Happy the Elephant is Not a Person, Says Court in Key US Animal Rights Case
upstart writes:
New York's top court has ruled that Happy, an elephant residing at the Bronx Zoo since the 1970s, cannot legally be considered a person in a closely watched case that tested the boundaries of applying human rights to animals.
[...] The state court of appeals ruled on Tuesday 5-2, with a decision written by Chief Judge Janet DiFiore echoing that point. "While no one disputes that elephants are intelligent beings deserving of proper care and compassion", a writ of habeas corpus was intended to protect the liberty of human beings and did not apply to a nonhuman animal like Happy, said DiFiore.
[...] Extending that right to Happy to challenge her confinement at a zoo "would have an enormous destabilizing impact on modern society". And granting legal personhood in a case like this would affect how humans interact with animals, according to the majority decision.
"Indeed, followed to its logical conclusion, such a determination would call into question the very premises underlying pet ownership, the use of service animals, and the enlistment of animals in other forms of work," read the decision.
[...] Two judges, Rowan Wilson and Jenny Rivera, wrote separate, sharply worded dissents saying the fact that Happy is an animal does not prevent her from having legal rights. Rivera wrote that Happy was being held in "an environment that is unnatural to her and that does not allow her to live her life".
"Her captivity is inherently unjust and inhumane. It is an affront to a civilized society, and every day she remains a captive - a spectacle for humans - we, too, are diminished," Rivera wrote.
Next time they should try a writ of Mammuthus.
Read more of this story at SoylentNews.