Vegetarian Discussion: Spain Is To Become The First Country To Extend Legal Rights To Apes

Spain Is To Become The First Country To Extend Legal Rights To Apes
Posts: 13

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

Derek
2008-06-27 14:47:55 EST
Spain is to become the first country to extend legal
rights to apes, wrongfooting animal rights activists
who have long campaigned against bullfighting in the
country.

In what is thought to be the first time a national
legislature has granted such rights to animals, the
Spanish parliament’s environmental committee voted
to approve resolutions committing the country to the
Great Apes Project, designed by scientists and
philosophers who say that humans’ closest biological
relatives also deserve rights.

The resolution, adopted with crossparty support, calls
on the Government to promote the Great Apes Project
internationally and ensure the protection of apes from
“abuse, torture and death”. “This is a historic moment in
the struggle for animal rights,” Pedro Pozas, the Spanish
director of the Great Apes Project, told The Times. “It
will doubtless be remembered as a key moment in the
defence of our evolutionary comrades.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4220884.ece

Rupert
2008-06-28 18:08:32 EST
On Jun 28, 2:47 am, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Spain is to become the first country to extend legal
> rights to apes, wrongfooting animal rights activists
> who have long campaigned against bullfighting in the
> country.
>
> In what is thought to be the first time a national
> legislature has granted such rights to animals, the
> Spanish parliament’s environmental committee voted
> to approve resolutions committing the country to the
> Great Apes Project, designed by scientists and
> philosophers who say that humans’ closest biological
> relatives also deserve rights.
>
> The resolution, adopted with crossparty support, calls
> on the Government to promote the Great Apes Project
> internationally and ensure the protection of apes from
> “abuse, torture and death”. “This is a historic moment in
> the struggle for animal rights,” Pedro Pozas, the Spanish
> director of the Great Apes Project, told The Times. “It
> will doubtless be remembered as a key moment in the
> defence of our evolutionary comrades.”http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4220884.ece

Yes, I saw that. It's a very encouraging development. I think the
Great Ape Project is a very promising strategy.

Many chimpanzees, gorillas, and orang-utans will now be protected from
abuse, which is excellent.

Derek
2008-06-29 06:06:10 EST
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 15:08:32 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jun 28, 2:47 am, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Spain is to become the first country to extend legal
>> rights to apes, wrongfooting animal rights activists
>> who have long campaigned against bullfighting in the
>> country.
>>
>> In what is thought to be the first time a national
>> legislature has granted such rights to animals, the
>> Spanish parliament’s environmental committee voted
>> to approve resolutions committing the country to the
>> Great Apes Project, designed by scientists and
>> philosophers who say that humans’ closest biological
>> relatives also deserve rights.
>>
>> The resolution, adopted with crossparty support, calls
>> on the Government to promote the Great Apes Project
>> internationally and ensure the protection of apes from
>> “abuse, torture and death”. “This is a historic moment in
>> the struggle for animal rights,” Pedro Pozas, the Spanish
>> director of the Great Apes Project, told The Times. “It
>> will doubtless be remembered as a key moment in the
>> defence of our evolutionary comrades.”
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4220884.ece
>
>Yes, I saw that.

Yes, but did you see it coming? I didn't.

>It's a very encouraging development. I think the
>Great Ape Project is a very promising strategy.

The species barrier has been bust wide open. The
speciesist who attempts to deny rights to animals on
the basis of petty prejudice and discrimination can
no longer argue that humans, by dint of being human,
are the only animal on this earth legally entitled to hold
basic rights against other humans. He has failed to make
the case that while membership to group x morally and
legally entitles members to hold rights against other
members of that group, membership to another group
automatically excludes them as rights holders against
those members in group x.

>Many chimpanzees, gorillas, and orang-utans will now be protected from
>abuse, which is excellent.

And, while apes hold legal rights against humans, those
against the proposition of extending them further must
show the morally relevant difference between them and
the apes that now hold them.

This is huge!

