Activists Want Chimp Legally Declared "A Person"

(Vienna, Austria) The Vienna-based Association Against Animal Factories, led by 36-year-old Paula Stibbe, have filed an appeal with the European Court of Human Rights to have a 26-year-old male chimpanzee named Hiasl (Matthew) declared a "person."

Austrian courts have already rejected the request.

Stibbe's reported goal is to be appointed Hiasl's legal guardian, a status only achievable for people. Therefore, Stibbe wants Hiasl declared a person. She says she doesn't seek to have him ruled to be human, just a person.

Stibbe argues that personhood is necessary to preclude having Hiasl sold to someone outside Austria, away from the country's 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?'

Of course, if Hiasl is declared a person, then the question of citizenship emerges. Since he was captured in Sierra Leone in 1982 and smuggled into Austria, he would have to be classified as an illegal alien and subject to deportation. However, it's possible that he would qualify for asylum because if he goes back to his birth country, the indigenous population may barbecue him.

Frankly, I think this whole episode is ludicrous. The court should tell Stibbe and her colleagues to go home and find a new hobby. Giving animals human rights protections is a ruling that a prudent and common-sense judiciary won't make. But then, the European Court of Human Rights has likely never been accused of being prudent and common-sensical.