All language subtitles for Unlocking.the.Cage.720p.HDTV.x264.AAC.MVGroup.org

This programme contains
some strong language from the start

and scenes which some viewers
may find upsetting.

These animals are extraordinarily
cognitively complex.

They have their own cultures...

..they're self-conscious,
autonomous and self-determinate.

They have a theory of mind
so that they not only know that they

have a mind,
but they know others have a mind.

They understand that they
are individuals who existed

yesterday and will exist tomorrow
because, when you imprison

a chimpanzee, the chimpanzee
understands that tomorrow he's going

to be imprisoned and, as far as
he knows, it's not going to end.

What we are trying to do is change
the way people view

nonhuman animals because, right now,
the line between human beings

and nonhuman animals is at
an irrational place.

It's, "Are you a human?
You have rights.

"You're not a human, you don't."
We're saying that's wrong.

It's a hell of a war,

there's going to be a lot of battles
in the war but it's time to begin.

It's amazing.

Steve, did you ever think...?

Exactly.

GAVEL BANGS
All rise.

Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye.

All persons having business

for this appellant division

of the Supreme Court in the state
of New York, let them draw near.

First case is the matter of Nonhuman
Rights Project versus Lavery.

Mr Wise, I believe you're arguing.

Thank you, Your Honour,
may it please the court.

My name is Stephen Wise...

TYPING

PHONE RINGS

Ugh...

Yup.

'Just a few things. I just got
an e-mail from Stephanie...'

OK.

We want to make sure that the judge
has as small a number of

reasons for throwing us out without
breaching the merits of the case.

Yeah, well, keep me informed.
'Sure.'

That's it.

That is the one that someone
gave me in 1979,

that was the first time
I opened this book up and said,

"Holy smoke, I had no idea that we
were treating animals this way."

MONKEYS SCREAM

At one point, this was the
only book in the library.

Everything else, really, is gathered
as a result of this book.

When I read Peter Singer's book,
I had kind of an epiphany

because I thought,
"Well, why am I a lawyer?

"I'm a lawyer in order
to pursue justice,

"to try to raise up the underdog,"
and I thought,

"I can't think of beings who
are more brutalised than

"this in greater numbers and
if I spend my life working on their

"behalf, I will have done more than

"anything I could do
as a human lawyer."

So I immediately changed
the focus of my law practice,

almost on the dime.
My law partner was stunned.

HE CHUCKLES

When I see nonhuman animals
who are being horribly used

and exploited and who are killed
by the millions or the billions,

I see all these lives being
taken for frivolous human reasons

and it's all they have,
just like it's all I have.

And I don't believe

that there's something
extraordinarily exceptional

about every human being
that they somehow have

something that allows them
to be the masters of the world

and all the nonhuman animals
are the slaves of the world.

So I decided to bring the whole
problem to the attention

of the legal system
and then do something about it.

All we can do is kick
the first door open,

that's what we're trying to do,
we're trying to kick the door open

and have people consider
the personhood of nonhuman animals.

I taught at Harvard,

the first class at what
I call animal rights law

in the spring of 2000.

So it was the first time Harvard
ever had a course like that.

People laughed at me and they barked
when I went into a courtroom

and people thought what
I was doing was exceedingly odd.

Isn't this our culture gone awry
here a little bit?

What you do is you erase the line
that has been artificially

drawn between human beings
and nonhuman beings.

That's not an artificial line.
It is an artificial line.

They are not human beings,
they don't have humanlike

intelligence and putting them

on the same legal standing
as a human being, that's insanity.

Without further ado, Steve Wise.

APPLAUSE

It is great to be back here. I feel
like a Borscht Belt comedian here.

I have been practising
animal protection law -

this kind I call doggy death
cases - for 30 years.

Dogs who are ordered to be killed
because they were very bad dogs.

But I thought to myself, "I can save
five or six dogs' lives a year

"and save some other animals too
and that should be enough to

"get me into heaven,"
but the problem is

is that, in the United States alone,

for every beat of my heart,
160 animals are killed.

So I can work for the next
40 or 50 years

and I can save the lives of
one heartbeat's worth

of animals.
I didn't want to do that.

So I helped form
the Nonhuman Rights Project.

And now we've been laying
the groundwork for the first

lawsuits that are going to truly,

seriously take on the idea of
whether a nonhuman animal has

to be a legal thing
or whether or not

it's possible to be a legal person.
There's this thick legal wall.

On one side of the wall are us now,
all of us human beings.

We all have legal rights,
we all have the capacity, we are

all persons, we have the capacity
for legal rights.

On the other side of the wall is
the rest of creation

and every nonhuman animal is seen
as a legal thing, rightless.

So how do you get
the attention of the judge?

How do you say,

"Hey, I shouldn't be a thing,
I should be a legal person"?

The judge could say, "I'm sorry,
is someone saying something?

"I don't see you.

"You're invisible, you're invisible
to the law because you're a thing."

And when you start studying
the history of the common law,

you realise that women were not
persons for many purposes,

children weren't, and slaves.

The word "personhood" is
extraordinarily complex.

In fact,
most people thought about it

when the
Citizens United case came down.

For the first time in their life,
it dawned on them

that an entity that was not
a human could be a person.

So, for example,
now humans are persons,

but so can a corporation,
so can a ship, so can a partnership.

And I argue that these
nonhuman animals,

all four species
of great apes,

all of
the elephants,

all the cetaceans,
are so cognitively

complicated that these beings
should be persons today

and they should have
certain kinds of rights

that are fundamental to them.

So the purpose of the Nonhuman
Rights Project is to persuade

a court to make a legal punch
through that wall.

APPLAUSE

Steve, this is a case that presents
the opportunity for the first

time to acknowledge
animals as having legal rights.

Check.

That's right.
And do we really want to do that...

in the face of the potential
consequences that would

flow from it?

I'm just talking about the very few
animals that we're thinking of

at the beginning.

We're talking about apes,
we're talking about cetaceans,

we're talking about elephants.
And why those?

Why are those going to be
a different set?

First of all, they're not
native to the United States.

They don't have a large
economic value,

there's been a lot of research
done on them,

cognitive research that kind of
reverberated in ways in which

we can identify with them.

The slippery slope moves you

immediately to the dogs and cats,
doesn't it?

Because if you do that for
this one animal,

you've done it for all animals.

Well, we're not asking that
a chicken have rights or that a cow

have rights or that they even be
deemed legal persons.

What we're saying is that this
gorilla or this dolphin...

But if the judge lets this happen,

Peta's going to file a suit the
next day and go for chickens.

And we'll have to see what
their arguments are.

It's kind of terra nova.

People haven't tried it, so we have
to figure out what we can do

but we know that where
they are now is wrong.

The Nonhuman Rights Project
is planning

on bringing probably two suits

in 2013 in two states
in the United States.

These are really... 'Which states?'

Two states, we haven't yet
chosen those states.

We have about 70,
that's seven-zero, volunteers.

They're law professors or they're
lawyers or they're law students.

Liz! How are you?
LAUGHTER

So what we want to do is try to
figure out, through our work today,

the way that we're going
to win these suits.

We have to understand
how judges think.

Right, one of the hurdles that
we're going to have to overcome

is the judge saying, "Listen,
you're animal welfare people -

"you have the Animal Welfare Act,
you have humane slaughter.

"Why isn't that enough?"

That raises a whole
other issue, which is -

how do we characterise this case?

Because if I am the other side,

I want to characterise it
exactly in that way.

"Hey, Judge, this is an animal
case," and we're saying,

"Hey, Judge,
this is a civil liberties case."

This is not an animal welfare case.

This is a "human rights" case.
Right.

