A request to appoint a custodian to Matthew Hiasl Pan was denied last week by a Vienna Court. The reason? He “was neither mentally impaired nor in danger, the grounds required for a guardian to be appointed”. However, one would find this court decision quite awkward as Pan is a chimpanzee and not a ‘person’. Declaring a chimpanzee a legal persona may lead to various consequences; most of them relating to other aspects of law. (via BoingBoing)

The question of where ‘personality’ begins and where it ends is more than a question of law, it is a question of morality. Legal Persona carries more than meets the eye; not just the ability to open a bank account, to file legal proceedings or to vote, it carries the definition of what we refer to as a person. When people will grant a chimp, or any other animal, a standing point as a legal persona, the ability to ‘use’ that legal persona may temper our whole viewpoint.

In a Israeli supreme court decision from 2005, Justice Eliakim Rubinstien denied a request to include the Israei Deer as a petitioner, claiming that though animals have rights under the Animal Cruelty Act, they do not constitute as a legal persona (HCJ 466/06 Reis et al v. National Council of Planning and Construction). What would have happened if both the Chimp and the Deer would have been granted rights under law?

What would have differed this specific chimp from any other chimp in any zoo? would that chimp be able to petition for release? for equal pay under minimum wage acts? What would differ chimps from Roosters, from Cows, from Pigs and Horses? will man be mandated to stop using them and start paying for its use? Would they establish bank accounts or vote? to be elected?

Such a decision would mean the world for animal rights activists, it could make any living creature with minimal cognition liable under law.

But liability has its price.
—
Image cc-by-sa-nc Samuel Judge