Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists (BBC News 21 II 2012)

Dolphins should be treated as non-human "persons", with their rights to life and liberty respected, scientists meeting in Canada have been told.

Experts in philosophy, conservation and animal behaviour want support for a Declaration of Rights for Cetaceans.

They believe dolphins and whales are sufficiently intelligent to justify the same ethical considerations as humans.

Recognising their rights would mean an end to whaling and their captivity, or their use in entertainment.

 The move was made at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Vancouver, Canada, the world's biggest science conference.

It is based on years of research that has shown dolphins and whales have large, complex brains and a human-like level of self-awareness.

This has led the experts to conclude that although non-human, dolphins and whales are "people" in a philosophical sense, which has far-reaching implications.

'Self-aware'

Ethics expert Prof Tom White, from Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, author of In Defence of Dolphins: The New Moral Frontier, said dolphins were "non-human persons".

"A person needs to be an individual. If individuals count, then the deliberate killing of individuals of this sort is ethically the equivalent of deliberately killing a human being. 

 

• A member of a group of orcas, or killer whales, in Patagonia had a damaged jaw and could not feed. The elderly whale was fed and kept alive by its companions.
• Dolphins taking part in an experiment had to press one of two levers to distinguish between sounds, some of which were very similar. By pressing a third lever, they were able to tell the researchers they wanted to "pass" on a particular test because it was too hard. "When you place dolphins in a situation like that they respond in exactly the same way humans do," said Dr Lori Marino. "They are accessing their own minds and thinking their own thoughts."
• A number of captive dolphins were rewarded with fish in return for tidying up their tank. One of them ripped up a large paper bag, hid away the pieces, and presented them one at a time to get multiple rewards.
• In Iceland, killer whales and fishermen have been known to work together. The whales show the fishermen where to lay their nets, and in return are allowed to feed on part of the catch. Then they lead the fleet to the next fishing ground.
  
  
  "We're saying the science has shown that individuality - consciousness, self-awareness - is no longer a unique human property. That poses all kinds of challenges." 
  The declaration, originally agreed in May 2010, contains the statements "every individual cetacean has the right to life", "no cetacean should be held in captivity or servitude, be subject to cruel treatment, or be removed from their natural environment", and "no cetacean is the property of any state, corporation, human group or individual".

  It adds: "The rights, freedoms and norms set forth in this declaration should be protected under international and domestic law."
  Psychologist Dr Lori Marino, from Emory University in Atlanta, told how scientific advances had changed the view of the cetacean brain.
  She said: "We went from seeing the dolphin/whale brain as being a giant amorphous blob that doesn't carry a lot of intelligence and complexity to not only being an enormous brain but an enormous brain with an enormous amount of complexity, and a complexity that rivals our own."
  Dolphins had a sense of self which could be tested by the way they recognise themselves in mirrors, she added.
  "When you get up in the morning and look in the mirror and know that's you, you have a sense of 'you'," said Dr Marino.
  "They have a similar sense. They can look in a mirror and say, 'Hey, that's me'."
  Πηγή

Lory Marino (biography)

Σαν διδάκτωρ του πανεπιστημίου του Emory, η Lori Marino είναι παγκοσμίως γνωστή από τις μελέτες της για τις νοητικές λειτουργίες και τον εγκέφαλο των κητωδών σε σύγκριση με εκείνον των πρωτευόντων. Έχει δημοσιεύσει μελέτες για την Dolphin Assisted Therapy (δελφινοθεραπεία), για τις σχέσεις ανθρώπων και ζώων, καθώς επίσης και για την ψυχολογική και φιλοσοφική ερμηνεία της εκμετάλλευσής τους από τον άνθρωπο. Μετά την ανακοίνωση των πρώτων συμπερασμάτων της έρευνας για την αυτοσυνειδησία των ρινοδέλφινων και το περίφημο "πείραμα του καθρέφτη", αποκήρυξε κάθε έρευνα με δελφίνια σε συνθήκες αιχμαλωσίας. Η Dr. Marino εργάζεται επίσης σαν επιστημονικός σύμβουλος στο πρόγραμμα Nonhuman Rights Project για τα δικαιώματα των ζώων.

Η οργάνωση The Kimmela Center for Animal Advocacy, Inc., ιδρύθηκε από την ειδική στην επιστήμη της συμπεριφοράς των ζώων, νευροεπιστήμονα Lori Marino, και προσπαθεί να γεφυρώσει το χάσμα που υπάρχει ανάμεσα στην επιστημονική έρευνα και στα δικαιώματα των ζώων.