Because no court has ever been asked
to decide to what degree

a nonhuman animal should be entitled
to equality because of...

because we're like them. Right.

You know, the animals that
we're looking at most closely

are the different species of great
apes because they're really,

really smart, so I'm looking to
speak to the world's experts in...

..in those areas, all the people
who study those specific animals.

Especially the cognition.

Those are the people that
I'm trying to track down.

CHIMPS WHOOP

Hey, Tatu, Tatu.

She's saying "milk".

Who wants milk? Can you sign?

"Tatu."

What colour is the milk?
Do you remember?

White, yes. You're so smart!

TATU WHOOPS
SHE MIMICS

Tatu was cross-fostered by
Allen and Trixie Gardner,

so when she was just two days old,
she joined this cross-fostering

project, meaning that she was raised
exactly like a human child.

She learned to use spoons, she sat
in a high chair, she wore bibs,

she learned to use the potty,
she had a bath every night.

So, in that environment, from
the humans she acquired her signs.

The sign language stuff is really
nice evidence for the project

Steven's doing.

When people see the chimps signing,

they see nonhumans in a completely
different light,

cos they're like, "Wait a minute,
they just said something."

Hello. Nice to meet you.
Nice to meet you. Yeah.

Thanks for helping us.

I'm Steve's wife Gail.
Hi, how are you?

Well, I actually went
to a talk many years ago

and it was the beginning of you
talking about this stuff.

Yeah, we used to talk about what we
were thinking of doing and then what

we were planning on doing and now

we talk about what we're doing. Yes.

I'm really interested
in the signing,

what sort of signing has gone on
since the two chimpanzees

have moved here.

Well... Between themselves
and with others too.

Yeah, they're signing with the other
chimps. I'm excited. Yeah.

TATU PANTS
That's Tatu.

She's saying, "Chase, chase."
Just like that? That's "chase"?

That's "chase".

This is "coffee",
so you've got to be careful.

Yeah, interesting.

Now she's saying, "Black, black."
Black's her favourite colour.

Uh-huh. You can see black clothes,
the water and the trees

and then she's signing "tree".
So different than where they were.

It's not freedom by any stretch
of the means, but still...

You know, they're all
institutionalised in research

or in captive situations,

so they have the need to be close

to caging and to be
in a confined space.

You know, they don't climb trees,

they don't use some of the things
we have here.

We'll go take a look
at the island areas.

You know, it's outdoor space
without bars over your head, but...

That's OK because it's there

and they want it, they have it.
Autonomy.

Autonomy is what I talk about
because we value it so much. We do.

And when we punish people,
we punish people by taking away

their autonomy and that's really
what putting you in prison is.

It's stripping you
of your autonomy in every way.

And that's a terrible,
terrible punishment for you.

Breaks my heart.

In Japan, there was
a chimpanzee colony

and then the place built

a kind of lab that
jutted into the place

where the chimpanzees were outside.

And then they had computer
terminals inside and outside

and that's where they have
the experiments about the memory.

They, like, flash something on the
screen for, like, a quarter second.

They'll flash a series of numbers
and then they cover up

the numbers in, like, a tenth of a
second and then the chimpanzees can

then recall what the numbers were
and press them in the right order.

I did that, I was not
as good as the chimpanzees.

I know you want to see him.
I know you want to see him.

When he's ready. We can only go
to people when they're ready. OK.

He would like to learn
a click language.

If we knew a click language,
we could probably...

instil it in Tika.

GORILLA YELPS

You can see that Kanzi's already
asking for you to talk to him.

You want me to come in and see you?

Yeah, he wants me to come in
and see him right now.

OK, go ahead.
MACHINE: 'Zoo, ball.'

'Question - listeners have ball.'
Do you have a ball?

Kanzi wants to know
if you have a ball.

Is this the ball
or is it a bigger ball?

Kanzi?

Come say "big"
if you want a big ball.

Little ball. Is that what you want?
You want that little ball?

Kanzi can understand
all kinds of things,

all kinds of novel sentences.

Almost anything.

I'm going to put on my mask

and we're going to try
a sentence for Kanzi, OK?

Kanzi, could you take my shoe off,
please?

You might need to untie it.

Good job.

So he may be coming to you
to see if you might help us

in filing an affidavit,

talking about your work,
especially if we have an ape,

talking about the cognitive
abilities that they might

have that would then help us
persuade courts.

Are you going to try to make a case
that apes, cetaceans and elephants

are particularly intelligent
and different from other animals?

No, we're just going to make a case
that there are certain criteria,

what I call practical autonomy,
and that any animal who meets that

criteria should then be
a legal person.

Yeah.

'Banana, juice.'

I'd want every single known fact
about chimpanzee cognition

to be in an affidavit. Right.

We have to overwhelm the judge
with everything that's possibly

out there. Yes.

And, of course, the fact that
Jane Goodall's on our board -

when we contact someone, remind them
that Jane Goodall is on our board.

Exactly.

OK, well, we are 100% sure
that New York is our jurisdiction.

And we appear to have
four chimpanzees

who are possible in New York.

So who would we go with?
Well, let's start off with Charlie.

OK. Who is his mate? Kiko.

Kiko is deaf from brain damage
when he was abused.

Oh! Yeah.

And I looked at the YouTube video
of Charlie that they put out.

Punch, punch!

Actually, they have been on TV,
National Geographic

did something on them.

Good.

He and his wife
lived in the home with them.

Charlie, big boy.
He doesn't need a diaper, huh?

I mean, he's 23 years old now,
he's got a large enclosure and you

need to look at that because there
is a moral issue here with Charlie.

He's not where he's supposed to be

but he is very attached
to his treater.

Mm.

I mean, he's living an artificial
life, but I'm not sure that we

can make a case that it would be
right to take him away. Yeah, OK.

It's a no. How about the ones in
the... What's the one in Bailiwick?

Merlin and Riba.
Merlin and Riba, OK.

Merlin and Riba, both acquired
from the circus,

one is male, one is female.

Let me give you an idea -
Bailiwick also has paintball.

That's what we had, yeah.
Right, that stuck into my...

I was looking at
the Better Business Bureau

and on a scale of A+ to F,

they give it an F.
WOMAN GASPS

Wow. OK.

Well, I think this is going
to send shock waves

in directions that we cannot
even conceive of right now.

Oh, absolutely. Which is the whole
purpose of what we're doing. Right.

We're not in there to save two
chimpanzees in Bailiwick Zoo. Right.

I mean, we are there

but they also represent
other nonhuman animals as well.

Yeah. Mm-hm.

PARROT SQUAWKS

MERLIN HOOTS

They said that the other chimpanzee
died about three days ago

and that Reba was 55
and that they only live till 60.

I think he's been there for seven
years with that other chimpanzee

and now, for three days since
Reba died, he's all by himself.

I'm sure he must be
grieving and mourning

in the way that chimpanzees do.

That chimpanzee is depressed.

He's not interested in
doing anything, he's just...

He's just sitting there...

by himself.

On the internet,
there's all kinds of comments.

People are saying,

"How come the zoo hasn't been
cited for cruelty to animals?

"How come the zoo...?
How come it's allowed to operate?"

But it appears to be perfectly legal

and under the statutes of New York,
there's nothing else that we can do.

Well, with any luck...
It's almost May.

May, June, July, August,
September, October...

Seven or eight months, we have
a shot of getting him out of there.

Pretty impressive.

I've found Merlin's home.

I'm already imagining him
running around here.

When we did introductions,

we tried to have a balance
of male and female

because chimps in the wild live
in multi-male, multi-female groups

and male chimps get along very well.

In the wild,

they would have a community of
which all the chimps are familiar

with each other but they would
go off in groups of two, three,

four, five, small subgroups
in range over many miles, so here,

they had the opportunity,
definitely,

because the islands are so large
that they have their favourite spots

and they can break apart

and then they usually come together
at night to sleep and for meals.

