Does Anti-Slavery Law Apply to Whales in Sea World? PETA Thinks So
It was a landmark day in the U.S. District Court in San Diego Monday. For the first time ever, a federal court is considering whether or not the 13th Amendment, which prohibits slavery, applies to five orcas—Tilikum, Katina, Kasatka, Ulises and Corky—who are now incarcerated at SeaWorld amusement parks. PETA, three marine-mammal experts, and two former SeaWorld trainers filed the suit in the orcas' behalf in October. SeaWorld filed a motion to dismiss the case—but that didn't happen today. Instead, Judge Jeffrey Miller said he will consider the case and will issue a ruling at a later date.
For a full hour, Judge Miller asked thoughtful questions of both sides and listened as Jeff Kerr, general counsel to PETA, spoke in behalf of the orca plaintiffs.
"It's a new frontier in civil rights," Kerr said in his summary of the case. Slavery does not depend on the species of the slave any more than it depends on race, gender, or ethnicity, he argued. "Coercion, degradation, and subjugation characterize slavery, and these orcas have endured all three."
We couldn't agree more.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Sign-Up Now for the Opposing Views Daily Newsletter
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
If for some reason this goes through, I want the killer whale that killed its trainer to be arrested on murder charges...
Holding a whale at SeaWorld for commercial profit is highly questionable, certainly.
But..."slavery' being applicable to non-human animals?...
Well, if so, then, consistently, shouldn't other US laws involving protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness apply as well? If "slavery" applies to non-human animals, then, shouldn't an non-human animal be liable for violations of laws involving, for examples, assault, assault-and-battery, manslaughter, murder, vandalism, trespassing, disturbance of the peace, robbery, destruction of property, and littering? Laws involving public indecency or obscenity? Shouldn't a guilty animal consequently have to be, for example, incarcerated for however long the law warrants if convicted of assault?
If the Thirteenth Amendment applies to non-human animals, then doesn't the Sixteenth Amendment involving tax laws apply to them similarly?
Heheh...for relevant instance,
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/animal-rights/video-dog-bites-news-anchor-kyle-dyer-live-tv
Sure, the anchor was probably foolish sticking her face close to a strange dog. However, if she'd done that to a human and the human bit her, the human who bit would be subject to criminal charges. If laws protecting humans apply to non-human animals, then, conversely, shouldn't the dog who assaulted this human be subject to criminal charges in this scenario?
Right! If I jump on someone's back and start humping away I get sent to jail but dogs always get let off on those charges. When I walk around naked I get in trouble but dogs get to do it all the time. Don't even ask what happened last time I took a dump on the sidewalk.
Also, why don't I get to write off my dog as a dependent?
You have hit the nail on the head with the absurdity of this approach by PETA.
Who among you is a marine biologist and not one paid for by Sea World. Whales don't live in a tank. To live is to experience enjoyment of life, not merely a minimal reduction in suffering at the foul hands of Sea World where abuse runs rampant. Whales live with their families in the wilderness. Over a lifetime they experience a connection to their pod and environment that can only come from freedom to explore all the wonders of the ocean on their own terms.
Nature doesn't compromise. Whales in tanks are miserable and are no longer whales. They're things to coerce as Sea World sees fit, aquatic clowns in a show that insults their great intelligence.
Whales live only when they live free.
I think that more people today would agree with your statement than ever would have considered the impact to whales in this way when the park was created. The problem is the economic engine that has built up around this type of exhibit. This court case is unlikely to be successful.
I think a more successful strategy would be a legislative moratorium on new animals and any breeding of existing animals, allowing the current generation of captives to die off without being replaced. Any sort of "stop it right now" approach is not likely to move forward.
I am sure no one here posting is a marine biologist. However, I think the issue is equating whales with people. Rights come with responsibilities that whales cannot fulfill. However, that doesn't excuse their captivity either.
Ditto, ditto, and ditto.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Smeh7tpl4Kc&feature=related
Hell yes I EAT animals. I hunt deer. It's legal. It's tasty. I want a whaleburger while I watch Shamu jump hoops at Sea World. HAHAHAHA!