Συνέντευξη με την Dr. Lori Marino

Steven Weise: The Line that Divides Human from Animal (Βοston Globe 26.V.2002)

STEVEN WISE HAS RECENTLY STUDIED African gray parrots, a pair of Atlantic bottle-nosed dolphins, a group of elephant families, a singing orangutan, a gorilla, and a group of chimpanzees, in some cases even conducting what might loosely be described as interviews with them. Though he would seem to have the inside track on animal brains, he's less interested in whether they can create a compelling dialogue than in the implications of animal cognition and animal liberty. Having introduced the subject of animal rights law in his 2000 book "Rattling the Cage," Needham-based Wise continues his inquiry into basic legal rights for animals with "Drawing the Line: Science and the Case for Animal Rights."

Wise, who became the first person to teach an animal rights course at Harvard University, is a lawyer who defends animals in court. His clients, for the most part, are dogs and other companion animals that are in danger of being euthanized for antisocial behavior. In one case, he tried unsuccessfully to keep the New England Aquarium from giving a dolphin to the Navy. As an advocate for animal rights in court, however, Wise is most passionately concerned with higher primates, elephants, and parrots, and their right to certain basic liberties such as freedom from being caged or held in captivity. His critics range from veterinarians to "those with a vested interest in continuing to exploit nonhuman animals," as he puts it.

In "Drawing the Line," he says, he is advocating the acceptance of a legal status for nonhuman animals that allows them to be treated as something more than property. Although he is against the use of animals for biomedical research, Wise points out that the first steps toward the animal rights he wants to see are modest. "The world would not change if African elephants or large primates are given rights because they are not used in great numbers or have substantial economic value. It could happen without any serious disturbance."

Wise, who runs the Boston-based Center for the Expansion of Fundamental Rights, talked by phone while on book tour in California.

Q. Is it fair to say that the purpose of your book is to use scientific knowledge to establish legal parameters for deciding which animals should have legal rights?

A. Yes. What I'm trying to do is make rational arguments backed up by scientific facts, because scientific facts are persuasive to the lay person and to judges. Many animal rights people are accused of being overly emotional. I've tried to be long on the facts.

Q. Can you talk about what you call "practical autonomy" and what it means for animals?

A. One of the major values and principles in Western law that are sources for legal rights is the idea of liberty. Liberty rights is the right to be entitled because of how [individuals] are put together, what qualities they have, because they are similar to someone who has those rights. The idea of practical autonomy is a liberty right. Anyone who has the ability to desire, to act intentionally, someone who has a sense of self, they would be entitled to basic liberty rights. When you have a right, you are no longer a thing but a person. At least you have the basic right to bodily integrity. You can't torture them, you can't eat them, you can't use them for biomedical research.

Q. You're saying not that all animals deserve these rights, but that certain animals do? You believe that for the majority of animals we don't know enough to make a judgment?

A. I have devised four categories for nonhuman animals. According to this, Category 1 is great apes and bottle-nosed dolphins, who should be entitled to basic liberty rights. Category 3 is most animals. We can't make a rational determination for them. Category 2 is where many animals fall, from honeybees to African gray parrots and dogs. These nonhuman animals are those we know a lot about. They don't have practical autonomy, but they have complex cognitive ability. [Category 4 comprises animals that lack "sufficient autonomy for basic liberty rights."] The question becomes, where do you drive the law? The precautionary principle from environmental law says we just don't know what the consequences of an action are or we haven't begun searching for it. The consequences could be so dire that we have restrictions to prevent it. I argue that the violation of bodily integrity is as serious as you can get.

Q. You're still waiting for a major legal decision that will set a precedent for animal rights law. What do you think it will resemble?

A. This book and "Rattling the Cage" are both aimed at laying the foundation that will end in a legal precedent. Judges are conservative. You can't make these arguments cold. You need to spend years bringing subjects into the legal forum. The first case is more likely to be a chimpanzee held in a biomedical research institute and some sort of lethal experiment is about to be done on her, or held in a small cage in a roadside zoo. Or a dolphin. Great apes are likely to be the first nonhuman animals to get rights.

Q. What would the world look like if certain animals had liberty rights?

A. They could not be eaten or displayed in a zoo or used in biomedical research. You would have to treat them the same way you would treat a child.

