I remember a few months ago, a black macaque swiped a camera and took a very cute selfie. A court case questioned the owner of the photograph. Was it the macaque's or the photographer that owned the camera. It was determined that being non-human, the monkey had no rights to "ownership".
What do you think of this new court ruling? Should primates have any rights?
Perhaps, you may find this news story of interest to use in your classroom.
What makes a court in Argentina determining that Sandra has rights newsworthy is that Sandra is ... an orangutan.
Until this ruling, animals were declared things. The historic court decision states that 28 year-old Sandra is a non-human person and thus, has basic rights. In this case, Sandra has been living at the Buenos Aries' Zoo for 20 years. The Argentina's Association of Professional Lawyers for Animal Rights said in their petition, that Sandra has been denied her basic rights to freedom. If the court ruling stands and is not appealed, Sandra's right to freedom will mean, she will be moving to a sanctuary to spend the rest of her days.
It is thought that such a non-human person ruling would only apply to primates as they have much of the genetic codes with humans.
Questions:
1. Should animals have rights?
2. If you were the judge, how would you have ruled?
3. What other rights might primates have?
4. Pretend you are representing the Buenos Aries' Zoo. Why should a primate such as an orangutan be considered a thing and not a non-human person.
Learn about orangutans:
Extension Activities:
Gail
Check out my website for teachers/kids.
See my teaching resources.
|
Sign up for our free weekly newsletter and receive
top education news, lesson ideas, teaching tips and more!
No thanks, I don't need to stay current on what works in education!
COPYRIGHT 1996-2016 BY EDUCATION WORLD, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
COPYRIGHT 1996 - 2024 BY EDUCATION WORLD, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.