The Rights of Man . . . and Beast

The New York Times recently published something about the Rights of Man . . . and Beast. Marquel, the TPVs Times Correspondent discovered that a confused lawyer represents chimps and mosquitoes against a hostile world.

“Free the canines” aims to ban leashes.

Marquel didn’t understand where these chimp rights came from. The constitution talks of people and men, not animals, so what was the basis of this legal strategy?

A law professor told Marquel, “since there are really no recognizable independent legal rights possessed by animals, I would have to call this a legal theory of sentimentality. Really, that’s all it is.”

“But what about our legal system?” I asked.

“Our legal system,” said the law prof, “sucks.”

“Okay,” I remarked, “we all know that but where is it going with these animal rights? We don’t even know if Americans have a right not to be shot by Obama’s drones. We don’t know if kids have a right to kindergarten. We don’t know if poor people have a right to health care or if people have a right to jobs or against sexual harassment or free choice of spouses. Where’d these damned monkeys come from?”

The law prof continued, “I can’t be sure but they probably come from retired lawyers with time on their hands and little in their heads.”

“You’re serious?” I asked.

“Absolutely,” he said. “he sits these animals in the plaintiffs tables ready to provide testimony but all they can do is chirp, shriek, pull their lips apart, jump up and down, and play with their genitals.”

“So what will that accomplish?” I asked.

“Well they want to get the monkeys out of their cages. Some of those cages are brutal and would qualify as animal cruelty anyway so this seems like a needless circus.”

“But you agree something should be done against these cages.” I suggested.

“Certainly but you don’t need animal testimony for that,” he said.

“What’s next” I asked.

“It seems clear that any restraint on animals might also fall.  No leashes on dogs. No cages on birds, snakes, or crocodiles. No rules at restaurants against  animals, no more mouse traps or even fly paper. Think of hanging for the rest of your life against some adhesive suspended from the ceiling in an unsanitary butcher shop.”

“Sounds like the end of the line for a lot of animal control measures,” said I.

“They’re going to have to make some sort of distinctions. But I don’t know how,” said the lawyer.

“Let’s try a few scenarios,” I suggested. He nodded agreement. “I walk into a restaurant with my St. Bernard. The owner asks me to leave. What if it were a black man. Could he do it?”

“Of course not. The dog gets a seat at the table. If he has bad table manners, though he could be asked to leave just like anybody else.”

“Okay, I go to Bloomingdales with my two pet gorillas. I’m holding their hands and we go first to the clothing department for two nice pairs of slacks and then the toy department. Any problem?” I ask.

“Not that I can see. They can’t fool around and have to cooperate with the tailor. And in the toy department no bullying.” He said.

I could handle that. “Okay I walk into my taqueria and they spray for flies. Can I seize the can?”

He says, “I think you can but you should take some bodies also to prove the murder.”

“Murder?” I asked.

“Well, sure, if they can have monkeys testifying you’re going to get your flies on the stand to identify the decedents.” He said in his legalese.

We said good bye. I went into my supermarket holding my pet rabbit. Three burly guys accosted me and threw me out. They kept the rabbit because, they said,

“he looks hungry and he’s cute. You can come pick him up after closing. But you stay out of here. You’re nuts.”

And I was the hungry one hoping to buy some Kraft dinner.

***

For  the sequel follow Marquel on Twitter @MarquelatTPV.

TPVs CORRESPONDENT

The Rights of Man . . . and Beast