Q. You must get a lot of opposition on the subject of animals used in research. What do you say to people who say there is no other safe way to test drugs?

A. My response is that it's completely irrelevant. The way to cure human diseases is to use humans. They wouldn't go down to Beacon Street and snatch 100 people, or if they did, the cure for heart disease would be a lot faster.

Q. You use descriptions of 18th- and 19th-century slavery that talk about African-Americans as animals to demonstrate that very strongly held beliefs can change. Do you think that 100 years from now, we'll look back at this time period and think how barbaric it is that we used animals for experiments, just as we once used other human beings as slaves?

A. I think it will end in my lifetime at least, the slavery for some nonhuman animals, and the paradigm will change. Once the first animals are given the first rights, the question will shift from "Are you a human being?" to "What kind of animal are you?"

It will be a more sophisticated moral inquiry than just arbitrarily drawing the line.
Πηγή

Λίστα δημοσιεύσεων για δικαιώματα δελφινιών

"A Primer on Nonhuman Personhood, Cetacean Rights and 'Flourishing.'"

 

"Humans and Dolphins: An Essay on Anthropocentrism in Applied Environmental Ethics." Journal of Animal Ethics, in press.
       

“Declaration of the Rights for Whales.” The Global Guide to Animal Protection. Edited by Andrew Linzey.  Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press, in press.

 

Review of Denise Herzing's Dolphins Diaries: My 25 Years with Spotted Dolphins in the Bahamas.

 

 “What Is It Like to Be a Dolphin?” Whales and Dolphins: Cognition, Culture, Conservation and Human Perceptions. Edited by Philippa Brakes and Mark Simmonds. London: Earthscan, 2011. Pp. 188-206.

 

“Dolphin People.” The Philosophers’ Magazine. 49: 2nd quarter 2010, 36-43.

 

“Humans, Dolphins and the Socratic Dictum: Vice Harms the Doer.” The Relationship between Animal Abuse and Human Violence. Andrew Linzey, editor. East Sussex: Sussex Academic Press, 2008. Pp. 329-40.

 

"Dolphins and the Question of Personhood." With Denise Herzing. Etica & Animali. Special Issue on Nonhuman Personhood.  9/98, 64-84.

 

REVIEWS AND EVALUATIONS OF IN DEFENSE OF DOLPHINS
         

Review: Journal of Animal Ethics 2 (1): 105-6.

 

The Campaign for the American Reader's "Page 69 test."

Audio/Video: Thomas White, "Is a Dolphin a Person?" New England Aquarium, May 29, 2007. (This requires RealPlayer.)

Thomas White (biography)





Thomas I. White is the Conrad N. Hilton Professor in Business Ethics and Director of the Center for Ethics and Business at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, California.  Professor White received his doctorate in philosophy from Columbia University and taught at Upsala College and Rider University in New Jersey before moving to California in 1994.  His publications include five books (Right and Wrong, Discovering Philosophy, Business Ethics, Men and Women at Work and In Defense of Dolphins) and numerous articles on topics ranging from sixteenth-century Renaissance humanism to business ethics.  His most recent research has focused on the philosophical implications--especially the ethical implications--of the scientific research on dolphins.  His book on this topic (In Defense of Dolphins: The New Moral Frontier [Blackwell Publishing, 2007]) addresses the ethical issues connected with human/dolphin interaction—for example, the deaths and injuries of dolphins in connection with the human fishing industry and the captivity of dolphins in the entertainment industry.  Professor White is a Fellow of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics and a Scientific Advisor to the Wild Dolphin Project, a research organization studying a community of Atlantic spotted dolphins in the Bahamas. He served as U. S. Ambassador to the United Nations' Year of the Dolphin Program in 2007-8. Most recently, he was one of authors of the "Declaration of Rights for Cetaceans: Whales and Dolphins."

*Audio/Video: Interview with Rob Reynolds, "Making the Case for Whale Rights," Aljazeera, June 2010 (3 minutes)

*Audio Interview (with Diana Reiss and Lori Marino), Australian Broadcasting Corporation, January 2010 (30 minutes)

*Audio/Video: "Animal World Interview," January 2010 (13 minutes)

*Audio Interview on In Defense of Dolphins, Sailing Beyond Knowledge Radio, January 2010 (54 minutes)

*Audio/Video: Thomas White, "Is a Dolphin a Person?" New England Aquarium, May 29, 2007. (55 minutes)
(This requires RealPlayer.)