So this is the best way
that we can replicate that.

Obviously, it's not perfect.

This is always one
of my favourite sights,

just like a crowd of chimps
together, hanging out.

I mean, I love that
because you see the sanctuary

and it's so easy
to forget their pasts.

REPORTER: A 37.5lb chimpanzee was
chosen last night to make this ride.

This particular one was selected
on the basis of physical

and psychological characteristics.

MISSION CONTROL:
Five, four, three, two, one, zero.

There it goes, zero.

There it goes, it's up in the air.

This success moved the United States
closer, by a big step,

to launch a man into space
and bring him back safely.

CHIMPANZEES SCREECH
CAGES RATTLE

We always like to show
people this cage.

It came from the Coulston Foundation

and we actually paid to have it
brought here because we just

want people to remember
how they were treated. Mm.

So there was a shelf that the chimp
could sit on, but this wall,

the back wall of the cage,

was hooked up to
a hydraulic mechanism

and then could be used
to squeeze forward

so if they wanted to inject a chimp

with some sort of experimental
substance or to anaesthetize them,

the wall would come forward

and they would just squeeze them up
against the bars. Mm.

And they lived like this
their entire lives.

Um, decades,
and I just can't even imagine it.

And then in 2002, we were able
to move everybody from what was

the Coulston Foundation to Florida.

266 chimpanzees. That's amazing.

It was the largest rescue
of chimpanzees in history.

And now they're here.

As soon as I saw this place,
I said, "Oh, my God."

I was texting people,

I said, "I hope we've found
the place for..."

It is a beautiful place.
It's a spectacular place.

I can really imagine him being here.

So let's assume, you know, Merlin
is declared a legal person. Person.

Does that mean all chimpanzees
in New York State are legal persons?

No, it simply just means
it's Merlin. Just Merlin, OK.

Well, it's funny, the common law,
it moves case by case. Mm-hm.

So, ultimately, it would seem
like you wouldn't have to

litigate these things any more.
Eventually, why litigate?

There's already been ten chimpanzees
declared a person. Right, exactly.

Right now, we haven't made it public

which state we've actually
picked and which chimpanzee.

It's really the first salvo
in a strategic war

that's about to break out
in the fall. OK.

Where's Merlin? I do not see him.

Oh, my God, are you serious?

There was a sign that
said there was a chimpanzee?

Oh, my God. He's not here.

I can't believe this.

We're two months away and this is,
like, the worst-case scenario.

Oh, my God, Steve is going to flip.

DIAL TONE RINGS

'Hey, Natalie.'
Hi, Steve.

Uh...

Merlin died last night.

'You're kidding me.' No.

'That was the worst news...'

He was punching himself
in the face for some time

and they finally decided
to take him to the vet

and he had an infected tooth
and had a root canal

and they said he didn't make it
on the way home.

And they had an autopsy
and he had an engorged liver

and it just couldn't handle
the anaesthesia.

'OK.'

I'm really sorry
to break this news to you.

'Oh, well, yeah,
I'm glad you're there

'and you know and now we have
to figure out our next step.'

A week ago today,

Natalie went to Bailiwick

and learned that our petitioner
Merlin was dead

and so we're going back to the two
that we had originally been

talking about which are Kiko
and Charlie at Niagara Falls. Yes.

What are they called now?

The Primate Sanctuary, they're
called The Primate Sanctuary.

They were, at one time,
called Monkey Business.

Their website advertises 26 monkeys
and 18 exotic birds.

And they say
"Contact us for parties"?

"Book a presentation."
"Book a presentation."

When I first started looking
into these kind of people,

I remember going to their website
specifically and just seeing all the

chimps dressed up in American flags
and hats and waving their flags.

It seems real but he's my baby.

He's like, "Coochie-coo..."
you know that cutesy talk...

"It is as intense as
a father loves a child.

"They aren't animals,
they are my boys.

"I'm 'Daddy' and he understands
Mommy, my wife Kristi."

MAN SCOFFS

It's kind of creepy.
THEY CHUCKLE

I think it's really freaky.

This guy, we're not saying
he's an evil person. Yeah.

He's just essentially enslaved
these animals and they...

I'm not so sure
he's not an evil person.

It's like any kind of kidnapper.

It's kind of delusional.
Exactly, Charles, it's delusional.

There it is right there.

Let's see
if we can see through here.

KNOCKS ON DOOR

Is this where Charlie
the Karate Chimpanzee is?

Yeah. Can I get...? Can I buy
a video? We don't sell videos.

Oh, I saw it on the internet.

No, actually, our facility
isn't open to the public.

We're in the process
of building a new sanctuary

out in Wilson, New York.

We just got approved on June 26th.

OK. You taught the karate?
I did, yeah...

Well, my brother owns three martial
arts studio in New York. Oh, I see.

So it was something that
he picked up cos when he was a baby,

I used to take him there
cos I'm working out

and he just picked him up
and looked at him

and said, "Let's try it."

It just mushroomed into that
and the best part about it,

he loved doing it.

And when you watch his martial arts
on, like, YouTube or something,

you can tell he's having fun because
that was what it was all about.

How old's Charlie now? He's 27.

And we have our other chimp Kiko
who's a deaf chimp that we rescued.

Yeah. Where was Kiko rescued from?

It was a TV series called
Tarzan Comes To New York

and Kiko was the chimp in it.

Well, you left the keys inside.
So what? Chimps can't ride.

CAR ENGINE REVS

POLICE SIREN BLARES

Drive. Drive.

'And supposedly Kiko bit someone'

and ended up getting
the tar beat out of him.

He was hit on the head
with a blunt instrument

and he ended up going deaf
in both ears.

He's got about maybe 10% of hearing.

It's just nonstop and, I mean, don't
get me wrong, I love it just being

with them so much and they just turn
out to be really great chimpanzees.

Really? Yeah.

OK, well, I won't take up any more
of your... Thanks so much.

All right, nice talking to you.
Bye.

He wants to get 'em
to a slightly less depressing

place in his sanctuary. That
sanctuary's not going to happen.

But that's the whole thing.

And I thought maybe he was
independently wealthy or something

but he's trying to
raise money for it...

A sanctuary,
he's now up to 31 primates,

so 29 monkeys of various kinds
and two chimpanzees.

But if his heart
is in the right place...

It is in the right place, I think.

..which it seems to be
at this juncture,

then he probably wouldn't mind
having the chimps

being taken off his hands,
except for one problem -

he has emotionally bonded with them.

Well, I know he has.

So, for him and the way he thinks,

that's going to be like
taking his children. I agree.

REPORTER: Tonight,
the entertainment world

is mourning a popular primate -

Charlie the Karate Chimp
passed away

at a sanctuary
in Niagara County yesterday.

During his 26 years...

Well, I got an e-mail that Charlie,
our chimpanzee in Niagara Falls,

one of the two of Charlie and Kiko,
died of cardiomyopathy.

And in fact it was the third blow
that we've had in the last

seven months in which our
chimpanzee plaintiffs have died -

Reba, Merlin and now Charlie.
Right.

I mean, captivity,
it's just killing these guys

so I don't want to take
any more chances. Right.

We need to locate every surviving
chimpanzee in New York State

and file a suit on their behalf.

Yes, that's number one.

That says "Mayfield - five miles."

We're looking for something
called Santa's Hitching Post

and there was nothing like that.
'No, I said it was a trailer park.'

Where did we get the name Santa's
Hitching Post? I have no idea.

INCOHERENT ON PHONE

Oh, this is a trailer place.
And they rent out reindeer?

There it is.
Is it the Circle G or something?

