Recent News
Note to readers: It takes time and thought to accomplish the research, translation, and the analyses that GRASP provides. So feel free to make use of the commentaries on our site, but kindly cite the headline and site, Great Ape Standing & Personhood <www.personhood.org>, as you would with any article. Thank you for visiting.
27 Aug. 2008 -- Rights for Other Apes, They Insist. Are They Serious?
Now this is real news: A group of influential Homo sapiens has resolved to grant rights to other apes. Spain's environmental ministers accepted a declaration from scientists and philosophers; the parliament is now expected to fill in a nonbinding resolution with laws forbidding the use of nonhuman great apes in harmful experiments, or on stage.
Amnesty International has expressed its alarm: What about the rights of the world's many detained and degraded human beings?
And yet, is there any reason why basic rights to life and liberty should only be discussed with reference to humanity? Can't we humans act decently - to human beings and others? Surely, respect should be nurtured in all its forms.
...And taking the rights of apes seriously would be a boon to entire forest biocommunities that need us to stop breeding cattle and logging ancient forests and extracting everything we can get our drills into. The best possible outcome from the Spanish resolution would be the start of a robust movement to defend the planet's untamed places. That would help apes and tree frogs alike, and they all should have the simple right to live as they will.
Click here to read Lee Hall, Rights for Other Apes, They Insist. Are They Serious? at DissidentVoice.org.
June 2008 Update: Spain’s Latest Ape Decision Welcomed – With Caution
Spain's parliament has voiced support for the rights of great apes to life and freedom.
The proposal’s points were approved either by a majority or unanimously by the Spanish parliament after its environmental committee urged compliance with a declaration devised by scientists and philosophers who, as the Reuters news service reported, “say our closest genetic relatives deserve rights hitherto limited to humans.”
Pedro Pozas, Spanish director of the Great Ape Project, welcomed the “historic day in the struggle for animal rights and in defense of our evolutionary comrades,” suggesting again that the argument rests on how similar the DNA of chimpanzees and other great apes is to our own.[1]
The Great Ape Standing and Personhood (GRASP) project does not tie our argument on DNA similarities (which have dubious moral value); nevertheless, we do welcome rights for conscious beings wherever in the world they might come.
It’s notable to see the rapid movement of change in Spain, a country that didn’t legalize divorce until the 1980s. Since then, Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero's socialist government has legalized gay marriage, reduced the influence of the Catholic Church in education, and set up an Equality Ministry.
The Front United Left and Catlunya Party introduced and supported the decision to support the step forward to nonhuman rights.[2] The new resolutions are expected to become law, and the government is now committed to update the statute book within a year to outlaw harmful experiments on apes in Spain.
Keeping apes for circuses, television commercials or filming will also be forbidden under Spain's penal code. Keeping an estimated 315 nonhuman great apes in Spanish zoos will not be illegal, suggesting that these rights will still carry a discrimination problem. Friends of Animals and GRASP believe this custom should be completely ended and a concerted effort to protect the ape’s equatorial habitats.
The Great Ape Project, founded in 1993, originally argued that "non-human hominids" --chimpanzees, gorillas, orang-utans and bonobos -- should enjoy the right to life, freedom and not to be tortured. Zoos clearly fall short of the freedom criterion. Sanctuaries that are prepared to take in apes, meet their needs, and advocate for their rights (including freedom from being displayed), however, are very rare indeed. Primarily Primates of San Antonio, Texas is arguably the only such refuge in North America. We are not familiar with any in Spain at this time, but will update this site accordingly when we find any Spanish refuges that are seriously committed to the rights of nonhuman primates.
Unless and until extending rights will ensure the phasing out of captivity and the protection of habitat where true freedom can be experienced, the victory in Spain will be illusory. It’s essential that advocates point this out every time we speak on this issue.
NOTES
1 Quoted by Martin Roberts, “Spanish Parliament to Extend Rights to Apes” - Reuters (25 Jun. 2008).
2 “Victory in Spain: Spanish Congress Announces Support for the Great Ape Project and Great Apes” - GAP News (25 Jun. 2008)
Consciousness-Raising for a Sanctuary Movement
A Brief Case Study: Objectifying Former Laboratory Apes in Fundraising Campaign
Lee Hall, October 2007
One reason a sanctuary movement based on social justice politics is so important involves the need for an alternative model in the midst of the tendency -- both of society at large and the conventional humane charity -- to paint an image of nonhuman animals as playthings, pets, symbols or caricatures of humans. The prevailing narrative employs the language patterns that have long been hallmarks of human dominion over the rest of the planet's residents.
A few examples: One may be asked to protect bears from being hunted down and killed because they are "shy and magical" (like teddy bears); or one may be approached to contribute to a campaign to regulate the possible fates of free-roaming horses because they are "icons of the American West" (like paintings on an otherwise flat surface, like reminders of idealized human settlers as glorious takers and tamers of a wild land). Rescued adult elephants may be referred to as the "girls" at the refuge (infantilized as African adults frequently were in the Americas, and as the "girls" at the office still are).
Interwoven into this narrative is the subtle message that those whom we have subjugated deserve or earn care and protection because they are non-threatening, harmless, controllable. No matter that they have vastly greater physical strength than humans. No matter that (to the extent we can ever know their intimate psychological lives) they are not content to be captive. In any case, they were never asked.
And sometimes, where nonhuman animals are the subject, it is hard to tell the difference between an advertisement for entertainment and a charity solicitation.
A troubling example appears this month (October 2007). Linked from the U.S. Humane Society's home page,[1] it has also been promoted in an e-mailed release.[2] The idea is for the visitor to take a personality test to “find out how much you have in common with the three chimpanzees of Cleveland Amory Black Beauty Ranch, an animal sanctuary operated by The Fund for Animals in partnership with The Humane Society of the United States.”
Like our friends and family, chimpanzees have their own unique personality quirks. Three of our favorite chimps at Cleveland Amory Black Beauty Ranch, an animal sanctuary in Texas, are no different. When it comes to their interests and emotions, Kitty, Lulu, and Midge have more in common with us than you might think!
Take our Chimpanality Quiz and find out which of these three special chimps is most like you…
Each ape has personality quirks, the visitor learns, comparable to the difference between wanting to stay home to eat popcorn in front of a video screen and having a night on the town.
Are you a fun-loving risk-taker? A loyal pal? Is settling in with a movie and popcorn your idea of the perfect Friday night, or would you rather be out on the town?
Or between going to a party to eat free food, talk to the friends one came in with, or swing from a chandelier.
So, who are you? Cool Kitty, Loveable Lulu, or Mischievous Midge? Take our quiz below and find out!
At the summer's hottest party, you are the one:
[] Stuffing your face with free food
[] Talking to the friends you came with
[] Swinging from the chandelier
This raises the question: Were they human refugees, perhaps refugees perceived as an “other” racial group, would an analogous quiz be appropriate?
The website version prompts the visitor: “Enter your email to receive a special message and some cool free stuff from the chimp most like you!” That the apes' messages (messages which cannot seriously be taken as a reflection of the nonhuman voices) would be given to quiz-takers as a reward for attention to this promotion demeans these nonhuman residents and human onlookers alike. Another “Chimpanality Quiz” question:
When you meet someone, what do you notice first?
[] Eyes
[] Smile
[] Booty!
These apes are being represented by humans who have control over them. Their own personalities and voices have been thwarted and silenced. They are not free to express themselves on their own terms and never truly can be; to paraphrase Catharine MacKinnon, they were deprived of a life from which their voices might come. That the apes personalities' are being judged in relation to a party atmosphere of human contrivance is limiting and degrading and it erases the most vital interests of apes, including their dignity.
The language, complete with the names Cool Kitty, Loveable Lulu and Mischievous Midge, calls to mind the incongruous joviality of a chimpanzee-for-party-hire company, perhaps, or a pet costume advertisement. Members of completely subjugated classes have historically faced the prerogative of the dominant class to mark them with nicknames, often patently clownish or jokingly pretentious -- which they have no way to protest. This promotion may be an attention-getter -- there is one line in each promotion referring to the use of apes in experiments -- but its burlesque language undermines the work of establishing a foundation for a respectful view of nonhuman primates and their own customs and needs.
[1] Humane Society of the United States, “Take the Chimpanality Quiz!Which Chimp is Most Like You?” (last visited 9 Oct. 2007).
[2] E-mail alert from Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO, Humane Society of the United States, “What do you have in common with chimps?” (20 Oct. 2007).