Rupert
2008-06-29 08:21:53 EST
On Jun 29, 6:06 pm, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 15:08:32 -0700 (PDT), Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 28, 2:47 am, Derek <usenet.em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Spain is to become the first country to extend legal
> >> rights to apes, wrongfooting animal rights activists
> >> who have long campaigned against bullfighting in the
> >> country.
>
> >> In what is thought to be the first time a national
> >> legislature has granted such rights to animals, the
> >> Spanish parliament’s environmental committee voted
> >> to approve resolutions committing the country to the
> >> Great Apes Project, designed by scientists and
> >> philosophers who say that humans’ closest biological
> >> relatives also deserve rights.
>
> >> The resolution, adopted with crossparty support, calls
> >> on the Government to promote the Great Apes Project
> >> internationally and ensure the protection of apes from
> >> “abuse, torture and death”. “This is a historic moment in
> >> the struggle for animal rights,” Pedro Pozas, the Spanish
> >> director of the Great Apes Project, told The Times. “It
> >> will doubtless be remembered as a key moment in the
> >> defence of our evolutionary comrades.”
> >>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4220884.ece
>
> >Yes, I saw that.
>
> Yes, but did you see it coming? I didn't.
>

I was aware a few months back that there was some chance it might
happen, and I signed a petition to the Spanish Parliament encouraging
them to do it. I guess I wasn't all that sure it would happen, and
certainly a couple of years ago I would have had no idea we would get
a breakthrough like this so quickly.

> >It's a very encouraging development. I think the
> >Great Ape Project is a very promising strategy.
>
> The species barrier has been bust wide open. The
> speciesist who attempts to deny rights to animals on
> the basis of petty prejudice and discrimination can
> no longer argue that humans, by dint of being human,
> are the only animal on this earth legally entitled to hold
> basic rights against other humans. He has failed to make
> the case that while membership to group x morally and
> legally entitles members to hold rights against other
> members of that group, membership to another group
> automatically excludes them as rights holders against
> those members in group x.
>

Yes, a break in the species barrier is very significant progress.

> >Many chimpanzees, gorillas, and orang-utans will now be protected from
> >abuse, which is excellent.
>
> And, while apes hold legal rights against humans, those
> against the proposition of extending them further must
> show the morally relevant difference between them and
> the apes that now hold them.
>
> This is huge!

It's excellent news, yes.

Dutch
2008-06-29 15:31:19 EST
Derek wrote:

> And, while apes hold legal rights against humans, those
> against the proposition of extending them further must
> show the morally relevant difference between them and
> the apes that now hold them.

Since the new law is presumably based on the strong similarity between
great apes and humans, the onus remains on animal rights activists to
show relevant similarities between those animals and humans if the law
is to be extended further. It's also questionable if this law actually
does what it purports to do, since apes can still be legally held in zoos.

Rupert
2008-06-29 15:54:17 EST
On Jun 30, 3:31 am, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> Derek wrote:
> > And, while apes hold legal rights against humans, those
> > against the proposition of extending them further must
> > show the morally relevant difference between them and
> > the apes that now hold them.
>
> Since the new law is presumably based on the strong similarity between
> great apes and humans, the onus remains on animal rights activists to
> show relevant similarities between those animals and humans if the law
> is to be extended further. It's also questionable if this law actually
> does what it purports to do, since apes can still be legally held in zoos.

This is precisely the objection that Joan Dunayer makes to the Great
Ape Project. Since the argument is made on the basis of similarities
with humans rather than sentience, she claims it will ultimately be
counter-productive because it will impede granting rights to those
sentient beings who are extremely dissimilar to humans. She says that
campaigning for recognition of the rights of nonhuman great apes
should be done on the basis of sentience alone. On the other hand, if
your philosophical stance is that the criteria for rights should be
similarity with humans, then of course what you say is perfectly fair
comment, and not all of the activists who support the Great Ape
Project have an ultimate goal of extending rights to all sentient
beings. (And, yes, I myself acknowledge that this goal raises some
problematic questions).

I wasn't aware of that point, that great apes can still be legally
held in zoos. I seem to remember that one of the rights was the right
to liberty. The other rights were life, protection from torture, and
protection from extinction. I'll have to look into the matter. If they
at least now have a legal right to life and protection from torture
then that is certainly a lot better than nothing.

