Fight the Man

Monkeys and daisies assert their rights

By Mary Anne Marks

On July 26, 2008, Spain’s parliament approved a resolution granting rights to apes. It will soon be a crime to kill an ape or to use one in a medical experiment, a circus, a film or a television commercial. Although the 300 apes currently in Spanish zoos will be allowed to remain there, conditions will have to be improved. Spain’s resolution is a gesture of support for the Great Ape Project (GAP), brainchild of ethicists Paola Cavalieri and Peter Singer, the latter a Princeton professor infamous for his utilitarian endorsement of abortion, euthanasia, and infanticide. Pedro Pozas, who heads the GAP’s Spanish branch, hailed the resolution as “a courageous and decisive step in breaking the species barrier and granting deserved rights to those beings closest to us.”

Similar rhetoric appears in response to the controversy over granting personhood to an Austrian ape. In 2007, the animal sanctuary housing the ape went bankrupt. About to become material for scientific experimentation, “Matthew” was rescued by an Austrian businessman who donated £3,400 for his upkeep. This philanthropist’s generosity (too bad it wasn’t directed toward an anthros) was sadly thwarted, however, by Austrian law, which requires donation recipients to have legal guardians and only permits legal guardians for humans. The global (human) community breathed a sigh of relief, or should have, in January, when the Austrian Supreme Court refused to allow a chimp to have a legal guardian. Interestingly, the ruling did not address whether or not the chimp could be called a person. Apparently, that question was above their pay grade. But another compassionate soul has intervened to make sure you don’t start feeling too secure about the exclusivity of your human identity. This spring, Paula Stibbe, an “animal rights activist and teacher” was moved to bring the ape’s case for personhood before the European Court of Human Rights, which has agreed to hear it.

In an article for The Guardian, Barbara Ehrenreich wrote about the situation: “If a chimpanzee can be declared a person, then there’s nothing in the way of a person becoming an ape – and . . . in fact, I predict a surge in trans-specied people, who will eagerly go over to the side of the chimps.” I thought Ehrenreich’s piece was supposed to be funny until I reached the Animal Rights Activist False Humility Passage: “There is another, less selfish reason, to seek chimpanzee status. Like me, you may be a wee bit disappointed in our own species. Here we are – the tool-wielding, word-spouting brainiacs of the earth – and what have we done with our powers? We’ve poisoned the world, encrusted it with our unsightly infrastructure, and exterminated most of our fellow earth-dwellers, from elephants and tigers to fish.” With such arguments coming from humans, I think I just might run off and get that species change over Christmas break.

But Spain and Austria, you say, are far away. Let’s consider two California ballot initiatives from last month’s election. Proposition 2, which passed 63-37 percent, “combated inhumane treatment of animals being bred for food–primarily chickens, who . . . would have to be able to stand up, lie down, turn around and extend their limbs in their cages. Similar provisions govern the treatment of pigs and cows.” That’s all fine and dandy, but Proposition 4, which would have instituted parental notification for minors seeking abortion, failed. It failed, despite the fact that the proposition made exceptions for medical emergencies, only required parents’ notification, not their consent, and permitted a family member to be contacted rather than a parent or guardian. Parental consent, not just notification, let us remember, is required for minors for ear piercing, tattoos, and the administration of aspirin in public schools. What about abortion, an invasive, irreversible procedure that may increase women’s risk of suicide, depression, anxiety, breast cancer, premature labor, and placenta previa? Evidently, chickens have more of a claim to a pleasant life than humans do.

Why should the line be drawn with animals, though? Switzerland’s constitution demands that “account . . . be taken of the dignity of living beings when handling animals, plants and other organisms.” If you find this phrase somewhat ambiguous, the Swiss government was equally befuddled, and founded a federal commission to elucidate the matter. In a report issued in April of this year and edited by Adriane Willemsen, the commission explains that its job is “to make proposals from an ethical perspective to concretise the constitutional term dignity of living beings with regard to plants.” The report concludes, “[A]rbitrary harm caused to plants [is] morally impermissible. This kind of treatment would include, e.g. decapitation of wild flowers at the roadside without rational reason.” I doubt the commission would have a very high opinion of Harvard students, considering the shameful state of Yard lawn area borders. Then again, maybe our trampling is not arbitrary but is carried out in the pursuit of academic excellence and the satisfaction of intellectual curiosity. But no; this can’t be correct. It smacks too much of Singer-style utilitarianism.

In September, Ecuador approved a new constitution that proclaims nature “has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution.” All hail the modern-day earth goddess.

The recent rush of proposals to “break down the barriers” separating humans from animals and plants may seem ridiculous, but it is, first, the result of a mindset that regards the ability to kill the unborn and elderly as a fundamental human right. When human rights come to include murder, is it any wonder that they begin to lose all meaning? And second, it seems that the act of stripping humans of dignity requires a compensatory elevation of other beings. Something in this world must be special, something must be sacred, and if it is not humans, where are we to turn but to apes and wildflowers?