[skip navigation]
Visit the Bookstore
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.