Dutch
2008-06-29 18:16:10 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 30, 3:31 am, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> Derek wrote:
>>> And, while apes hold legal rights against humans, those
>>> against the proposition of extending them further must
>>> show the morally relevant difference between them and
>>> the apes that now hold them.
>> Since the new law is presumably based on the strong similarity between
>> great apes and humans, the onus remains on animal rights activists to
>> show relevant similarities between those animals and humans if the law
>> is to be extended further. It's also questionable if this law actually
>> does what it purports to do, since apes can still be legally held in zoos.
>
> This is precisely the objection that Joan Dunayer makes to the Great
> Ape Project. Since the argument is made on the basis of similarities
> with humans rather than sentience, she claims it will ultimately be
> counter-productive because it will impede granting rights to those
> sentient beings who are extremely dissimilar to humans. She says that
> campaigning for recognition of the rights of nonhuman great apes
> should be done on the basis of sentience alone. On the other hand, if
> your philosophical stance is that the criteria for rights should be
> similarity with humans, then of course what you say is perfectly fair
> comment, and not all of the activists who support the Great Ape
> Project have an ultimate goal of extending rights to all sentient
> beings. (And, yes, I myself acknowledge that this goal raises some
> problematic questions).

Starting with the precise definition of "sentience" you choose to apply.
Until you tackle that, the question is meaningless.

> I wasn't aware of that point, that great apes can still be legally
> held in zoos.

It's right in the article.

> I seem to remember that one of the rights was the right
> to liberty. The other rights were life, protection from torture,

Most animals are already protected from torture, again depending on how
you define the word.

> and
> protection from extinction.

That's quite a different kind of issue.

> I'll have to look into the matter. If they
> at least now have a legal right to life and protection from torture
> then that is certainly a lot better than nothing.

Rupert
2008-06-29 18:44:26 EST
On Jun 30, 6:16 am, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 30, 3:31 am, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >> Derek wrote:
> >>> And, while apes hold legal rights against humans, those
> >>> against the proposition of extending them further must
> >>> show the morally relevant difference between them and
> >>> the apes that now hold them.
> >> Since the new law is presumably based on the strong similarity between
> >> great apes and humans, the onus remains on animal rights activists to
> >> show relevant similarities between those animals and humans if the law
> >> is to be extended further. It's also questionable if this law actually
> >> does what it purports to do, since apes can still be legally held in zoos.
>
> > This is precisely the objection that Joan Dunayer makes to the Great
> > Ape Project. Since the argument is made on the basis of similarities
> > with humans rather than sentience, she claims it will ultimately be
> > counter-productive because it will impede granting rights to those
> > sentient beings who are extremely dissimilar to humans. She says that
> > campaigning for recognition of the rights of nonhuman great apes
> > should be done on the basis of sentience alone. On the other hand, if
> > your philosophical stance is that the criteria for rights should be
> > similarity with humans, then of course what you say is perfectly fair
> > comment, and not all of the activists who support the Great Ape
> > Project have an ultimate goal of extending rights to all sentient
> > beings. (And, yes, I myself acknowledge that this goal raises some
> > problematic questions).
>
> Starting with the precise definition of "sentience" you choose to apply.
> Until you tackle that, the question is meaningless.
>

"Sentient" means "capable of having conscious experiences".

> > I wasn't aware of that point, that great apes can still be legally
> > held in zoos.
>
> It's right in the article.
>

Yes, I had a look just now.

We will have to see how successful the legislation is at improving the
well-being of nonhuman great apes.

> > I seem to remember that one of the rights was the right
> > to liberty. The other rights were life, protection from torture,
>
> Most animals are already protected from torture, again depending on how
> you define the word.
>

No, I can't agree with that. Companion animals and animals kept in
zoos have fairly strong protections from mistreatment (although there
are serious welfare problems with many zoo exhibits) but the other
animals who live in human society are not legally protected from
torture by any reasonable definition.

> > and
> > protection from extinction.
>
> That's quite a different kind of issue.
>

Yes.

> > I'll have to look into the matter. If they
> > at least now have a legal right to life and protection from torture
> > then that is certainly a lot better than nothing.


