Court to decide if Happy the elephant is a legal person
An Asian elephant called Happy has lived at the Bronx Zoo for the past 45 years, but the question of whether she is legally human - and entitled to human rights - has been posed to New York’s highest court, per NZHerald.
On one hand, advocates at the Nonhuman Rights Project say she is an autonomous, cognitively complex elephant and should be released from her current enclosure under a habeas corpus proceeding, which is a way for people to challenge illegal confinement.
Bronx Zoo, on the other hand, say she shouldn’t be considered a person, with an attorney arguing that Happy isn’t illegally imprisoned nor a person, and is in fact a well-cared for elephant that is “respected as the magnificent creature she is”.
The Nonhuman Rights Project are calling for Happy to be moved from a “one-acre prison” at the zoo to another, more spacious sanctuary.
“She has an interest in exercising her choices and deciding who she wants to be with, and where to go, and what to do, and what to eat,” attorney Monica Millar, representing the advocates, told the Associated Press ahead of the oral arguments.
“And the zoo is prohibiting her from making any of those choices herself.”
The group said Happy became the first elephant to pass a self-awareness indicator test in 2005, after repeatedly touching a white “X” on her forehead while looking into a large mirror.
Meanwhile, the zoo and its supporters argue that a win for the Nonhuman Rights Project could prompt more legal action on behalf of animals, including pets and other zoo animals.
In a prepared statement, the zoo accused the Nonhuman Rights Project (NRP) of exploiting Happy for their “coordinated agenda”.
“The blatant exploitation of Happy the elephant by NRP to advance their coordinated agenda shows no concern for the individual animal and reveals the fact they are willing to sacrifice Happy’s health and psychological wellbeing to set precedent,” the zoo said.
NRP’s say that Happy’s right to “bodily liberty” is being violated by the zoo, no matter how she is treated, arguing that if Happy’s right to liberty under habeas corpus is recognised by the courts, she will be a “person” and must be released.
In court, Judge Jenny Rivera asked Miller about the implication of NRP’s position for other human-animal relationships.
“So does that mean that I couldn’t keep a dog?” she asked. “I mean, dogs can memorise words.”
Miller said there was currently more evidence showing elephants are extraordinarily cognitively complex and have advanced analytical abilities.
The high court case comes after lower courts have ruled against NRP in similar cases, including one involving a chimpanzee in upstate New York named Tommy.
It also comes after a different animal rights group won their case to allow Colombian drug kingpin Pablo Escabar’s “cocaine hippos” to be recognised as people with legal rights in the US - though it had no ramifications for the hippos, who currently reside in Colombia.
As of publication, the panel of seven judges presiding over the case has reserved its decision on the matter, with the answer expected in the coming months.
Image: Gigi Glendinning (Nonhuman Rights Project)