Britain's #2 Grocery Chain Announces Palm Oil Ban
July 2007 -- Two of Britain's biggest retail names -- Body Shop and the supermarket chain Asda -- will stop selling palm oil from Indonesian and Malaysian rainforests. Palm oil is often the unidentified "vegetable oil" in everything from chocolate to cosmetics to animal feed.
The booming demand in Europe and Asia has led to growing concern that huge swaths of rainforest are being cut down to make way for plantations, damaging important eco-systems on which local people depend, and threatening the survival of orang-utans and other animals. Rainforest destruction also accounts for about a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions.
The Body Shop cosmetics company claims it has established a sustainable organic supplier in Colombia. Body Shop, which operates in 57 countries, said within six months it planned to source only sustainable palm oil for soap, which accounts for 80 per cent of its use of the ingredient.
Asda has banned palm oil sourced from the worst affected regions in Borneo and Sumatra.
Their move follows a three-year intensive campaign by environmental groups, notably Friends of the Earth.
Later this year retailers and manufacturers across Europe who have joined the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil are expected to publish details of how they will create a network of certified sustainable plantations.
To read the full article in London's Observer, click here.
Hiasl: Ape Appeal in Austria?
GRASP needs more information on this one. We've asked, but the good folks in Austria who first told us about this case must be understandably distracted.
Let's discuss what's being said through the media about the case of Hiasl the chimpanzee.
At the end of April (2007), the media published the story "Chimp denied a legal guardian" by Ned Stafford.
First, can we agree that it seems a lot more respectful to say chimpanzee rather than chimp? (The term “chimp” is not only in the headline, but also in the writer’s text.)
On to the substance of the article.
Hiasl, if given a legally appointed guardian, could not be sold and could “fight for support money.” But the article says an Austrian judge rejected this idea. The article calls the judge’s stance “a blow to a growing movement in Europe attempting to give apes some of the legal rights of humans, such as protection from being owned.”
Proponents of ape rights say they will appeal the decision and continue pushing for a Spanish law that would extend some human rights to apes.
The article observes that nonhuman apes are no longer used in most western nations for research, “with the United States being a major exception.” So the United States would, of course, be exactly the spot where such agitation matters most.
What has happened here? In 2000, with the backing of a whole lot of well-heeled humane group, Clinton signed the CHIMP Act, which effectively saved research on nonhuman apes. Before that, it was widely thought that a breeding moratorium would take hold in the scientific community, which had lamented that nonhuman apes are just so expensive to care for.
But the CHIMP Act relieved a portion of the care and the financial responsibility from the labs. The law was called a “victory” by most of the animal-advocacy sector, but certainly not by GRASP. The reality is that the CHIMP Act was one of the worst moments in the history of U.S. animal-advocacy groups. Increasingly, such groups are throwing up their hands, calling public institutions (such as zoos, or Louisiana’s Chimp Haven, which operates in the interest of government researchers under the CHIMP Act) adequate sites for nonhuman apes and other animals. Then the groups go back to their fundraising.
Peter Singer also condoned the CHIMP Act. As just about every visitor to this site will already know, Singer is the international president of the Great Ape Project (GAP), which seeks various international bans on using apes. Apparently, GAP is torn. Do they or do they not seriously want rights for apes? They have not treated the matter seriously in the United States, where it counts most.
In the Austrian case, the Association Against Animal Factories (VGT) earlier this year went to court in an attempt to name a legal guardian for Hiasl (pronounced Hee-sel), who was taken in 1982 from western Africa for research use. But due to a documentation lapse, Hiasl and another ape in the shipment ended up at the cash-strapped Vienna Animal Protection Shelter.
The VGT, worried that the shelter could dump the apes, decided to seek a legal guardian for Hiasl. We don’t learn why Hiasl, and not the other ape, Rosi, was picked as the test plaintiff, but a hint follows...
Paula Stibbe, a British citizen living in Austria, was Hiasl's proposed guardian. Unfortunately, Stibbe justified the value of their relationship by saying, "I consider him a friend. He greets me with kisses, hugs." This sounds a little too much like portraying Hiasl as a pet; hugs aren’t the point. Hiasl shouldn’t have to like any particular human being to be deemed a person.
More to come....