Dutch
2008-06-29 21:57:34 EST
Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 30, 6:16 am, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jun 30, 3:31 am, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>> And, while apes hold legal rights against humans, those
>>>>> against the proposition of extending them further must
>>>>> show the morally relevant difference between them and
>>>>> the apes that now hold them.
>>>> Since the new law is presumably based on the strong similarity between
>>>> great apes and humans, the onus remains on animal rights activists to
>>>> show relevant similarities between those animals and humans if the law
>>>> is to be extended further. It's also questionable if this law actually
>>>> does what it purports to do, since apes can still be legally held in zoos.
>>> This is precisely the objection that Joan Dunayer makes to the Great
>>> Ape Project. Since the argument is made on the basis of similarities
>>> with humans rather than sentience, she claims it will ultimately be
>>> counter-productive because it will impede granting rights to those
>>> sentient beings who are extremely dissimilar to humans. She says that
>>> campaigning for recognition of the rights of nonhuman great apes
>>> should be done on the basis of sentience alone. On the other hand, if
>>> your philosophical stance is that the criteria for rights should be
>>> similarity with humans, then of course what you say is perfectly fair
>>> comment, and not all of the activists who support the Great Ape
>>> Project have an ultimate goal of extending rights to all sentient
>>> beings. (And, yes, I myself acknowledge that this goal raises some
>>> problematic questions).
>> Starting with the precise definition of "sentience" you choose to apply.
>> Until you tackle that, the question is meaningless.
>>
>
> "Sentient" means "capable of having conscious experiences".

It also means simply the ability to sense, "sense-ient"

Define "conscious" with the necessary precision. If you mean simply
being aware of one's world then that could apply to just about every
inhabitant of the animal kingdom. It makes more sense that it needs to
mean "self-conscious" in some abstract way so there can be a separation
that includes apes but excludes fruit flies. A chicken is sentient, but
is it really "sentient"?

>
>>> I wasn't aware of that point, that great apes can still be legally
>>> held in zoos.
>> It's right in the article.
>>
>
> Yes, I had a look just now.
>
> We will have to see how successful the legislation is at improving the
> well-being of nonhuman great apes.

A lot I hope, but welfare legislation could have done the same thing. I
think they are gilding the lily a bit calling it an Animal Rights law.

>
>>> I seem to remember that one of the rights was the right
>>> to liberty. The other rights were life, protection from torture,
>> Most animals are already protected from torture, again depending on how
>> you define the word.
>>
>
> No, I can't agree with that. Companion animals and animals kept in
> zoos have fairly strong protections from mistreatment (although there
> are serious welfare problems with many zoo exhibits) but the other
> animals who live in human society are not legally protected from
> torture by any reasonable definition.

If you are referring to lab animals, then I believe you are wrong. There
are stringent laws regarding the infliction of suffering on them. There
have been abuses on record but they contravene most policies.

>
>>> and
>>> protection from extinction.
>> That's quite a different kind of issue.
>>
>
> Yes.
>
>>> I'll have to look into the matter. If they
>>> at least now have a legal right to life and protection from torture
>>> then that is certainly a lot better than nothing.
>

Derek
2008-06-30 06:55:47 EST
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 19:31:19 GMT, Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>
>> And, while apes hold legal rights against humans, those
>> against the proposition of extending them further must
>> show the morally relevant difference between them and
>> the apes that now hold them.
>
>Since the new law is presumably based on the strong similarity between
>great apes and humans,

The morally relevant "strong similarity between apes
and humans" is their ability to suffer at our hands, not
their physical appearance.

>the onus remains on animal rights activists to
>show relevant similarities between those animals and humans if the law
>is to be extended further.

No. Now that the species barrier is broken, the speciesist
who rejects the proposition of animal rights on that basis,
like you, for example, have lost the argument. The truth is,
what this new legislation proves is that you never had a
legitimate argument to begin with.

"Some critics questioned why Spain should afford legal
protection from death or torture to great apes but not
bulls. But Mr Pozas said that the vote would set a
precedent, establishing legal rights for animals that could
be extended to other species. “We are seeking to break
the species barrier — we are just the point of the spear,”
he said."
http://tinyurl.com/5pac62

As we can see, this new law breaks the species barrier
you and your ilk have set up to continue abusing animals,
and it sets a precedent so that legal rights can be extended
to other animals as well as apes.

>It's also questionable if this law actually
>does what it purports to do, since apes can still be legally held in zoos.

The laws are new, and though it's still legal to keep apes
in zoos across the country for now, lawmakers behind the
project are pressing for state-built sanctuaries as an ethical
alternative for the remaining apes kept in zoos.
Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron