Socialists: Give apes human rights

by iosaf Fri Apr 28, 2006 14:34

but the 3 rights being proposed are -
the right to life.
the right not to be a slave.
the right not be tortured.

its part of a global project "Gran Simio" http://www.proyectogransimio.org/ which would recognise now certain realities of the conditions the Simions are in, and also anticipate further future possibilities. & I must say .:. I support it.
& Thus It doesn't surprise me that the RC cardinal of Sevilla has damned the whole thing, it seems mother church who is so proud of Francis of Assisi, is quite prepared to see a future world where the great simians who can demonstrate linguistic ability through sign, join the shoeless africans on the orchards near Sevilla, or better still can donate us organs when the Chinese supply dries up.
These rights if universally accepted (though of course if the USA or UK don't ever really feel the need to sign these things....) would hopefully stop great simians being blasted to Mars or Venus "for science".

The Italian Socialists have today expressed interest in adopting the project as well.

check out the site :- (& remember we are simians. thats why we have a great wookie in the White house)
US version at link-

the right to Life - not to be tortured - not to be enslaved. Liberty! for Simians!

by pat c Fri Apr 28, 2006 14:58

an appropriate image to use. this is just the start. soon apes will get the right to vote. before long the SWP will be taking them into membership. wonder what sort of a front they will set up?

it all reminds me of the Simpsons "planet of the apes, the musical" episode.

by iosaf Fri Apr 28, 2006 15:10

The first to propose rights for animals was Jeremy Bentham
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bentham

Now only recently has mother church (& Mrs Doyle & the martyr crew) accepted the universal declaration of .:. Human Rights. Before they condemned them as "liberalism". Mammy Church hada rethink & accepted them as part of God's "august destiny" for mankind. Oh yes, along with mrs Doyle's right to vote.
There is a veryimportant theological question, which mammy church or her fundamentalist Xian Yankee cousins in the creationist circles really can't answer & it is this :-
At what point did the simians get a soul? now that would have been the best illustration but I can't find an image of a soul on google image search. Did homo erectus, neanderthal, african eve have souls? We know neanderthal employed burial ritual. Oh.....
that gets up the noe of mammy church and the designer sun glasses crew, & no doubt about it.

If we (or trust me to do it for you I'm the classicist qabalist) goto the first chapters of Genesis we see mention made of Adam Kadmon who we mostly think of as Adam, you know the one, had the wife Eve, and the lover Lilith and the troublesome kids. But the original hebrew is one of the most mysterious deeply encoded bits of the bible. Really it is! Adam Kadmon displays alone in all the hebrew scriptures bi-gender nominals. Only the names of "God" get that treatment, incidently in the Quran as well. I digress.....

Do we have human rights coz mammy church says it is ok now?
or do we have them because we are rational?
Is our rationality based on mammy church or her fundamentalist Xian Yankee cousins in the creationist circles, or for the moment on scientific basis?
You see Pat C. (& others) its the ancient war again. Give Dan Brown a call get him to put it in easy to read / translate pulp fiction and keep the commuters happy.

by Socialist Fri Apr 28, 2006 15:48

I think this will backfire on you Pat C because I for one would fully support what PSOE are proposing they should have the rights that are outlined above in order to protect them from experimentation, hunting and the destruction of their environment. I mean apes of course not PSOE.

by pat c Fri Apr 28, 2006 16:05

i fully support this initiative. how could you think anything else? i have a history on indy of supporting animal rights. i was just cracking a joke about apes getting the vote.

i foresee that one day an ape will be archbishop of armagh and primate of all ireland.

by iosaf = o as if Fri Apr 28, 2006 18:37

It came up on my Friday discussion thing. (every Friday I get to chinwag with some people who have a sinister reputation, but put it this way they .:. can in no way be accused of hastening the death and misery of Africa through AIDS) I touched on today's main topic, at my blog on "gach ait eile" :- http://iosaf.allotherplaces.org/?p=130 "We are mostly workers" last week's chat of course was the news that Berlusconi's allies in the right wing coalition are buying senators ahead of the president's end of office.

I recall in the lead-up to the "election" / "coup" of Ratzinger (remember when he wore a golden dress number with matching mitre), whilst the polish pontiff was still withering away (ive made mention of this before) that I had several discussions with a member of Opus Dei, on democracy, rights, socialism, &c., ecumenism (using the 39 articles of the anglican faith, the quaker literature, and orthodox theology as basis) and anti-semitism (aware of the polish pontiff's great respect for the rabbi of Rome who was indeed to be the only person named in his will shortly after).
One of the topics we touched on was biotech. i found absolutely no awareness of the damage done to the environment by human activity as being sinful . i was referred to that deeply encoded text Genesis and the bit in Eden about all animals getting named and "put under the _stewardship_/_mastery_/in service_ of man". I countered that the line in question is too difficult to decypher and quote so is useless and has tortured rabbinical minds since before Christ. and then on the question of coca and opium production I qouted the Psalter and David the King's very popular with rastas line "all herb for the use of man", arguing that man has no right according to any theology of the "books" to eradicate any plant. I also countered with the Quran and Leviticus prohibition of xeno-transplantion. But the Opus Dei people couldn't get that. If your liver or heart is fucked there's no problem with using one of a pig or gorilla. I suggested that "humanae vitae" the encyclical of John 23 with its line (used by the RC and mammy church to prohibit condoms &c) "that it may never be lawful to intefere with the creative principle" could be thought to apply more aptly to any attempt to manipulate the genetic, genomic or pronomic material of any living organism rather than prevent sperm swimming up the vaginal tract or an egg getting down same tract. That was just about when the discussion really got difficult.
Interestingly in the synoptic gospels (the sanitised edited bits that got down the ages, the Christ only makes direct reference to the animal kingdom once. Though he used loads of animal metaphors & that reference was really very nice, being a pun, like much of what he said, on an item of economic worth - Are not two sparrows sold for a (€=$)? the original greek was "lepton" often translated as farthing and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father :: But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. :: Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.

I really believe for all those interested in the relation between 2 of the world's dominant religious blocks (both Christianity and Islam) and the greatest bio-ethical questions of our age, the question of Simianity ought be explored. & the really good thing, the Tibetans are already on side. Yippeee. with the Tibetans on side, that means most of Hollywood and PETA too!
never get on the wrong side of PETA giggle giggle

by redjade - in solidarity with the victims of Bird Flu Fri Apr 28, 2006 18:41

'....It was also found that the stupider animals, such as the sheep, hens, and ducks, were unable to learn the Seven Commandments by heart. After much thought Snowball declared that the Seven Commandments could in effect be reduced to a single maxim, namely: ‘Four legs good, two legs bad.’ This, he said, contained the essential principle of Animalism. Whoever had thoroughly grasped it would be safe from human influences. The birds at first objected, since it seemed to them that they also had two legs, but Snowball proved to them that this was not so.

‘A bird’s wing, comrades,’ he said, ‘is an organ of propulsion and not of manipulation. It should therefore be regarded as a leg. The distinguishing mark of man is the hand, the instrument with which he does all his mischief.’

The birds did not understand Snowball’s long words, but they accepted his explanation, and all the humbler animals set to work to learn the new maxim by heart. FOUR LEGS GOOD, TWO LEGS BAD, was inscribed on the end wall of the barn, above the Seven Commandments and in bigger letters When they had once got it by heart, the sheep developed a great liking for this maxim, and often as they lay in the field they would all start bleating ‘Four legs good, two legs bad! Four legs good, two legs bad!’ and keep it up for hours on end, never growing tired of it....'

http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/O/Orwel....html

by human interest Fri Apr 28, 2006 19:54

look at what they an achieve! - Shakespeare, Pyramids, beating Balor the one eyed, sewing machines, concealed ovulation, and funeral rites. We should be proud. But that much said, I think we had better nip this whole thing in the bud, before Dr. Zeus comes along. & therefore I am against extending these 3 rights to the great apes. Our kids like looking at them in the Zoo, and enjoy how like us they seem. They're brilliant for space travel, and if the USA can routinely execute people with IQ's of less than 90 who have no idea of the seriousness of the crimes they've committed, I don't see why really clever great apes with IQ's about 80 should get afforded immunity. I don't believe in souls. I believe in Darwin.

I venture that there have been enough illustrations on this thread which really isn't important at all.
Lets talk about football instead.

by pat c Fri Apr 28, 2006 19:58

monkeys are not apes! apes get very annoyed if you refer to them as monkeys! how would you like it if someone called you a chimp or a gorilla? see? now you know how apes feel.

by human interest Fri Apr 28, 2006 20:49

there's been no mention of the right to simians to not be molested or subject to sexual harassment by homo sapiens . I believe that in the majority of the states of the USA and those of the EU (meaning the "West") neither bestiality nor necrophilia is a crime. One of those peculiarities... If we move to enshrining these 3 rights (C/F http://www.greatapeproject.org/declaration.html ) for the great apes, we also have to cover all other areas. Perhaps a legal mind as fine as Mc dowell's could figure out what for want of imagination (it being a prurient moment) I'd call the "Bubbles question".*

* Bubbles being the life companion of singer songwriter michael jackson

You spar so well Pat C!

I'd also like to point out all who've taken an interest in this thread so far, the irony of arguing a "right to life" for great apes, especially since it has been presented by Iosaf and Spanish socialists as "anti-church". Are we to stop the neutering of great apes? Where do we stand on the "free love" and great apes question? Are they not more lacivious and promiscious of nature? Are we to allow the simians to breed just as nature intended? will that not lead to a "Malthusian situation" where they outnumber is and Dr Zeus does appear? Do we allow or encourage that in the interest of rationality? of evolution? What about the 2nd right? If a great ape has been trained to use a rifle and assassinates the president of the USA or has been trained to put on a suicide bomber waistcoat - would that immunity put the homo sapien trainer beyond legal jurisidiction???

Oh yes.
yes indeed.
the mind doth boggle.
the simianity debate might be one of the greatest of the XXI century

by disgusted Sat Apr 29, 2006 00:17

Humanae Vitae was not written by Pope John XXIII as Isoaf said, (obviously a deluded Da Vinci code reader, and who knows what else(. It was written by Pope VI in 1968. Look it up on yahoo! Humans are obviously different from animals, though some would like to behave like animals. It is shameful that people who like to masquerade as intellectuals and progressives could even think of degrading the Human person in this way. Giving rights to monkeys? Whats going to come from Madrid next? Monkey marriages? Monkey adoptions? I think it is disgusting the way that this site constantly attacks the faith of Irish people and the majority of right thinking families worldwide. Behind all your moral talk of anti-war, the same hatred of the truth is there. Everyweek in the name of free speech, you allow this nonsense to be aired. As a parent I won't be allowing my children to enter this site again.

Yes.
Yes. we have souls. Darwin doesn't come into it any more than Orwell. Monkeys don't have souls, dogs don't have souls., pigs don' have souls, fish don't have souls. I pity you all. What a message to send to our new migrants whose faith despite their poverty should make you think again.

by Apes should have rights - in the Banana Republic Sat Apr 29, 2006 00:43

Think of the benefits if our politicians and priesthood were upgraded.

No corruption, no capitalism.

I'd go to mass again and I'd exercise my vote too.

by iosaf Sat Apr 29, 2006 00:55

Disgusted,
I stand corrected, Humana Vitae was indeed Pope 6's controversial encyclical on human reproduction and not John 23's. There have been so many popes, even if they're numbered I do get confused at times.

Neither I, nor Pat C. nor those who advocate the adoption of the 3 rights for those great apes with whom we share over 98% of our DNA have said they have souls.
However I touched on the question of rationality. Rationality is defined by mother church and the western legal tradition alike as the ability and capability to make self-determined choices. To possess "free will" and not just react to the environment on the basis of instinct alone.