CAR HORN BLARES

This might sound
like a stupid question -

we saw somebody on The Today Show
talking about reindeer...

Yes, we do. You do?
Can I see them? Sure.

Actually,
this is Buddy coming at you,

this is one
that was on The Today Show.

Do both males and females
have antlers? Yes, they do.

And the one with no horns, that's
the bull. Oh, cos he'll attack?

Yeah, he actually comes
after the gate. Oh, I see.

Someone told me you had a monkey.
There's a chimp in there.

Oh, he's in...?

He was actually in movies
back in the day,

Project X and all them other...

Chimpanzees in the space programme?
Yeah.

OK, stop flying.

CHIMPANZEE CHITTERS

Oh, he must be 30 or 40 years old.

We had one, she lived to be, like,
60-something years old at one point.

Really? Yeah.

Doesn't he get lonely? Yeah, he is.

He's supposed to be going to Florida
to go on to another farm

because the last one that was in
there was his little friend there.

She died actually
not too long ago, so...

Just trying to find him
a home where he can go

and be with other animals
and, you know, more chimps

and have more room to run around.

Sabo's.

INCOHERENT SPEECH

Sabo's Chimpanzees.

You ought to see him
through this window.

He's eating, he's eating a banana.
You see him eating now? Oh, yeah.

Hi, Tommy.

He's old. I'm not sure
how old he is but he's old.

This must be where he lives.
Yeah, this is where he lives.

He's got a TV to watch
and then he's got there, the jungle.

They're strong.

Yeah, he won't do much,
he just sits there.

TV PLAYS IN BACKGROUND

Hey, Natalie. Well, we confirmed
Tommy is one sad-looking chimpanzee.

Thanks for telling me
about The Today Show

because I said I'd seen him
on The Today Show and he came

and showed me his reindeer
and then after a while,

we asked whether he had
any other animals around.

He wasn't the owner, he was
a handyman and they said they were

trying to get him to a place
in Florida, that's what they said.

We didn't ask anything. 'I'm really
sorry you had to see that.'

It was him, there were perhaps
10 to 12 empty cages

and then he was in one of them.

And about perhaps
15 feet away from him

was a small TV
that was showing PBS, cartoons.

INCOHERENT SPEECH ON TELEPHONE

Oh, please. I think we're all
ready to cry, it was really...

It was a very sad thing.

DIAL TONE RINGS

'Hi, Liddy.'
Hey, Steve.

I am going to the State University
in Stony Brook

where two chimpanzees,
Hercules and Leo,

are being held for research and
locomotion experimentation. 'Right.'

If you go on Stony Brook's website,
they talk about the primates

so that's why
the chimpanzees must be there.

MAN ON VIDEO: This is Hercules.

Hercules is helping
scientists understand

the origins of human walking.

And this is Hercules'
colleague, Leo.

By tracing the markers, the
researchers were able to understand

that chimps swing their hips much
more than humans when they walk.

OK, so I couldn't get
any read from anyone

if they are aware of the presence
of Hercules and Leo.

What I DO know is that people don't
want to talk about it, they just...

They don't.

'Well, we can still file and if
they're not there...' Absolutely.

And because Stony Brook
is the State University,

we are going to go head-to-head
with the Attorney General.

'OK, let's get moving.'

Hello, David, thank you for coming.
Hey, David, how are you?

Nice to see you, long time.
Ages, huh?

Do you want to do it like this?
Yes, perfect.

I want to welcome everybody today

to the Nonhuman Rights Project
moot court,

in which we will be helping Steve
in the Nonhuman Rights Project

practise for our first lawsuits
in Tommy's case.

Mr Wise, you can understand,

I'm sure,
why we're somewhat concerned

about being the first court
in the entire world

to come to the conclusions
that you're arguing for

and it seems to me
what you're saying is

if I see chimpanzees in environments

where they're not being
appropriately treated,

where I think they're suffering
a basic welfare problem,

I'm going to go in
to get them out to put them

in environments where I think
they are treated appropriately.

But if I see places where
the animals are treated well,

then I'm not going to bother with
them because what am I going to do?

Move them from one sanctuary
to another?

So I'm only, ultimately,

focused on chimpanzees
that are being treated badly.

Are being treated in a way
that does not respect their autonomy

and self-determination. Right.

So why is this not just
a welfare concern?

I mean, OK,
so the Animal Welfare Act,

you don't think is good enough?

The anti-cruelty statutes
are not good enough?

So why don't we just make
the laws good enough?

Have you tried to make
the laws good enough?
We have not tried to do that.

Have you gone to the USDA
and asked them to enforce
the Animal Welfare Act?

We don't think that they're
violating the Animal Welfare Act

or they're violating the state's
anti-cruelty statute.

You know he's in compliance with
his licence in every respect?

We believe he is, that's right.

And that...that's the problem,

is that...is that there
is no other place

where we can go for his benefit.

So... Really? You can't go to the
legislature?

Well, that's like saying if I have
a problem, I don't follow brief,

what I do is I go to legislature.
I have...

Tommy has the right, we argue now...
No, it's not quite the same as that.

..has the right to habeas corpus.
It's actually like saying

we have a system of laws that
regulate the welfare of animals and
you feel that they're insufficient.

What you're talking about is
the welfare of animals here.

So rather than go to the systems
that make those laws and try
and have them properly enforced,

you want to come to our court and
ask for a right that's never been
granted in the history of humankind.

May I make a suggestion?

I feel like you've
fallen for their trap.

You've dug yourself a hole
and you can't get out of it.

I don't see the problem. You don't
feel stuck? No. Stuck in what way?

Now we're arguing over welfare. The
welfare of animals. That's because
you keep using the word "welfare".

And so I figured,
"OK, I've lost this judge,
I'm not going to get him."

I think you're wrong.

What you've lost is... Can I
give you constructive feedback?

Let me tell you what you said
back then.
LAUGHTER

Bailiff, would you
remove this woman?

LAUGHTER
Remove her from the court. No!

BIRDSONG

CHATTER

I tell Gail when she plays you,

"If you just make a run,
you should be able to take her."

Whose side are you on?

I have to be on my wife's side.
Well, what about your mother?

I'm usually on my mother's side,

unless she's in
conflict with my wife.

You haven't been on my side
in several years.

Oh, now it's getting ugly.

Now...
LAUGHTER

So you're really breaking ground
here on different levels. I hope so.

Cos no-one's ever done it before.

So we're trying to get all
the affidavits in
from all over the world.

And it happened, we got them.
We got 'em.

'So what is the scientific argument
that you will be making?'

Well, the scientific argument

is based on the affidavits
of ten experts

we have from all over the world,

Japan, Sweden, Germany, Scotland,
England and five more in the US,

based on 45 years
of scientific observation

of chimpanzee language and
communication, culture.

And it boils down to the fact

that all three cases, you know,
Tommy and Hercules and Leo and Kiko,

they are autonomous creatures,

they should be able to live
autonomous lives.

'If you are successful, if you win,
what changes? What happens?'

I kind of view it as a legal
transubstantiation,

where the nonhuman animal would come
out of that court room

looking the exact same,
but her legal status would be
forever changed.

Dean, it turned out we had 400
citations. We were, like, stunned.

So, you know, if you can get
to the judge and say,

"Judge, we're providing you with
a pile of these affidavits,

"because all of these
primatologists,

"all of these scientists have come
to the same conclusion."

It's all science, science,
science, science.

Is this more advice?
Yeah. OK. Sorry.

LAUGHTER
I see the wheels spinning in his
head!

No, that's the Jewish mother.

LAUGHTER

CHATTER

Be kind.

He was a terrific judge for us
to go in front of. Right.

