All animals are created equal, right?
So why would only the animals called “men” be endowed with “certain inalienable rights”?
Doug Mataconis links a news item I heard about last night that has brought much laughter and derision:
A federal court is being asked to grant constitutional rights to five killer whales who perform at marine parks — an unprecedented and perhaps quixotic legal action that is nonetheless likely to stoke an ongoing, intense debate at America’s law schools over expansion of animal rights.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is accusing the SeaWorld parks of keeping five star-performer whales in conditions that violate the 13th Amendment ban on slavery. SeaWorld depicted the suit as baseless.
The chances of the suit succeeding are slim, according to legal experts not involved in the case; any judge who hews to the original intent of the authors of the amendment is unlikely to find that they wanted to protect animals. But PETA relishes engaging in the court of public opinion, as evidenced by its provocative anti-fur and pro-vegan campaigns.
The suit, which PETA says it will file Wednesday in U.S. District Court in San Diego, hinges on the fact that the 13th Amendment, while prohibiting slavery and involuntary servitude, does not specify that only humans can be victims.
Etc. We, the normal people who often think of ourselves as regular folks, like to laugh about these things. Last night I remarked in an email that,
the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery, which is defined as people being treated as property and forced to work. Animals are not people, so it doesn’t apply to them. However, animal rights activists call themselves “abolitionists” as they seek to abolish the idea of animals as property. (Hence the conservatorship ordinances [“guardianship“], which many foolish cities have been bullied by AR activists into passing.) The AR people are insane, and they need to be opposed at every turn. The problem is that many politicians are afraid of them, which is why they so often get their way. At some point, there will be a showdown, as this appeasement cannot go on forever. The animal rights people are thought of as nuts, but they are deadly serious.
Virtually every city that has a so-called “citizen’s humane commission” appoints these people to them. After all, they are the most outspoken, most organized, and most fanatic people who are involved with animal issues, so naturally, they get to organize, attend, and staff those tedious meetings which no normal person would ever be able to stand, and where they are surrounded with like-minded, single-issue activists who love to feel their power and hear themselves talk. The rest of us don’t take such people seriously. That is, until their duly-authorized goons show up at our doorsteps with guns and badges.
The AR microcosm touches on why people who want to be left alone are not left alone. It is related to why people who want to be left alone will not participate in activities dominated by people who don’t want to leave others alone. Politics is dominated by those who want to be in politics, and they usually go into politics because they like power, which means telling others what to do.
In politics, extroverts dominate introverts. Introverts might want to avoid extroverts, but extroverts don’t reciprocate. It’s an awful formula, and I don’t know who thought it up.
I mean, it’s almost as if the people who like to tell others what to do sat down and cooked up a system guaranteeing that only they would get to do it!
Comments
14 responses to “Laugh at the “nuts,” while you still can…”
Bees have legal rights here in Berkeley. I got a flyer from city of Berkeley in August about ‘bee rights’ that says that ‘the 13th Amendment does not state that it only applies to human animals.’ I think that’s true, although I prefer the word ‘people’ to ‘human animals.’ Berkeley has a law banning dog ownership. A person with a ‘canine companion’ is its ‘guardian.’
If PETA wins this case, these poor killer whales will be tossed out on their ears into the streets. What kind of work can an unemployed killer whale find? They will likely be forced into a life of crime.
Randy asks: “What kind of work can an unemployed killer whale find? They will likely be forced into a life of crime.”
My guess is that they will wind up in the murder-for hire business. I assume that’s why they are called killer whales.
With rights come responsibilities. Can the “Constitutional” animals be prosecuted and imprisoned for harming other protected animals?
It would be marvelous if we could kill all the arctic bears for eating baby seals and other animals.
May be life in prison for a single offense. And no meat in the food. It only encourages them.
I’m not particularly fond of house cats. Could we put an end to them for their depredations on the mouse and bird populations?
What about plant rights?
Simon, I’m not particularly fond of mice and birds. Can we forbid neutering of house cat?
The 13th amendment may not refer to “people” as such. But surely it then hinges on the definition of “slave”, which as far as I can tell has only ever applied to people. Are PETA really trying to pretend that the 13th amendment imposes a new definition of person because “people” is not mentioned in the text???
The implication then is that animals are people, or have the rights equivalent to people. So therefore surely the 2nd amendment also applies to animals. Concealed carry permits for dogs, anyone?
To DocD: All my life I heard about the ‘dogs of war.’ Maybe uniformed dogs with M16s are what people mean by that expression.
With rights come responsibilities. Can the “Constitutional” animals be prosecuted and imprisoned for harming other protected animals?
Well put, Simon!! If the PETA people were capable of understanding logic, your argument would shut them up, but good!
(I’ve always wanted to make the argument that animals will kill and sometimes eat us if they can, so why not return the favor?)
It was probably unintentional, but I have to give props to Lady Gaga for wearing a meat dress. It probably pushed a lot of PETA people’s buttons!
I agree. Rights for animals are preposterous. It’s like these people just want to boss other people–and animals!–around. For example, dog fighting. I don’t personally enjoy it, but why shouldn’t I be allowed to organize fights, if I will it? There is no reason to impose limits on my freedom to do anything with non-persons. I don’t think the jack-booted fascists in government really need to be concentrating on bees. I get their intent. They don’t really care about animals and this just gives them more power, which is all they really want. They choose any path to empower themselves, as stupid as it is. Animal rights? Hello, not even people…
As if we wouldn’t catch on. As if we would let this abrogation of our rights go forth. No. If I want to beat a killer whale to death, even though I don’t personally want to, there is not one single reason that bureaucrats should one damn word to say about it.
Well put, John. These animals mostly just want to attack people. Our ancestors didn’t stand for it and neither should we. Natural or not, animals are almost maniacal in their bloodlust. Look at the mountain lion attacks near LA. PETA fanatics have no concept of logic. We are people for God’s sake,higher up the chain than animals. I’ve been saying this for a long time: animals get what’s coming to them. Should the whLe be lucky to end up at Sea World…otherwise it’s onto my plate you unsophisticated fish!
You evil person Ian,
All animals have rights, indeed, as do all living things.
People should not eat either plants or animals or even fungus or algae.
We should do the right thing and starve to death and return the Earth to Mother Nature.
Or maybe we could try to figure out some sane compromise.
Nahhhhh, why do that when you you can feel morally superior?