The New York Supreme Court will determine whether Happy, a 47-year-old Asian elephant living at the Bronx Zoo, has been illegally imprisoned.
The Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP), a non-profit civil rights organization advocating for the legal entity of great apes, elephants, dolphins and whales, filed its first petition against the zoo in 2018, “with a request for recognition of the legal Happy’s face and the fundamental right to bodily freedom and its release in an elephant sanctuary. “
On Wednesday, the New York Court of Appeals heard arguments from both sides about Happy’s release from the zoo. The court is likely to rule in the next four to six weeks, NhRP and Bronx Zoo officials told CNN.
The NhRP’s legal argument revolves around the idea of a habeas corpus, which protects against unlawful deprivation of liberty. They claim that at the Bronx Zoo, Happy is kept in the equivalent of isolation, which they say is particularly cruel, given that elephants are highly social creatures that roam vast areas in the wild.
“The nature of detention and the nature of the species” make Happy’s condition a violation of the habeas corpus, Monica Miller, an NhRP lawyer, told CNN.
Happy, born in the wild in 1971, is one of two Asian elephants currently bred at the zoo that are kept in separate but adjacent enclosures and can smell, see and touch each other with their trunks in the fence. The organization insists that Happy be moved to an elephant sanctuary, where they say there will be more space than there would be in the wild and social contact with other elephants.
“Detention [elephants] captive and imprisoned prevent them from engaging in normal, autonomous behavior and can lead to arthritis, osteoarthritis, osteomyelitis, boredom and stereotypical behavior, “said elephant researcher Joyce Poole in the organization’s petition.” Isolated elephants become bored , depressed “., aggressive, catatonic and fail to thrive.”
The NhRP called for Happy to be released either at The Elephant Sanctuary in Tennessee or at the Performing Animal Welfare Society’s shelter in California. No group is associated with NhRP.
But the zoo says otherwise in its response. Happy has contact with another elephant and is cared for by “well-trained veterinarians for large animals and breeders who treat Happy with respect and kindness”. They emphasize that the zoo is certified and Happy, like all zoo residents, is protected by the Animal Welfare Act.
In addition, Happy and the other animals on whose behalf he filed the NhRP case have not sought legal representation from the NhRP, according to the Bronx Zoo. And she doesn’t need that.
“The NhRP’s concern is to win a legal dispute, not what is best for Happy,” the zoo said in a statement. “The NRP uses Happy in the same way they used animals in other cases in an effort to change the age-old law of the habeas corpus and to impose their own worldview that animals should not be in zoos.
And the case has broader legal consequences, the zoo said. Habeas corpus has never been applied to non-human animals in New York, the zoo says, and this would open the door to legal chaos and add more pressure to the state’s judicial systems.
“Changing this most fundamental of legal concepts has implications not only for zoos but also for pet owners, farmers, academic and hospital researchers and, most critically, anyone who may be looking for or needing access. to the judiciary “, write from the zoo. .
But Miller, one of the NhRP’s lawyers, says the group is pushing for a much closer solution. At the moment, she said, the legal world has no place to distinguish between an elephant and a caterpillar. At the moment, Happy has the same rights as an ant.
Miller said Happy “looks more like a human being for the sake of the right to bodily freedom,” noting that the decision will not necessarily open the door to other animals, such as dogs or livestock, that acquire human rights. According to the NhRP, elephants “share many complex cognitive abilities with humans, such as self-awareness, empathy, death awareness, intentional communication, learning, memory, and categorization abilities,” making them highly deserving of habeas corpus.
Happy has been used in particular as an example of elephant intelligence: a 2006 animal self-awareness study found that Happy was able to be recognized in a mirror for the first time for its species.
The case is also based on the legal history of the habeas corpus. Historically, habeas corpus has been used to free enslaved people in England and the United States, even at a time when slaves had no legal personality. So, the organization claims, there is a precedent for using the habeas corpus to give freedom to those without a legal entity, such as elephants.
Just last year, the United Kingdom passed a bill officially recognizing animals as “conscious beings” as part of an animal welfare package that included bills banning the export of most live animals and the import of hunting trophies. A habeas corpus was used in 2016 to free a chimpanzee named Cecilia in Argentina from a zoo and move it to a shelter in Brazil, says NhRP.
But such legal efforts in the United States have failed. In 2017, an appeals court in New York denied habeas corpus relief for chimpanzee Tommy, another “client” of the NhRP. The court found that despite their intelligence, chimpanzees are incapable of carrying out legal obligations and similar animal rights issues are more appropriate for the legislative process than for the judiciary. More than 20 judges have ruled against Happy’s case and similar cases, the zoo said.
“At the Bronx Zoo, we are focused on what is best for Happy, not in general, but as an individual with a unique and distinctive personality,” the zoo said in a statement.
Add Comment