We had not considered that he
would on the spot order us in.
Not in a million years.

To have been able to have a full
oral argument on the record...

Without another side. ..that we
had, it's just mind-blowing.

He felt that since it had never been
done before, he could not do it.

But he did everything he could to
get us the best possible record,

to get us up to the appellant courts
to be able to present our arguments

to those people he felt
had the power to do it. Yes.

We were thinking of all
the different ways
that we might end up losing,

and this turns out to be probably
the best way to go.

That's totally unexpected. Yeah.

GAIL LAUGHS

Gosh! I just can't believe
he kept helping us. I know.

It's a legal victory for us,
so we want to make sure

that nobody misinterprets
what occurred. Exactly. Right.

So we need to put out a
comprehensive press release today.
Today.

Do you want to hear what Patrick
Lavery said to the New York Times?
Yes. Sure.

"Patrick C Lavery, the owner of
Circle L Trailer Sales in
Gloversville where Tommy lives,

"said that he had heard about the
petition from reporters' telephone
calls.

"If they were to see where the chimp
lived for the first 30 years
of his life,

"they would jump up and down
for joy at where she is now.

"Mr Lavery said he had not seen
or been officially notified
of the petition."

He has now.

This is the New York Times? It is.

Oh, I love that.
GAIL LAUGHS

WOMAN: 'Kind of a bizarre lawsuit
with big implications.'

At the centre of it is a chimpanzee,

and the key question is whether
a chimp is a person.

MAN: 'Steven Wise of the
Nonhuman Rights Project

'is seeking a writ of habeas corpus

'on behalf of Tommy,
a 26-year-old chimp,

'arguing that animals with
human qualities such as chimps

'deserve basic rights including
freedom from imprisonment.'

MAN: 'The group is trying to invoke
a right known as habeas corpus,

'a legal procedure
which entitles inmates

'to have a judge
review their detention.'

'Habeas corpus means "free the body"

'and it's been used throughout
the years to free people

'from what's been considered
an unjust incarceration.'

WOMAN: 'Under the law,
a writ of habeas corpus

'can only be granted
to legal persons,

'so the judge would need
to find that chimpanzees

'have at least some limited rights
traditionally reserved for humans.'

MAN: 'The landmark lawsuit was
brought on behalf of Tommy,

'who lives caged on his owner's
property in Gloversville.'

He's got seven rooms. He's got
a room that he likes to sleep in,

another room where he likes
to watch his TV

and there's other rooms he plays in.

It kind of hurts when
you hear allegations

of people thinking that
we're animal abusers here

and we're not treating him properly.

'Lavery insists Tommy
loves the solitude

'and that his cage is
licensed and inspected,

'saying he even has colour TV
and receives enrichment daily

'including walls painted
like a jungle.'

MAN: 'The owner claims that Tommy
is just really happy.

'What do you have to say to that?'

I think that if Tommy is so happy,

I think the owner should move in.

Oh, we're in this one today too?
I think so.

Oh, my God! It's you! There it is.

OK, we'll take three Daily News,
one New York Times.

OK. $5. Thank you.

So, you're trying to argue
that chimps should be...

Legal persons. A legal person?
Yeah, that's right.

It's a tough sell,
but not a bad cause.

What do you guys... What are you
guys here to talk about?

Dirty detective from Brooklyn
framed a lot of people.

Oh, I think I saw, like, a headline.
Yeah, yeah.

But this is far more interesting
than what I'm talking about.

LAUGHTER

So, I suppose just
reasoning this forward

in looking at the corporate
personhood rationale...

It's not just corporations,
it's ships, it's partnerships,

it's counties, it's states,
there are lots of nonhuman persons.

There was a treaty last year

between the Maoris and
the New Zealand government

where they agreed that
a river was a person,

that a Hindu idol is a person.

I guess I would look to
the Supreme Court's basis

for declaring corporate personhood,

since that strikes me as much more
precedential for American purposes

than Hindu idols or
New Zealand rivers, frankly.

And you think this is a better
fight, the legal fight? Yeah.

Because you expect to win it,

or because it creates a really good
set of discussions,

the way Peter Singer does about,
you know... Both.

Both it creates and
we expect to win it.

We don't know that we're going
to win this first round,
but we will win it. Right.

I like it. I like it.

MAN: Four, three...

Here we go.

I've got to tell you, this is
a very interesting case, Steven,

because any time you kind of equate
an animal with personhood,

it raises all sorts of questions.

This country has
a very sordid history

when it comes to animals and humans
and equating one with the other.

Of course, back in the early
days of this country,

you had the three-fifths compromise,

meaning that African-Americans
were three-fifths of a man.

And then, of course, those
equating chimpanzees and apes

and stuff like that hideously
so with black people -

I'd say, "Wait a minute, chimps
are chimps, they are not human."

Obviously, we're not saying...

we're not saying that
a chimpanzee is a human

and we're not equating chimpanzees
with slaves.

What happens is that the legal
pathway we're using,

a writ of habeas corpus,

is one that was traditionally used
in England and in the United States

for slaves to try to challenge
their status as a thing

and move them into the status of a
person. Mm-hm.

So there's a lot of law out there
and kind of a path in front of us

for how we might be able to do
that for someone like Tommy.

So we're saying
when we say Tommy's a person,

we simply mean that Tommy has the
capacity to have a legal right. OK.

Well, I think you've clarified that.

We certainly wish Tommy and
other animals like him well.

Steven Wise, thank you
so much for joining us.

Thank you very much for having me.

Justice is heavy.

This week in the state of New York,
we filed the first two cases

on behalf of chimpanzees

who were living by themselves
and privately owned.

And today we're filing a lawsuit
against Stony Brook,

which is a university here
on Long Island,

which is imprisoning two chimpanzees

that they're using for biomedical
research on locomotion.

If you had a message for Stony Brook
now, what would that be?

Free the chimpanzees.
LAUGHTER

Free the Stony Brook two.

GAIL CLEARS HER THROAT

The outcome was that he denied
signing the petition.

He was not going to take the step of
granting personhood to a chimpanzee.

It was the personhood issue.

I was really expecting to see
the judge. Well, you know, me too.

I was, like, raring to go. I know.

I haven't heard a peep from
the folks in Louisiana.

I always forget their names. New
Iberia? New Iberia, yeah. Uh-huh.

That's funny. Did you expect
to hear something?

Well, they claim that they own
the chimpanzees at Stony Brook. Yes.

New Iberia confirmed they own them.

They probably want
to keep this so quiet.

I'm not at all surprised that
they haven't surfaced. Yeah.

'Well, Jane, the Humane Society
has spent nine months undercover

'at the New Iberia Research Center
in Louisiana,

'one of the largest primate
research labs in the country,

'and she witnessed physical abuse
of primates, monkeys being hit,

'but what was perhaps the worst

'was seeing animals driven
to self-mutilation.

'The psychological abuse that
these animals go through,

'being in isolation in small cages,
many of them

'are tearing at their skin and
their flesh with their hands.

'They had gaping wounds
in their arms and legs

'and it was just terrible to see
them literally driven mad.'

WILD SCREECHING

MAN: 'Mr Wise, your group

'has now lost its first three
lower court rulings -

'what are your chances
going forward?

'I'm not going to
pretend that we thought

'that we were going to win at any
of the trial courts - we did not.

'And if we won at this level,

'it would mean a lot to that single
chimpanzee, but it would destroy

'our chance of being able to
get it up to appellant court.

'And the reason that we want the
decision up at an appellant court

'is that at that point it
sets a state-wide precedent.

'And that's why we want
the high court of a state

'to make the decision
in our favour.'

'So have you already begun
the appeals process?'

'The appeals we're already starting.

'The brief writing is going
to go through the spring.

