It's a chimp, dammit!

I'm astonished to read about a case that's going to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

His name is Matthew, he is 26 years old, and his supporters hope to take his case to the European Court of Human Rights.

But he won't be able to give evidence on his own behalf - since he is a chimpanzee.
Animal rights activists led by British teacher Paula Stibbe are fighting to have Matthew legally declared a 'person' so she can be appointed as his guardian if the bankrupt animal sanctuary where he lives in Vienna is forced to close.

An anonymous businessman has offered a substantial amount to cover his care, but under Austrian law only humans are entitled to have guardians.

The country's supreme court has upheld a lower court ruling which rejected the activists' request to have a trustee appointed for Matthew.

So now 36-year-old Miss Stibbe and the Vienna-based Association Against Animal Factories have filed an appeal with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Organisers could set up a foundation to collect cash for Matthew, whose life expectancy in captivity is about 60 years.

But they argue that only personhood would ensure he is not sold to someone outside Austria, where he is protected by strict animal cruelty laws.

In dismissing the activists' request to get a guardian for Matthew, a lower court ruled that the chimp was neither mentally impaired nor in danger - the legal grounds required for a guardian to be appointed.

It did not directly address the issue of whether a chimpanzee can be considered a person.

Eberhart Theuer, the animal rights group's chief legal adviser, said there is a legal precedent to appoint a guardian for an individual incapable of expressing himself.

'As long as Matthew is not recognised as a person, he could be sold abroad or killed for economic reasons,' Theuer said.

'His life depends on this decision. This case is about the fundamental question: Who is the bearer of human rights? Who is a person according to the European Human Rights Charter?'
it deserves a full-blown hearing.'

The mind boggles . . .

The fact that this chimp - lovely, friendly animal that he may be, and all that sort of thing - is in need of protection is not, repeat, NOT a reason to try to classify what is clearly non-human, as human!

If this moonbattery goes through, think of how else it could be applied:

• You're two hours late feeding your dog because you got stuck in traffic? You're guilty of a canine-human-rights violation!
• You run over a squirrel in your car? That's a murder charge!
• You use spurs when riding a horse? You're guilty of an equine-human-rights violation!

(Then again, I know people who wear spurs and use them on each other when they . . . um, never mind.)

Sorry, Ms. Stibbe. Human is human. A chimp ain't.

Peter