 |
| Marcel Strigberger |
Happy the elephant is a 50-year-old resident of the Bronx Zoo. An animal rights organization, the Nonhuman Rights Project, has argued in the New York Appeals Court that Happy is actually a person, being autonomous and intelligent. Her lawyers assert she passed a mirror self-recognition test, being an indication of her self-awareness. They insist that detaining her in the zoo violates her rights to bodily liberty. Their arguments focus on the common law right of habeas corpus, noting further detention of the pachyderm is unlawful. Their aim is to send Happy to some elephant sanctuary.
Lawyers for the zoo argue that their client focuses on what is best for Happy, namely as an individual with a distinct personality. They assert Happy is actually happy where she is.
Although I am happy to see a result which is best for Happy, is it necessary to determine that an elephant is actually a person? Such a ruling might result in a slippery slope whereby elephants will be eligible to do things we traditional persons do. For one, they will be able to make wills. Declare Happy a person and I could readily see her visiting a lawyer and instructing counsel to “give, bequest, and devise my entire estate to my nephew Elmer.”
I do see some possible snags here. If the lawyer’s office is in a high rise, there could be issues using the elevator. For one building owners would have to make signage changes, to wit, “Maximum capacity, eight people or one elephant.”
For that matter once a person, what is to stop an elephant from becoming a lawyer? Actually I have every confidence that an elephant, with its intelligence, can easily ace the LSAT. Hey, I never heard of any lawyers who ever passed that mirror self-recognition test.
Reflecting further, there is a nice ring to a law firm called something like Colossus, Babar and Jumbo (LLP).
And I am sure the public will find it refreshing to deal with a lawyer who doesn’t wear a tie.
And if an elephant can become a lawyer, then why not a judge? Given the elephant’s legendary memory skills, trials may speed up as it would not be necessary for lawyers to argue volumes of precedent case law. The judge would no doubt interrupt arguing counsel and say, “Yes Mr. Harvey, no need to cite them to me. I remember those cases.”
Of course matters would not be perfect as there would still be disgruntled lawyers who would occasionally appeal decisions, noting:
“The learned trial judge erred in his award of quantum in that he awarded the plaintiff peanuts.”
Some things don’t change.
The New York Appeals Court panel of no less than seven judges has reserved its decision.
Which gets us to the cat. The cat that came back. Or rather the owner who came back. A Nova Scotia small claims adjudicator had to decide who was the rightful owner of Fluffy the cat. One Donald Myatt, original owner of Fluffy and landlord of a property near Antigonish moved out of the place taking his dog along but leaving the cat behind. Fluffy was cared for by two tenants who eventually moved out too, taking Fluffy with them. Eventually Myatt (rhymes with cat) stepped back into the picture claiming he never actually abandoned Fluffy and ergo he was still the owner.
The adjudicator, one Raffi Balmanoukian, noted wryly that dogs have owners, cats have staff. He found Myatt did not renounce ownership of Fluffy and that both sides were good cat parents. This finding, however, did not extinguish Myatt’s rights.
Balmanoukian did note that Fluffy did not testify.
The New York court does not mention whether or not Happy testified. It would not surprise me if she did. After all, that self-recognition test, etc. etc.
The good thing is at least these animals have access to justice.
Marcel Strigberger retired from his Greater Toronto Area litigation practice and continues the more serious business of humorous author and speaker. His book Boomers, Zoomers, and Other Oomers: A Boomer-biased Irreverent Perspective on Aging is now available in paper and e-book versions where books are sold. Visit www.marcelshumour.com. Follow him @MarcelsHumour.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to The Lawyer’s Daily, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.