The last 40 years have proven the linguistic ability of the greater apes, who may communicate through sign language, and further improvise on their vocabulary, expressing free will, opinion and emotion.

In the time of the first Pope to employ the title papa "saint" Pope Siricius (of which there was only one) Augustine of Hypo wrote the confessions and addressed both the problems of "creationism", and of "free will". He lived in a time of slavery, as did we all, till the last 160 years. & many would argue (myself included that we still do). Slavery obviously affects the right to "free will", and the Christ and St Paul in Ephesians and many others of the boring heavy reading Christian library had a go at the problem of "bondsmen" and sadly "wives" and "free will". Augustine's approach would be adopted by Aquinas, and for the most part is based on Aristotle's assertion - & is the bedrock of Christian and Catholic Theology. that in many a bondsman body a free mind is to be found . I touched on this question in debate with Roger Eldridge of the "National Mens Council of Ireland" last September when "picking him up" on his usual Opus Dei like selective quotation of Paul's ephesians C/F http://indymedia.ie/article/72176
I really do not see how the extention of rights based on rationally observed scientific study, to our closest natural relatives with whom we really do share a lot, [98+% DNA] may be understood as debasing the Human Being. I'd rather think it will allow us to understand properly our role on this planet, our very peculiar place and responsibilities. I also reiterate that neither evolution nor creationism as they are currently propagated, ( & mother church has changed her mind so much through her history of lies) may answer when "free will" and "rationality" entered the human / proto-human / simian experience. Until 5 years ago, it was widely believed that "brain size" was the clue, till the discovery of Homo Floriensis "the hobbit" in Java. Why is it so difficult for those "with faith" as perhaps with those "without faith" to rethink their world and life vision? Is is so set in stone?

Lastly - dogs, cats, and cows may not have souls ( I'll not debate it with you ) but on average the cow in the areas of this planet it is found, is either revered as sacred by 800,000,000 Hindus, or the recipient of on average 4€ a day subsidy.
Whereas the poor humans of this planet live on average of 1€ income including indirect benefits from both the richest states and the Christian Church organised charities. Thank God the poor humans have souls "disgusted" at least they can look forward to Heaven, and the cows on their extra 3€ a day just make shoes.

Believe me "disgusted"
you have no nothing to fear from the emancipation of Great Apes or the Simianity debate.

you have nothing to fear from the emancipation of apes

by Terence Sat Apr 29, 2006 01:27

Disgusted, where do you stand in this debate in terms of your beliefs? Would you describe yourself as an Evolutionist or creationist because if we knew that it would help clarify where you are coming from on this.

by czc Sat Apr 29, 2006 06:16

Pat, if apes and humans are equal in the world of the Red Flag, does that mean we can lock up leftie idiots - like the ones who made this ridiculously insane proposal - in zoos to throw bananas at them?

I have a feeling this is less about monkeys' rights, and more about animalising human beings - particularly European ones. It's not bad enough that they're legalising all sorts of anti-family practices in Spain, but now they're setting human civilisation back millions of years.

This, from Trots who are of the same political cut as those who believe straight bananas are a legal imperative.

by iosaf Sat Apr 29, 2006 16:28

Since Pat C. only reported the news that the governing party of the state I live in has proposed at Congress support of an agenda _ I do support_ and understand well on political, theological, judicial and scientific levels, I'd like to continue adressing the points people are trying to make in objection to the enshrining of 3 fundamental rights for the Great Apes. What I am terming the "simianity debate".

reply to CZC :-
There were 17 "rights of man" declared at the French Revolution and rejected by the Church as masonic liberalism. You enjoy all of them, and the Church has changed its mind. What was once a mortal sin is now ok.

There 30 articles to the universal declaration of Human Rights adopted by the UN in 1948.
Most were objected to by the Church in its "millenial history" as heresy, liberalism or masonry.
You enjoy them all, ( I hope) and the Church now ocassionaly makes reference to them, and indeed ratified them as an independent sovreign state- of course they used to torture and kill people for voicing those rights. what was a sin is now ok.

