orangutan be transferred to a sanctuary.
But the judge did order an investigation as to Sandra's captivity conditions and if she is a victim of ill-treatment under the 1954 animal protection bill. But the judge did order an investigation as to Sandra's captivity conditions and if she is a victim of ill-treatment under the 1954 animal protection bill.
“Sandra is in captivity, living in absolute solitude in the Buenos Aires city zoo” argued AFADA, which requested the orangutan be transferred to a sanctuary to preserve the species. “She is being treated as a prisoner and has to suffer the presence of the public staring at her”.
AFADA said in the presentation that it was appropriate “to question the deprivation of liberty of the primate, based on illegitimacy and the acknowledgement she is a non human person”.
The animals-rights activists' organization anticipated they would be appealing the ruling and demanded Sandra's protection on “at least three basic rights, the right to life, the right not to be tortured or ill treated physically or psychologically”.
Criminal Court Judge, Monica Berdion de CrudoThe criminal court judge, Monica Berdion de Crudo, rejected point blank the request recalling that it only applies to humans persons, but nevertheless ordered an investigation as to Sandra's captivity conditions and if she is a victim of ill-treatment under the 1954 animal protection bill.
AFADA has also presented habeas corpus for chimpanzees in Argentine zoos hoping to establish a lead case “with the purpose of making use of this legal tool in defense of animals in captivity rights”, points out a release from the association.
A similar request was presented in December 2013 before a New York court by a US organization that defends animals' rights, arguing that four chimpanzees in captivity can be considered “legal persons” and thus with the right to liberty.
MercoPress is the Southern Atlantic New Agency. . . and there have been NO updates to this story under links to the Judge's name, or under Sumatran Orangutan since November. The judge is unlikely to over-rule herself and suddenly give the Orangutan rights. . . but she may find the ape is being maltreated under Argentina's animal treatment laws.
Here you go...
They are bringing the orangutan here to Florida as part of this scheme
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3792327/posts