Logging Puts Orang-utans and Other Animals in Peril; Australian Group Takes Action
Awareness is growing about hydrogenated vegetable oil. Even though it’s not an animal product, like butter or lard, it negatively affects human health. The “trans fats” in hydrogenated vegetable oil cause an increase in blood levels of what’s called "bad cholesterol." To replace trans fats, many food producers are now turning to saturated fats, such as coconut oil, cocoa butter, and palm oil.
But there’s a catch. Unless we are sure that vegetable-based oils come from a safe source, they may come at the cost of disturbances and deforestation in the last remaining habitats of orang-utans and other animals.
A report from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) warned earlier this year that palm logging is destroying the remaining habitat for orangutans in Borneo and Sumatra so rapidly that up to 98 percent may be destroyed by 2022 without urgent action.
Since the group Primates for Primates began a campaign on the issue of deforestation for palm oil, the Australian government indicated it is now going to consult with the public regarding the labelling of palm oil.
Primates for Primates contacted every member of the federal Parliament, and now the group has a pool of supporters. One MP has put Parliament on notice with questions regarding palm oil. Australia funds some orangutan sanctuaries, at the same time failing to stop the destruction of their homes, where they could live free lives and not need such support in the first place.
Lynette Shanley of Primates for Primates added, “We are asking them why they are not putting money into the protection of other animals; why only orangutans?”
The group has received a letter from a minister stating, “The Australian government is unable to push for an end to the trade in Palm Oil because, as a member of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), Australia must comply with WTO trade rules. These rules generally do not allow Members to ban the import of products except in very limited circumstances. Accordingly, Australia banned imports or palm oil, it would risk violating its WTO obligations.”
Does this mean Australia must adhere to trade rules even when the trade in palm oil is destroying habitat of so many animals? “We are following this up with the WTO,” said Shanley.
In related news, the Scottish biscuits known as Paterson’s Oatcakes now sport an “orang-utan friendly” badge on the label -- a drawing of an orang-utan inside a green ring). The company states:
Recently there has been growing publicity regarding the Rainforests of Asia being cleared to make way for Palm Oil plantations. This is having a major impact on human's oldest relative, the Orang-utan and the demand for Palm Oil is predicted to rise substantially in the next 5 years. We removed Palm Oil from our oatcake recipe 4 years ago and replaced it with the more sustainable and less saturated Olive Oil. Although we realise that it's difficult to stop the growth of palm oil plantations, we see our switch to Olive Oil as our small contribution to helping to protect the loveable Orang-utan. Recently we have adopted a seven year old male Bornean Orang-tan. His name is Etin and he currently lives with his mother in Eastern Sabah, Malaysia. At a recent Tesco show at the Hub in Edinburgh, we made up 'Orang-utan friendly' goody bags. We sold these for £1 each and raised approximately £210, all of which has been donated to WWF.
We at GRASP are uncertain at this time as to the overall benefits the World Wildlife Fund is actually providing to these apes, and will find out more. We would prefer to see such companies help small groups who are less keen on fundraising and snuggling up to destructive multinationals, and more serious about the interests of the planet's other animals. (And yes, the drawing of the ape in Paterson’s orang-utan friendly badge is designed in a "loveable" style, giving the face a somewhat cartoonish appearance.)
In any case it is good that the issue is getting some attention, and perhaps other product lines will take notice. And it’s clear that no-nonsense animal-rights activists, including Primates for Primates’ Lynette Shanley, will ensure that this issue stays in the public view.
Lee Hall, March 2007.
GRASP reviews news from Spain, regarding a proposal in the Balearic Islands
March 2007 – Last month, on 28 February 2007, the Balearic Parliament approved a Proposition “No de Ley” (a preliminary proposal; not a law) to support to the legal recognition of nonhuman apes.
The Balearic Islands comprise an archipelago in the Mediterranean Sea, off Spain’s eastern coast. They form one of the Autonomous Communities of Spain, the Autonomous Community of the Balearic Islands. This approval suggests that other autonomous communities, as well as Spain’s national Parliament, might also support such a proposal.
(For earlier, related commentary, see the news item below, "Update from Spain: Amnesty International and Catholic Church are taken aback.")
Last May, the Greens’ representative Deputy Margalida Rosselló presented the Non-Law proposal for a review by the Parliament of the Balearic Islands. The presentation included a series of scientific arguments which has not been supplied to GRASP. We understand that the presentation called for the Parliament to undertake any necessary actions in order to protect nonhuman great apes from maltreatment, enslavement, torture, death and extinction.
