I recently realized the variability of our legal system. And that made me question how far there is still to go.
I had read an article about Happy, an Asian elephant who was transported to the United States around 1970 along with six other calves and named after one of Snow White’s seven dwarfs. For 40 years, Happy was kept out of the wild and moved between states to entertain children and those who visited the zoo. This summer, New York’s highest court ruled that Happy is not a legal person and therefore does not have fundamental human rights.
In a 5-2 decision, the court argued that the United States has never granted habeas corpus — a right that protects against unlawful and indefinite imprisonment — to a nonhuman animal and that doing so would destabilize society. This meant that Happy would continue living at the Bronx Zoo instead of being transferred to a more natural environment.
Happy’s case was not the first time animal rights activists sought habeas corpus relief for nonhuman animals. In 2017, the Nonhuman Rights Project argued for three elephants in Connecticut, during which the judges asked: “Does your argument extend to other forms of animals in the wild?”
And the judges’ question was fair: If the court were to rule in favor of Happy, that may set a precedent for all animals in our country and lead to additional troubles as more cases are brought forward.
Recommended for you
However, I was surprised to find that many other subjects, farther from the definition of a person than an animal, held human rights. For instance, corporations are people in some cases and have the right to spend money for political candidates and refuse to cover birth control in employee health plans. Outside of the United States, the Colombian Supreme Court granted personhood to the Amazon rainforest, and rivers have legal rights in New Zealand and Ecuador.
As we watch animals aimlessly wander around in their small cages at zoos or do exciting tricks at circuses, we often forget that their natural habitat is usually out in the open, free from the chatter and curious eyes. We might not realize that some owners may abuse animals behind the scenes or know about the history of public elephant executions, then become shocked when we hear about an elephant stomping on its trainer.
While I appreciate the caution some of these courts took in ruling on expanding animal rights, as that showcases the general careful nature of the system to minimize regretful verdicts, I also believe we are not doing enough to protect other living beings in our country. Given the structure of our legal system, change will need time and someone to take charge and make a decision about the status quo.
Then who will be the leader, the first to be different?
We have not seen what will result from advocating for animals in our country — and I am certain that battle will not end anytime soon. Happy’s case is just the first of many more to come as activists continue fighting to expand animal rights. Who — or what — will be considered a person is an ongoing debate and one that needs clarity.
Grace Wu is a senior at Carlmont High School in Belmont. Student News appears in the weekend edition. You can email Student News at news@smdailyjournal.com.
She is a representative of the prevailing thought that every creature merits the same rights and protection as another living being. It took a generation or so to find such a philosophy acceptable. If any indication is prooff, watch reactions on Nextdoor when a puppy is needing of love and attention. the homeless, especially their children, are seldom if ever mentioned. Just call your child Fido and the neighbors are coming running to your aid. To even mention that horses should be considered persons, is so outrageous that we have clearly lost our minds.
"...corporations are people in some cases..." No. Courts have held that corporations are "persons" under the fourteenth amendment to the US constitution. All this means is that they can sue and be sued court. It doesn't mean they have full human rights. Courts differentiate between "natural persons" (people) and (synthetic) persons such as corporations, partnerships, and a few other legal forms.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(4) comments
Talk about "the elephant in the living room." No mention of abortion. Headline was misleading.
She is a representative of the prevailing thought that every creature merits the same rights and protection as another living being. It took a generation or so to find such a philosophy acceptable. If any indication is prooff, watch reactions on Nextdoor when a puppy is needing of love and attention. the homeless, especially their children, are seldom if ever mentioned. Just call your child Fido and the neighbors are coming running to your aid. To even mention that horses should be considered persons, is so outrageous that we have clearly lost our minds.
Thank you for a thought provoking column!
"...corporations are people in some cases..." No. Courts have held that corporations are "persons" under the fourteenth amendment to the US constitution. All this means is that they can sue and be sued court. It doesn't mean they have full human rights. Courts differentiate between "natural persons" (people) and (synthetic) persons such as corporations, partnerships, and a few other legal forms.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.