'and then we get on some kind
of an oral-argument schedule,

'and up it goes.'

WOMAN: 'A New York appeals court
is hearing a legal effort

'to have chimpanzees
declared as persons.

'Attorney Steven Wise
will argue Wednesday

'on behalf of a chimpanzee
named Tommy.

'His group is also seeking

'the release of three
other chimps in New York.'

Oh, boy! Yes. I am so nervous.

This has been, you know, seven
years' worth of work. Yeah.

And it's... You know, everything
rests on these ten minutes.

I still think that one of the
arguments is going to be welfare
versus rights. Hmm.

Why is this not a welfare case
if you're claiming

that Tommy is not being
properly cared for? Yeah.

And you have to go back to -

"That's not what
we're talking about.

"We're not talking about..."

I can't get suckered into
anything other than -

this is the detention
of an autonomous being,

we're not talking about how
he's being treated. Exactly. Yep.

One thing is with your
private animal law cases,

sometimes you get confused
whether it's a cat or dog.

Just remember that
Tommy's a chimpanzee.

I should... I'll probably remember.

HE LAUGHS

ALL LAUGH

Steve, how're you doing?
How am I doing?

Oh, I'm just pondering stuff I've
been thinking about for 30 years.

HE LAUGHS

First case is "Matter of Nonhuman
Rights Project versus Lavery."

Mr Wise, I believe you're arguing.
Thank you, Your Honour.

May it please the court.
My name is Steven Wise

and I first want to thank you
for the privilege of appearing
on behalf of Tommy,

who is a chimpanzee who is being
kept in a cage in a warehouse in
a town called Johnstown, New York.

Counsel, you want us to grant...

Well, you wanted Judge Sise, but now
you want us... Yes, Your Honour.

..to grant him immediate release
from illegal detention.

Is that correct? Yes, Your Honour.

Tommy in this circumstance is indeed
a person who is entitled...

You assert he is a person -
we haven't decided that.
Yes, Your Honour.

We do assert, that is our position,

that he is indeed a person
and he is entitled then

to a common law writ
of habeas corpus.

Now, usually writs of habeas corpus
involve adult human beings. Correct.

But there are many cases
that have involved children.

For example, slave children
in Massachusetts.

But there are no writs of habeas
corpus at least in this state

that have involved nonhumans.
Do you agree with that?

I do agree with that. This is
a novel case in...in that way.

However... Even you in your brief,

when you talk about
individual rights,

you talk about the fact that along
with those individual rights
come responsibilities.

And you don't want us to foist
any responsibilities upon
this chimpanzee,

you just want us to determine that
he has the opportunity to be
free of this confinement.

The better way to view
Tommy would be...

similar to a human child
who has...who has rights,

you can't put a little child
in a cage,

but doesn't have correlative
responsibilities.

Mr Wise, if I may? Yes, Your Honour.

Corporations have been
treated as legal persons

in a different context.

Citizens United, for example,
is one case.

Can you give any example anywhere
where, in a habeas corpus context,

the word "person" has been
attributed to a nonhuman being?

A person is not synonymous
with a human being.

A person means it's someone that
the civil law now says counts,

they're no longer invisible
to the civil law.

So we cited other
common law countries.

An Indian court finds

that the holy books of
the Sikh religion are persons.

And, in 2012, there was a treaty

between the indigenous peoples
of New Zealand and the Crown

that designated a river
as a legal person.

So a legal person
is a legal concept,

it is not a biological concept,

which was the teaching of
the Court of Appeals in Bern.

We know that from your brief.

Did you ask the owners whether
they would just agree to allow you

to take custody of Tommy
and place him in the preserve?

And if preserve's the wrong word,
I apologise. Repeatedly.

We even said that we
would drop this case

if the respondent agreed
to move him to a sanctuary.

And only when we learned
he didn't do that

and he was going to move him to
someplace that was just about as bad
as where he is now,

then we started the preliminary
injunction which this court allowed.

So, can we safely assume that
the role of this proceeding

is to promote the wellbeing
of the chimpanzee? No.

There's only one goal
for the proceeding,

cos it's a common law
habeas corpus proceeding

to discharge the chimpanzee
if it's not unlawful.

So are you saying that
you're not interested

in promoting the
chimpanzee's wellbeing?

That is not the purpose of our suit.

Well, then maybe then the key here
is a legislative lobbying activity

to ensure that the
statutes are changed.

That is one option,

but the courts and the legislatures
are co-equal branches here.

Yes, we're well aware of that.
I'm sure you are.

This...this reminds me, for example,

of the arguments
that were brought up

in the famous
Somerset versus Stewart case,

which is part of
New York common law,

where a slave was made free

and Lord Mansfield understood
that he had a judicial duty,

as this court does have a judicial
duty to change the common law.

I have to tell you,
I keep having a difficult time

with your using slavery as
an analogy to this situation.

I just have to tell you that.
Let me suggest this -

that by referring to human slavery,

we are in no way comparing Tommy
to any... I understand.

But my suggestion is you move
in a different direction

for the next two minutes. OK.

The abilities of
self-determination and autonomy

are supreme values
within the common law.

And these are also the same values

that the writ of habeas corpus
was constructed over
the centuries to protect.

And we ask this court to not
necessarily find that Tommy
is a person,

but assuming, as Lord Mansfield did,

without deciding that
Tommy could be a person,

remanding to the court with an order
to show cause and then proceed
in accordance with Article 70.

Thank you, Counsel.
Thank you, Your Honours.

APPLAUSE

We were exceedingly happy with
the way the oral argument went.

We thought the judges had
clearly read the brief,

were familiar with our record.

They asked really intelligent,
probing questions.

WOMAN: You compared Tommy's
condition to slavery -

tell me why that is. Well,
Tommy is a legal thing right now.

And while the courts
sometimes don't like us

to compare the thinghood of Tommy
with the thinghood of a human slave,

we apologise and say
the only reason we do that

is because Tommy has
a right to get out

of being held for his entire life
in solitary confinement in a cage.

Chimpanzees should have
the sort of rights

that go along with the sort
of being that they are.

They clearly are never going
to be able to vote,

they're never going
to be able to marry.

I think a rule of thumb would be,

the sort of rights that, say,
a human five-year-old should have.

Where do you draw the line?

Could you ever imagine a day
when it's regarded as illegal

to kill and eat a cow, for example,

because that cow is
a sentient animal?

I can imagine almost anything,

but I don't know whether that day
will come and if so, you know, when.

It'll be probably my
great-great-great grandchildren.

Do you regard yourself as making
step number one towards that?

We are intentionally
making it step one.

Please welcome Steven Wise!

CHEERING

This case is just the beginning.

Then my dog can sue
to get on my couch.

LAUGHTER

I didn't say your dog,
I said your chimpanzee.

What do you have against my dog?
LAUGHTER

I'll give you my card,
you give the card to your dog.

LAUGHTER

Listen, if Tommy wants
to have rights...

CHEERING

If Tommy wants to have
rights as a person,

he should form his own corporation.
LAUGHTER

CHEERING
Thank you so much.

What time is it now?
10:23. Oh, boy!

HE HUMS

I...I still think that the fact
that it has taken them eight weeks -

correct? - this is eight weeks?

It's a long time. They have to come
up with something better than, "This
is something for the legislature."

Mm-hm. I think that they are going
to have a discussion of personhood.

I really do. I hope so.

I think they will.

Oh, here we go. Is it there?
Yep, it's here. Ahh! OK.

Let's go. I'm shaking.
I'm, like, actually shaking.

"The subject of this litigation
is a chimpanzee known as Tommy

"that is presently being kept

"in the city of Gloversville,
Fulton County.

