Judge Suggests Human Rights for Animals Are Coming Thanks to Gays, Blacks, Indians

1
Share

Judge Jaffe

Judge Barbara Jaffe

Hercules and Leo are unwilling residents of a biomedical lab at Stony Brook University and they must be freed according to a group of lawyers representing them.

Hercules and Leo are chimps.

baby

Baby In The Womb, No Rights

While Planned Parenthood is harvesting baby body parts of ‘delivered’ babies and the administration, the NY Times and Planned Parenthood are pretending it’s a hoax, these same breed of leftists are demanding human rights for animals.

chimp

Chimpanzee, Give Them Human Rights

Chimps can’t arrange for lawyers or ask for release from confinement but that didn’t stop the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP or NRP) from filing a lawsuit claiming chimps at Stonybrook University in New York want their liberty. NRP, a group of left-wing lawyers, is the only organization that seeks legal rights for species other than humans.

In Manhattan Supreme Court in April, Justice Barbara Jaffe ruled that someone from Stony Brook, a state university on Long Island, must appear in court this past May to explain why the chimps were being ‘detained’, according to Science magazine.

The Nonhuman Rights Project (NRP) had filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to free them from unlawful imprisonment.  To some degree it recognizes their rights as persons.

After word spread that Justice Jaffe recognized the writ and therefore recognized chimps as humans, she amended the writ, saying that it was simply a formal way of directing the university to her courtroom to present its case.

This past Wednesday, Judge Jaffe rejected the claim that Hercules and Leo had the right to bodily liberty but she did so with an alarming proviso that Slate magazine is touting with glee.

The NRP wants a habeas right for nonhumans written into New York common law and that’s why this case was brought.

Judge Jaffe, following in the mold of leftist crazy judges everywhere, cited gay rights as a reason to broaden nonhuman rights.

Citing the Supreme Court decisions for LGBT rights, she said, “If rights were defined by who exercised them in the past,” she notes, quoting Obergefell v. Hodges, “then received practices could serve as their own continued justification and new groups could not invoke rights once denied.”

The NRP argument was not made on a chimp’s biology but as a policy matter. Jaffe finds their argument that Chimps are like humans “understandable”. Chimps can get depressed, have compassion and a sense of humor – some say. They are our relatives from 7 million years ago and we share 99% of their DNA.

Since we share DNA with all animals, all animals will have human rights one day. Anyone can make a case for a lizard looking sad. Judge Jaffe forgot to mention that chimps can’t give consent.

She thinks a higher court should answer the question of chimp autonomy.

In her conclusion, Judge Jaffe referred to another gay rights case to deny the petition but left it an open question. Earlier in her statement, she compared this battle to black slaves seeking freedom and Native-Americans being mistreated before eventually securing rights.

Jaffe’s final statement read:

“The similarities between chimpanzees and humans inspire the empathy felt for a beloved pet. Efforts to extend legal rights to chimpanzees are thus understandable; some day they may even succeed. Courts, however, are slow to embrace change, and occasionally seem reluctant to engage in broader, more inclusive interpretations of the law, if only to the modest extent of affording them greater consideration. As Justice Kennedy aptly observed in Lawrence v. Texas, albeit in a different context, “times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. (539 US 558, 579 [2003])”

It’s okay in the leftist world of judges to compare chimps to blacks seeking freedom, gays seeking marriage, and Native-Americans being released from oppression?

Judge Jaffe felt bound to the “times” but not to the idea of human rights for animals. It’s just “not today.”

Slate.com, a truly vile leftist rag, is promoting the idea, gleaned from this judge’s decision, that LGBT cases show that rights are not defined by who exercised them in the past and that human rights for animals are an open case.

Slate.com declared that chimps are no longer needed for biomedical research though they are lauding the research being done thanks to Planned Parenthood’s harvesting of dead baby body parts.

Perhaps they are thinking the dead babies can easily take their place, even the ones who have been ‘delivered’ and are then killed by savages who call themselves medical professionals.

The author of the Slate article, Mark Joseph Stern, wrote that “if current trends continue, the twilight of chimp research could also be the dawn of chimp personhood. And if it is, Jaffe’s opinion denying chimps rights could turn out to be unexpectedly prophetic.”

Actually, it would be hard to go any further left than Slate. The only thing they’re missing is the Communist logo.

In 2012, this NRP group was a friend of the court in the case filed by PETA when they sued Seaworld for “enslaving” Orcas.

NRP also sent speakers to the Personhood Beyond the Human conference at Yale University in 2013. The speakers promoted the elevation of “personhood” to animals, condemning Christianity as “abominable” for elevating people above animals and claiming that man is made in the image and likeness of God.

The goal of the speakers is actually to “animalize” mankind.

Obama’s former Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Cass Sunstein, has argued for providing lawyers for animals to sue in court and he entertained the notion of banning hunting. He is married to Samantha Power, the U.N. Ambassador.

That’s who Americans listen to now. This is a sickness and these people can’t think logically because of their ideology.

If only they cared as much about human babies in and just out of the womb.

 

Court Decision

Share

1 COMMENT

  1. Chimpanzee’s may possess 95% or more of the same DNA that we have, but these people seem to forget one fact; what would you do with them once released? Do they not understand that these animals are at least 5 times stronger that humans and once provoked are capable of tearing your arm from it’s socket (that’s AFTER they’ve chewed your face off)! All you would end up doing is moving them from one cage to another…

Comments are closed.