Court: Orangutan Is 'Non-Human Person', Freed

BUENOS AIRES, Dec 21 (Reuters) - An orangutan held in an Argentine zoo can be freed and transferred to a sanctuary after a court recognized the ape as a "non-human person" unlawfully deprived of its freedom, local media reported on Sunday.

Animal rights campaigners filed a habeas corpus petition - a document more typically used to challenge the legality of a person's detention or imprisonment - in November on behalf of Sandra, a 29-year-old Sumatran orangutan at the Buenos Aires zoo.

In a landmark ruling that could pave the way for more lawsuits, the Association of Officials and Lawyers for Animal Rights (AFADA) argued the ape had sufficient cognitive functions and should not be treated as an object.

The court agreed Sandra, born into captivity in Germany before being transferred to Argentina two decades ago, deserved the basic rights of a "non-human person."

"This opens the way not only for other Great Apes, but also for other sentient beings which are unfairly and arbitrarily deprived of their liberty in zoos, circuses, water parks and scientific laboratories," the daily La Nacion newspaper quoted AFADA lawyer Paul Buompadre as saying.

Orangutan is a word from the Malay and Indonesian languages that means "forest man."

Sandra's case is not the first time activists have sought to use the habeas corpus writ to secure the release of wild animals from captivity.

A U.S. court this month tossed out a similar bid for the freedom of 'Tommy' the chimpanzee, privately owned in New York state, ruling the chimp was not a "person" entitled to the rights and protections afforded by habeas corpus.

In 2011, the animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) filed a lawsuit against marine park operator SeaWorld, alleging five wild-captured orca whales were treated like slaves. A San Diego court dismissed the case.

The Buenos Aires zoo has 10 working days to seek an appeal.

A spokesman for the zoo declined to comment to Reuters. The zoo's head of biology, Adrian Sestelo, told La Nacion that orangutans were by nature calm, solitary animals which come together only to mate and care for their young.

"When you don't know the biology of a species, to unjustifiably claim it suffers abuse, is stressed or depressed, is to make one of man's most common mistakes, which is to humanize animal behavior," Sestelo told the daily.

"When you don't know the biology of a species, to unjustifiably claim it suffers abuse, is stressed or depressed, is to make one of man's most common mistakes, which is to humanize animal behavior," Sestelo told the daily.

While it's true that people do humanize animal behavior inappropriately at times -- or fail to understand the various nuances between different variations of the same action -- people also tend to disregard animal suffering and mistreatment by assuming that animals simply don't have the capacity to suffer as humans do, but many animals -- especially primates -- have consistently shown a remarkable ability to express emotion and awareness of the world around them.

I used to love going to the zoo as a child because I love animals, but the older I get the more I've become quite uncomfortable with zoos, animal parks (Sea World/Marine Land/etc.), and generally the captivity of any animal where it isn't strictly for their own protection, either individually or as a species.

It's from the Huff Post so this story is amazing.

So, what should we do? Close down all of the zoos in the world and let all the animals free in their natural environment? Promise to not capture any more animals and display them for educational purposes? Abolish animal behavioral research labs around the world because PETA's feelings got hurt?

How again is that supposed to benefit our society again?

PETA aside, that's the question. Is it morally acceptable to keep these higher order animals in enclosures? Especially when some have commit suicide trying to get out?

Or is it acceptable to keep these animals enclosed so long as zoos serve the benefit of being places to educate the public on the wilds?

How again is that supposed to benefit our society again?

Abolish animal behavioral research labs around the world

Or you could simply examine how some higher order animals like Dolphins and Orcas behave and realize that we might be inflicting harm upon them by keeping them captive. We've learned alot about these mammals and the more we learn, the more we come to realize these animals aren't stupid. They're pretty intelligent and we may be harming them by keeping them enclosed.

If you want to abolish the containment of "higher order animals", then what's stopping the abolishment of the containment of other animals? Pretty soon, we will come to the conclusion that I presented.

For some reason, Animal Farm comes to mind, especially this quote: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"...

Non-human person....

Doesn't that sound like an oxymoron to anyone else?

Sorta like "corporations are people"?

Sorta like "corporations are people"?

You know, there's another person just like you who failed to understand the Citizens United case.

Just like you failed to understand this case?

Oh, I missed that.

Well, that changes everything.

That the best you came up with?

Sorta like "corporations are people"?

The problem I have with this isn't whether or not the animal does or does not have human-like emotions or traits. It's that it was born in captivity. It knows no way of living other than that. If the zoo treated the animal well in the past, more than likely, it only knows that it's basic needs come from humans. It potentially has no survival instincts. Even to live in a wildlife reserve, that animals general take care of themselves.

Can this animal do that effectively?

Nobody is this stupid...


Person/Personhood


An orangutan is a person, it's not a human, what makes it an oxymoron? Person doesn't necessarily mean "human", as I pointed out with repeated statement that "corporations are people", in that they have many of the same rights afforded to individuals, so do "non-human persons".

So, you apparently misinterpreted my post you quoted.

Not sure if it was on purpose or not.

I would suggest that you read the quoted post and try not to jump to conclusions again...

Ok, so, either you still don't understand that person =/= human or you don't know what oxymoron means. Either way, you're wrong.

I'd imagine similar arguments were made for slaves throughout history, but it is still worth noting. It's hard to say whether their intelligence supersedes the need for parental teachings. As you mentioned, it probably wouldn't be able to survive in the wild without some kind of transition program, and there are plenty of minimal captivity facilities around the world.

i.e a sanctuary. Which is where it's going to end up. Juries out on if it'll make it in the wild. Like people, some animals have a hard time transitioning from prison back into the general population.

Yet another reminder that we're not that different from the other creatures around us.