"This appeal presents
the novel question

"of whether a chimpanzee is a person
entitled to the rights

"and protections afforded by
the writ of habeas corpus." OK.

"Needless to say,
unlike human beings,

"chimpanzees cannot
bear any legal duties,

"submit to societal responsibilities

"or be held legally accountable
for their actions.

"In our view, it is this
incapability to bear any legal
responsibilities

"and societal duties that renders it
inappropriate to confer upon
chimpanzees the legal rights..."

Oh! I never thought

that their decision would rest
on duties. Reciprocal... Never!

Did we talk about this argument?
Yes!

We talked about...
How you can have an incompetent,
you can have a child,

they don't have...there's
no reciprocity of duties
and obligations.

So are they saying that
an infant...? I know.

I'm saying the implications...
Or a handicapped person, or a person
who's insane? I know.

"To be sure, some humans are less
able to bear legal duties or
responsibilities than others.

"These differences do not
alter our analysis,

"as it is undeniable that
collectively human beings possess

"the unique ability to bear
legal responsibility."

Is that it? That's it.

OK.

Wow! So, basically, they're ruling
against Tommy because of his
species. Yeah.

It's a very philosophically
conservative way of saying

because animals can't enter
into contracts especially,

essentially you can make them slaves
for their whole lives.

Right. This is a bad, bad, bad
decision. That's right.

WOMAN: 'In the first case
of its kind,

'a New York appeals court
has rejected

'an animal rights advocate's bid

'to extend legal personhood
to chimpanzees.'

WOMAN: 'Judges in the appeal

'wrote that since chimpanzees
have no legal responsibility
for their actions,

'they can't be granted
the same rights as people.'

MAN: 'Meanwhile,
the Nonhuman Rights Project

'continues its legal challenge
on behalf of Kiko,

'a 26-year-old chimp currently
residing in Niagara Falls, New York.

GAVEL STRIKES

WOMAN: Can I ask you a question?

If Kiko were to be let out of where
Kiko is currently being held,

you're not asking that Kiko
go out in the street,

you're saying that Kiko would still
be confined, but in a sanctuary?

That is correct.

Kiko would go to Save The Chimps,

which is a sanctuary
with islands in a lake.

But he's still going from one
confinement which is bad to another
confinement which is better?

Much, much better. And his autonomy
and his ability to self-determine

will be allowed to flourish in a way
that it's not allowed to flourish
now.

So Kiko's case was
even more interesting.

What happened there is
that the judges decided

that you can't use a writ
of habeas corpus to move

from one place of confinement
to another place

of...not entire freedom.

But we had pointed out to them
that children, apprentices,

people with mental disorders,

there were a dozen or more cases

in the state of New York where,
subject to writs of habeas corpus,

they weren't just thrown out
on the street -

they were put under
the protection of an adult.

In other words, we didn't lose
because Kiko was a chimpanzee -

their holding also
applies to human beings.

So while we're trying to expand
the writ of habeas corpus
to chimpanzees,

the court responds by cutting
it back for humans.

That was not what
we were trying to do.

These decisions so far,
we think that both of them

were legally wrong and are kind
of obviously legally wrong.

They truly don't yet grasp
what we're trying to do.

And clearly there's no agreed-upon
reason why we should lose.

But what we're concerned about
is that these judges

were either consciously
or unconsciously thinking,

"If they're not human, they're
not going to have rights."

And so what they've done

is they've tried to find some
other reason for us to lose.

That's a frightening thing
for an advocate to feel,

that you're up against someone who
either consciously or unconsciously

believes that there's nothing I can
tell them that's ever going to cause
them to rule in my favour.

DOG BARKS

Let me see.

TV PLAYS

WOMAN: 'Oh, this is the part
where he's going off to school.

'Koko's turning her back.
This is a sad scene.

'And they all kiss him
and kiss him goodbye.

'Oh, honey, it's sad.
I know it's a sad scene.

'Oh, hon, they're crying.
They are crying on the movie.

'Oh, honey. And there's trouble.
Sad trouble. Bad.

'Oh, sweetie, with the mother, yes.
The sweet mother.

'The one who adopted him.

'Well, I know, it's sad.'

'These animals,
they are extraordinary.

'And I feel a moral responsibility
to try to allow them

'to live their lives
the way I live my life.

'And so we just refiled
Hercules and Leo,

'because one of the beauties
of writs of habeas corpus

'is that because they're protecting
fundamental bodily liberty,

'they allow you to file again
and again and again.

'And so now we're looking for judges

'who are willing to all of
a sudden see our plaintiff
in a different light.

'And we think that
they're out there.'

MAN: 'For the first time in history,

'a judge has recognised animals
as legal persons.

'New York Supreme Court Justice
Barbara Jaffe

'decreed two chimpanzees
held in a research lab

'at Stony Brook University are
covered by a writ of habeas corpus.'

WOMAN: 'The Nonhuman Rights Project

'has been granted a writ
of habeas corpus

'requiring the State University
of New York

'to defend its right to keep
the primates Hercules and Leo.'

'The lawsuit was originally
filed back in 2013,

'but was quickly thrown out.

'The group has been
appealing ever since

'and their tireless efforts
seem to have paid off.

'The animal rights group
said by granting the writ,

'the judge implicitly
acknowledges apes are persons.

'Clearly, she's hoping to receive
preferential treatment

'when they take over.'

It's a mad house!

'A few hours ago,
I opened up my e-mail

'and it said Judge Jaffe in
the Supreme Court in Manhattan

'did issue the writ
of habeas corpus.

'And the first..'
HE LAUGHS

'The first thing I did is try
to remember what date it was

'in case it was April Fools' Day.

'I thought that maybe Liddy was
tormenting me

'by sending me a fake e-mail.

'And even then I didn't believe her
until she sent me the actual order.

'So I said, "OK, I believe you,
it happen."

'And I started...
Actually, I started crying.

'And then I said, "OK, I'll let
myself cry for 20 seconds

'"and now we've got
a lot of work to do."'

It's amazing.

More on Hercules and Leo.
It's crazy.

The New York Supreme Court Justice

ordered a Stony Brook University
representative to appear in court

in May to respond to the petition.

Stony Brook told us,

"Stony Brook University is unable to
comment on the referenced lawsuit."

Stony Brook is
freaking out for sure.

OK, now, let's see.

This could be a problem.

So, Steve, I got an e-mail
from the judge

saying that we put out something

in OUR press statement
that was misleading.

What do you think that was?

The recognition of personhood

because we probably should
have said "may be persons".

OK. So, how are we going to do this?
What are we going to say, then?

Because if the judge is peeved
at all, we don't want to upset her.

Absolutely.

And this is why we're saying,
does she really know what

she has done here?
Obviously she didn't.

Yesterday afternoon, Liddy got an
e-mail claiming that the judge,

on reconsideration,

hadn't intended to treat
Hercules and Leo as persons.

So what the judge had done was
simply strike out the words

"and writ of habeas corpus"
from the original order

to show cause
and writ of habeas corpus.

But from a legal point of view,
there was no difference.

All the Nonhuman Rights Project
wants is Stony Brook

to come into court and defend their
imprisonment of Hercules and Leo.

Are you there, Liddy? I'm here.

OK, I'm checking it now. OK.

How about their argument that Lavery

is binding upon them
in New York County?

I didn't get to that. What page?
That's on page 13.

Let me take a look at the cases
that they've cited here.

"Trial courts within this department
must follow the determination

"of the Appellate Division..."

OK, that's of concern.

That would mean
we would lose on Wednesday

because Judge Jaffe is going to feel
bound to rule against us

simply based on what the Tommy court
and the Kiko court did.

That's going to be tough
to get around.

Whoa!

It's the 50lbs of files.