Should preservation of the apes' territory be stepped up, and should this prevent any group of nonhuman primates from being captured and commodified, GRASP would of course desire to support this effort. All conscious beings should have the provisions upon which this initiative rests: the rights to life, freedom and protection from torture. Or, as GRASP sees it, the simple right to live on their own terms, free of human domination.
But to the extent that the Great Ape Project has said that the living conditions for these apes should be "at least comparable those of companion animals" (as reported in malagaes.com on 5 March 2007), we are baffled. This kind of statement sends a confusing message and GRASP wishes to again make it clear that we do not condone breeding and using animals in captive situations -- no matter what conditions are offered.
Reported in the same article is the view of the Great Ape Project that the Balearic Community should commit to conservation of great apes, biological diversity, and a halt to the spread of AIDS and Ebola that’s connected with the consumption of ape flesh. Also reported was the Great Ape Project’s interest in the opportunity this will provide the Balearic Community to get involved in the international study of nonhuman great apes, specifically in collaboration with the Jane Goodall Institute in the Congo-Brazeville.
Pedro Pozas was the spokesperson cited as Executive Director of the Great Ape Project in Spain. Pozas affirmed that this initiative, in addition to supporting conservation and education efforts in situ, is essential for a basis to create a Law of Great Apes. This would improve the conditions of those in captivity and prevent experimenters from using nonhuman great apes in the Balearic territory, and prevent circuses from using them there.
GRASP reiterates that we support this proposal only insofar as it calls for the freedom of at least some other nonhuman communities to experience their own lives on their own terms. We are against any so-called Law of Great Apes that would further harden into custom the use of apes in captivity by laying down rules regarding the conditions and treatment in labs and other institutional settings.
Pedro Pozas wrote in an announcement dated 28 February 2007 that "we are the relatives of great apes -- genetic kindred to humanity, beings similar to humanity and so maltreated" and that "[f]or the first time in the world, the great apes are being recognized by a Parliament as closely related beings, and for their need of protection."
This, too, is problematic. Putting all of this together, it seems the Great Ape Project is coming up with most every argument but what's at the core and ultimately the most important: other apes are simply conscious of their life experience.
If they fail to say that, they risk making this a victory for one elite group of species, providing arguments against further expansion of rights. It's important to bring up the point that serious moral concern is appropriate for all conscious beings, and not to focus overmuch on genetic similarity. Ironically, trying to make the gene argument may well backfire on the Great Ape Project, because scientists are quick to point out that key differences can exist in what sounds like a small percentage of DNA variation.
The messages coming from Great Ape Project in Spain are ambiguous at best. GRASP calls on activists in Spain to exert pressure on campaigners to stick to abolitionist principles.
Lee Hall, 7 March 2007.
Reader response to "GRASP reviews news from
Apes in entertainment: framing the debate
April 2006 - In an article in the Boston Herald called "Babe to broadcasters: No more monkey business" television celebrity Pamela Anderson is called "the former 'Baywatch' babe and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals' honorary chairwoman."
The Herald describes Anderson as "active in chimp rights after taking her kids to 'a shabby petting zoo that rents lions, tigers and a fascinating pair of chimpanzees to productions like 'The Gong Show.'"
Anderson has charged that trainers sometimes beat chimpanzee into obedience for television filming.
The issue that certain apes (chimpanzees and orang-utans) should not be subjugated for the entertainment of other apes (ourselves) is not well explained by picking out the shabbiest possible zoo to condemn. That indicates that the complaint is about the shabbiness of the zoo, rather than the breeding or trading of chimpanzees in the first place. No nonhuman apes are native to the Americas; none should be here.
Thus, the activist should not make beatings the focus. The problem is that we have chimpanzee trainers at all, whether it's for showbusiness, for biomedical research, for language research. As advocates for the rights of great apes, we are here to be clear: other apes are conscious individuals whose territories should be protected and whose interest in living in those territories, on their terms, should be respected.
And another thing.... We cannot leave this item without mentioning our disappointment with the Boston Herald or any media that refers to a full-grown person as a "babe"—whether or not it's in the context of nonhuman rights. Such infantilization of female Homo sapiens demeans the work of people who have advanced human rights.