There are 66 articles to the Council of Europe's convention of Human rights adopted in 1950 which forms an obligatory requirement for any state wishing to accede to the EU and 5 further protocols.
They aren't really sure where they stand on Europe, it really seems very sinful, whereas Mussolini, Franco, Salazar, Hitler (till eugenics) and De Valera were dandy. & so it surprises us not that the Church never seemed particularly keen on most of them except the "freedom to express religious affiliation as long as it was their own brand".

There are 3 rights proposed for the Greater Apes.
Only 2 are comparable to any of the documents listed above. The second right proposed has nothing do with Humanity at all.

The acceptance that rational, thinking, feeling, great apes deserve to be afforded rights is not only intellectually sound, but morally desirable. Yet some Christians think it is approaching the "great beast". I laugh @ your millenial ignorance. Our rights as humans are based on rational progress and civilisation not any theological concept of a "soul". Our social organisation is the product of recent history which stretches only for a few thousand years. By any theology of the "books" - Judaic, Islamic or Christian the human had a soul before civilisation, before the "master / steward / owner" question, before kings, before letters and numbers. That applies equally to whether or not a Jew, Muslim or Christian adopts a creationist or evolutionist stance on our species history. I have already made reference to Augustine's confessions which is the bedrock of majority Christian theology in which he dismissed the heretical creationist belief of a "7 day work".

It is a sad and lamentable symptom of your shallow understanding of theology, anthropology, and science, and "the work of God" that you protest the granting of 3 fundemental rights http://www.greatapeproject.org/declaration.html to those simians with whom homo sapien shares 98%+ DNA and uniquely shares linguistic and rational capability. i suggest it is also a sign of cruelty to & neglect of "your God's work" that you do nothing to protect legally animals who undoubtedly think and feel. Which is I'm pretty sure of it, a "mortal sin" lets give you a few centuries to change your mind.

+nihil obstat?
:: e :: p :: a :: l
.:. we've just started, and this time we'll beat you back to the catacombs.

by iosaf Sat Apr 29, 2006 16:49

The Roman Catholic Church presided in its ecclasiastical courts throughout Europe trials of animals in the medieval period unto as late as 1650. The accused animals were assigned lawyers, tried and almost always executed for their crimes which rangd from - killing humans, (a sow in france for eating a child), rats for eating the harvest, woodworm for causing a bishop's cathedra to collapse and kill him (wonderfully related by Julian Barnes).

What was once a sin. What was once God's plan. What was once Law - - - is now?
If the emancipation of great apes leads to a evolution and a "Dr Zeus" you'll have deserved him.

by righteous pragmatist Tue May 30, 2006 12:05

If apes are to have the same rights as humans surely this is the logical conclusion

by DennisL Wed Jun 07, 2006 15:22

They are animals. Given they are close to the level of humans on the scale of intellect and culture, but this is really unneccessary.

It is illegal in most countries to test drugs on great apes. It is also illegal to torture them. As for slavery...yeah that would be a good change, but what does that mean? Is it slavery to confine them in a zoo?

by banana skin Fri Jun 27, 2008 22:34

this week the Barcelona eco-communist Joan Hererra finally saw his bill pass into law. Its timing is good because an Austrian chimp who had seen his case thrown out by the Austrian Supreme Court http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/20039....html
has just seen his case accepted by the European Court of Human Rights.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23486466-det...chimp's+plea+for+human+rights/article.do

the rights for Simians are :-

* right to life and not to be killed except in self-defence,
* Protection of individual liberty
* Prohibition of torture.

the campaign came from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_on_Great_Apes

additional local analysis in English on why this law change is historically important to humans and secularists as well as anarchists is here http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/06/402044.html

Last link to coverage in The Guardian:

by pat c Sat Jun 28, 2008 19:34

Nows the time to unionise the Apes so that they dont have to work for peanuts anymore. Now that they have human rights MANDATE should take them into membership.