What we've been expecting
is that the Attorney General's

going to be trying to throw up
procedural obstacles,

roadblocks so that we never actually
get to the issue of personhood.

But I think the
Attorney General will be

confronted with an opponent who is
very much more prepared than he is.

Good morning and welcome.

We are here for oral argument
by the lawyers in this case

and only they have
permission to speak.

I thus sign the order
in anticipation of hearing

both sides address the procedural
and substantive issues raised.

First, I want to bring to
the attention of the court

that my brother was...

In Massachusetts, we call the other
lawyer "brother" and "sister"

and sometimes judges don't know
what I'm talking about,

so if it's all right, I'll just
refer to him as "my brother".

Hearing no objection?

No, ma'am, I do not object. OK.

I've never had a brother.

So, without the Appellate Division
decisions, Mr Wise...

Yes, we do have something
to say about that.

Yes, I think you have to address it.

Aren't I bound?

My brother argues that
the Lavery and Presti cases

are binding upon this court.

Now, the State versus Moore case

states that an appellate
determination

is binding only if it involves

"settled principles of law
and legal issues".

But the case is indeed ongoing

and we believe that
it is reasonably likely

that the Court of Appeals
will indeed

take further review
of the Lavery case.

Thank you. We'll turn now to the
issue of personhood. Mr Coulston.

Your Honour, there is
simply no precedent

ANYWHERE of a nonhuman animal

receiving the kinds of rights
they're talking about.

The exceptions that do exist,

to legal personhood being assigned
to something that's not human,

in every instance
that they've cited,

it's something that in some way
relates to human interests,

whether it's a corporation, whether
a ship is treated as a legal person.

We think that really
is the principle

that's governing the assignment
of legal personhood.

We think that's what
the Lavery court said

and we think that's the law,
Your Honour,

and we don't know of any
exceptions otherwise

and the petitioner hasn't cited any.

OK, thank you. Mr Wise?

Your Honour, to say
that no nonhuman animal

has ever been the recipient of
a writ of habeas corpus, well,

until the Nonhuman Rights Project
had begun filing these suits,

no-one had ever asked and the entire
hearing has to be looked at

in the context of extraordinary
purpose of a writ of habeas corpus.

It is the most important writ
in the arsenal of writs

that are in
the Anglo-Saxon heritage.

It's not called the Great Writ -
capital G, capital W - for nothing

and the very purpose is to protect
self-determining beings.

But science has shown us
over the last 50 years,

especially over the last 20,

that there are more autonomous
beings in this world

than just human beings.

Chimpanzees are not governed
by instinct.

They are self-conscious,
they have a theory of mind,

they can understand what
others are thinking.

They understand that they
are individuals,

that their lives mean
something to them,

which is one of the reasons
why imprisoning a chimpanzee

is at least as bad
and maybe even worse

than imprisoning a human being

because chimpanzees
who are in prison

and essentially being exploited
by Stony Brook now,

that they are...

They don't even know
why they're there.

These are the sort of things

that we would only do to our worst
criminals amongst us

and one thing I want to make clear
is that our argument is limited,

extremely limited, to the
argument that Hercules and Leo,

these chimpanzees,
should be persons

solely for the purpose of
a common law writ of habeas corpus.

Thank you.

Understanding what Mr Wise
refers to as the Great Writ

and what it means to us

and I think another judge
of this court many years ago

referred to it as a
"powerful and broad tool

"subject to expansive
interpretation"

and our understanding
that the law evolves

according to scientific discovery,
social mores -

witness marital rights -

isn't it incumbent upon
the judiciary to at least consider

whether a class of beings
may be granted a right

or something short of a right
under the habeas statute,

some kind of special status?

Thus why can't a chimpanzee, by
virtue of the traits documented

in petitioner's exhibits, be deemed
a person for the sole purposes

Mr Wise says of permitting the writ
to the very limited extent sought?

Why isn't that an appropriate
use of this Great Writ?

Your Honour, what has been
diminished all along

in this proceeding is how different
it is, what they're actually trying

to do, how the similarities
that they paint -

you can talk about 99% of DNA

and other aspects that
create similarities -

but the reality is that these
are fundamentally different species.

I worry about the diminishment
of these rights in some way

if we expand them
beyond human beings.

I also think courts are just simply
not going to be equipped

to determine where this new line
is going to be

for these vague categories

that, yes, they've given them some
scientific heft,

but autonomy and self-determining?

This just becomes
a question of where are we going.

You absolutely are opening
the possible floodgates

and it is a Great Writ, but it's
been a Great Writ for human beings.

I think it should stay there

and I think the ramifications
are ones

that we can't always foresee
and could have a dramatic effect

not only on our understanding of
how important these rights are

to human beings,
but in applications that could

affect our society
in a negative way.

Thank you.

VOICES CLAMOUR

Mr Wise, how did it go?

If you define a good hearing
as one in which

the judge asks a lot of questions
and is clearly giving both sides

a fair and comprehensive listen,
I thought it went great.

What happens now?

I believe the judge is going to
take it under advisement

and, sometime in the next month
or two, we should have a decision.

Steven, quick question.

How significant is the fact that
this hearing today even took place?

It is highly significant

because a writ of habeas corpus
hearing for a nonhuman animal

is being held in the same way
it would be for a human being,

so we are now being treated

like all the other autonomous
beings of this world.

So, is this a partial victory?

It's a partial victory
just standing here, yes. Yes.

CHEERING AND APPLAUSE

Is this a race down
to see who gets down first?

'Judges are kind of
a conservative bunch,

'they don't want to get too far
ahead of the rest of society,

'but these judges don't quite
realise how much society has moved.'

The boundary between human
and animal intelligence

is much narrower than we thought.

Scientists who study them

say there is a lot more
happening there than just play,

that their intelligence
actually rivals ours.

Elephants are certainly

one of the most intelligent species
in the animal kingdom.

The more we learn about
elephant cognition,

the more we learn about
the evolution of behaviour

and intelligence in general.

Wow, this is a hell of a story!

A recent poll finds one third
of Americans thinks animals

should have the same rights
as people. Interesting.

Across all demographic groups,

an increasing fraction of people
support equal rights for animals.

Wow. They say if we can do it for
corporations,

then there's no reason why,
essentially,

a living being couldn't be
considered a person. Oh, really?

Oh, my God! When we weren't looking,
we moved into the mainstream!

Holy smokes!
THEY LAUGH

'We are on the cusp of a tide.

'People are really interested
in what we have to say

'and I think we've had
a huge success already,

'in kind of elevating the idea

'that you can bring
a court case like this

'and do it in a really serious way.

'It's not being treated
as something strange or a weird,

'it's being treated
as a regular court case.'

And the Nonhuman Rights Project

has begun to work with legal groups
around the world -

in Australia, in England,
in France, in Argentina -

trying to get them to do
similar things in their countries,

because these same tides
of liberty, freedom and equality

are rolling through those countries,

just like they're
rolling through ours

and they have been for centuries.

A female orang-utan

incarcerated in an Argentinian zoo
for more than 20 years

has been granted some legal
rights enjoyed by humans.

The case rested on
whether the court decided

the orang-utan
was a person or a thing.

This isn't a static issue.

We view our lawsuits as really
a dialogue between us and the judges

and we think that there is going to
be an evolution of that dialogue.

In fact, there already has been.

Winston Churchill
gave a speech in 1942,

telling the English people
it's not the end

and it's not even
the beginning of the end,

but it is the end of the beginning.

And that's what I tell people
our suits are about -

the end of the beginning.

CAGE DOOR CREAKS

HUBBUB OF VOICES
AND FAIRGROUND MUSIC

# I see my life come shining

# From the west down to the east

# Any day now, any day now

# I shall be released. #