Update from Spain: Amnesty International and Catholic Church are taken aback
April 2006 - The human rights group Amnesty International has spoken against the idea of according basic rights to nonhuman great apes. As we reported earlier, Spain's governing Socialist Party is promoting an initiative to acknowledge basic rights. As the Spanish Parliament prepares to debate the issue, the media are considering the proposal relevant to habitat protection and prohibition of the use of nonhuman great apes for entertainment. The measures would also ban scientific experiments with great apes; they have already been effectively abolished in Britain.
Amnesty International correctly observed that the rights of many humans in the world are yet to be respected. The group also correctly understood that advocates are actually asking for basic rights for nonhuman apes, acknowledged by the United Nations — not just improvements in the conditions in which humans hold and use other great apes.
What Amnesty International misses is that respecting the 'personhood' of great apes does not diminish human rights. There is no reason why the basic rights of life, liberty, and freedom from torture should only be applicable to humans. Moreover, such a change would help humanity to preserve the environment instead of destroying it, and it would open more general discussions of animal rights in Spain.
The Catholic Church is on record opposing the measure. Fernando Sebastian denounced the concept when, in the archbishop's view, abortions violate the human rights of embryos. The archbishop also reportedly said, "Too much progress becomes ridiculous."
The ape rights initiative has received backing from academics in dozen of universities. GRASP submitted a letter of support for the measure.
"Should Labs Treat Chimps More Like Humans?"
(National Geographic News, September 6, 2005)The announcement last week that scientists have pieced together the genome sequence of the chimpanzee-and found that humans and chimps are 96 percent similar-has reignited a debate over the ethics of biological research using chimpanzees.
Up to 3,000 great apes (mostly West African chimpanzees) live in captivity in the United States. Some are housed in zoos and sanctuaries. But many were bred for medical research. Two federally funded research institutions use chimps for biomedical experiments.
...In an article in the science journal Nature, Gagneux and colleagues went so far as to recommend that studies using chimpanzees should follow ethical principles generally similar to those currently used in studies on human subjects who are unable to give informed consent.
A UC San Diego scientist calls for stricter guidelines for the ethical and humane treatment of research chimpanzees, stating: "I'm not against animal experiments in principle, but I believe we can study chimpanzees without doing irreparable harm to them," he said.
But the director of the laboratory at Yerkes, which uses chimpanzees, states: "I don't think we should make a distinction between our obligation to treat humanely any species, whether it's a rat or a monkey or a chimpanzee. No matter how much we may wish it, chimps are not human."
Full: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/09/0906_050906_chimplabs.html
From Property to Person - The Case of Evelyn Hart
In the year 2000, Seton Hall Constitutional Law Journal published the article "From Property to Person: The Case of Evelyn Hart" which includes a model brief on behalf of a plaintiff who demands equal rights beyond humanity. The article was most recently cited in the Bibliography of Cass R. Sunstein & Martha C. Nussbaum, Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions (Oxford, 2004). The article is also part of the syllabus of Loyola Law School’s animal law course, taught by Adjunct Professor Sonia Waisman, who is co-author of the law textbook Animal Law (Carolina Academic Press, 2006). The syllabus notes that the condition of “humanness” is not essential to becoming a “person” under the law and obtaining all the rights associated with such classification. Waisman adds that “these ideas may seem preposterous to some, but it was not so long ago that the concept of mental disability rights was unheard of as well.”
In the context of non-human personhood, this article marks the debut of a model U.S. Supreme Court brief in the legal literature. This is designed to spark further debate in law and philosophy journals, to enhance ethics courses, to be cited in court, and to be used in an actual case on behalf of a non-human plaintiff and her class.
Plaintiff Hart's sentience alone should suffice for legal personhood. Additionally, non-human apes possess the key traits which so obviously underlie the constitutional protections held by human persons that the irrationality of our prejudice against Hart --and, by extension, against other nonhuman apes — is unmistakable.
It is morally unjustifiable to treat sentient animals as items of chattel property. "From Property to Person: The Case of Evelyn Hart" makes a strong case that U.S. law already protects all apes, human or others. By describing the case of Nicholas Romeo, it also point out the injustice of denying respect to any sentient individual. We expect that Evelyn Hart's case will inspire jurists to act on this reality.
GRASP thanks web design specialists Carsten Scholvien and Chris Kelly for marathon work on the site, including the article with its unique footnote search function.