I was shocked and dismayed
a few weeks ago when I opened U.S. News & World Report to see
conservative columnist John Leo denouncing the idea of using a trial to
grant non-human primates rights. Although Leo is against the primate trial,
he ended up conceding much of the animal rights argument.

Leo certainly doesn’t have
a lot of use for animal rights in principle, noting that \”it’s even
an expression of bias to talk about protecting wildlife, since this assumes
that human control and domination of other species is acceptable. These
are surely far-out ideas.\” Unfortunately as he moves through his
argument it becomes apparent Leo has been heavily influenced by these
\”far out ideas.\” Leo writes, \”Ideas about humane treatment
of animals are indeed changing. Many of us have changed our minds about
furs, zoos, slaughterhouse techniques, and at least some forms of animal
experimentation.\”

In fact despite the implication
early on in his piece that he is against the idea of primates being granted
rights, it is clear by the end of the piece that what Leo really objects
to is the issue being solved through judicial activism rather than through
legislation as he makes clear in the following passage, \”The debate
about greater concern for the animal world continues. But the alliance
between the radicals and the lawyers means that, once again, an issue
that ought to be taken to the people and resolved by democratic means
will most likely be pre-empted by judges and lawyers.\”

What’s going on here? Although
I happen to agree with Leo about many things, he has a tendency to overestimate
both the sincerity and the accuracy of his opponents. Leo repeats, for
example, extravagant claims made about non-human primates use of language
which don’t tend to hold up under scrutiny (Leo claims that an ape can
talk at the same level of a 4-year old, which I would chalk up as pure
nonsense – unfortunately Leo does an extremely poor job of documenting
which ape can talk at that level, apparently taking animal rights propaganda
at face value.) His inclusion of zoos in the list of things he no longer
supports was shocking, however. Some zoos, especially before the 1980s,
did engage in abusive behavior and poor care, but then some pet owners
also neglect their animals. If Leo is against holding animals in properly
managed zoos I don’t see how he can consider the rest of the animal rights
argument as \”too far out.\”

On the other hand Leo does
a good job of summarizing the legal theory promulgated by Steven Wise
and others. Wise actually argues that non-human primates should have standing
to sue using pre-Civil War statutes that allowed slaves, who were non-persons
under the Constitution, to bring lawsuits.

I don’t think this has much
chance of succeeding because if it did there would be several well-positioned
coalitions ready to take legislative action to overturn such a decisions.
The most obvious group, aside from the animal industry, threatened by
such a decision would be pro-choice forces such as the National Organization
for Women and Planned Parenthood. Any decision that allows people to sue
on behalf of non-persons would be a direct challenge to a woman’s right
to have an abortion in the United States.