Πηγή
 

Ιn Defence of Dolphins (Thomas White, interview 28.III.2011)

φωτο

Μπορείτε να ακούσετε τη συνέντευξη πατώντας εδώ: μέρος 1ο, μέρος 2ο.

Dr. J. chats with Thomas White about the defense of the rights of non-human persons in general, and dolphins in particular. Professor White teaches ethics at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, California, is author of In Defense of Dolphins: The New Moral Frontier and co-author of the Declaration of Rights for Cetaceans: Whales and Dolphins.

 

 



Steven M. Wise (biography)

Steven M. Wise (born 1952) is an American legal scholar who specializes in animal protection issues, primatology, and animal intelligence. He teaches animal rights law at Harvard Law School, Vermont Law School, John Marshall Law School, Lewis & Clark Law School, and Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine. He is a former president of the Animal Legal Defense Fund, and founder and president of the Center for the Expansion of Fundamental Rights.^[1] The Yale Law Journal has called him "one of the pistons of the animal rights movement."^[2]

Wise is the author of An American Trilogy (2009), in which he tells the story of how a piece of land in Tar Heel, North Carolina, was first the home of Native Americans until they were driven into near-extinction, then a slave plantation, and finally the site of factory hog farms and the world's largest slaughterhouse. Though the Heavens May Fall (2005), recounts the 1772 trial in England of James Somersett, a black man rescued from a ship heading for the West Indies slave markets, which gave impetus to the movement to abolish slavery in Britain and the United States (see Somersett's Case). Drawing the Line (2002), which describes the relative intelligence of animals and human beings. And Rattling the Cage (2000), in which he argues that certain basic legal rights should be extended to chimpanzees and bonobos.^[1]
Πηγή

Kyle Munkittrick: Dolphins as non-human persons (5.I.2010)

Kyle Munkittrick

by Kyle Munkittrick, IEET Program Director: Envisioning the Future, is a recent graduate of New York University, where he received his Master's in bioethics and critical theory.

I have been lucky enough to swim with dolphins twice in my life. Once it was as a “swim with dolphins” experience in Mexico where I was pushed around by the dolphins in an awesome little display of power and warned not to “pet them on the tummy, or they might get horny, and, by extension, violent.” It is a strange thing to be cautious not to arouse a cetacean.

The second time was snorkeling, when a pod of dolphins came out of the deep and decided to investigate my dad and me for a few minutes before getting on their way. In both cases, the dolphins were visibly intelligent. It was like the uncanny valley in reverse – instead of a lifelike body with dead eyes, I was confronted with unsettlingly intelligent eyes within an inhuman body.

Because the environment of humans and dolphins so rarely intersects, it is much harder for us to observe and casually appreciate dolphin intelligence the way we do with chimps and parrots. Furthermore, dolphin faces are not as familiarly emotive. Thus, the news in The Times about a scientific consensus is developing around the rights of dolphins as non-human persons is fantastic. Here comes a huge chunk of the article summarizing all the reasons why:

Dolphins have long been recognised as among the most intelligent of animals but many researchers had placed them below chimps, which some studies have found can reach the intelligence levels of three-year-old children. Recently, however, a series of behavioural studies has suggested that dolphins, especially species such as the bottlenose, could be the brighter of the two. The studies show how dolphins have distinct personalities, a strong sense of self and can think about the future.

It has also become clear that they are “cultural” animals, meaning that new types of behaviour can quickly be picked up by one dolphin from another.

In one study, Diana Reiss, professor of psychology at Hunter College, City University of New York, showed that bottlenose dolphins could recognise themselves in a mirror and use it to inspect various parts of their bodies, an ability that had been thought limited to humans and great apes.

In another, she found that captive animals also had the ability to learn a rudimentary symbol-based language.

Other research has shown dolphins can solve difficult problems, while those living in the wild co-operate in ways that imply complex social structures and a high level of emotional sophistication.

What makes the assertion of dolphin personhood so important is that the first recognition of personhood rights in a non-human, even if limited, will have tremendous, spectacular ripple effects. If we accept dolphins are non-human persons, say, with limited rights akin to that of a human child then here are some logical conclusions one might be able make:

1. Dolphins could have limited sovereignty rights, making the oceans they patrol effectively their territory. The ocean might become a UN protectorate.

2. Dolphins would no longer be in zoos and aquariums. It would be tantamount to imprisonment.

3. Alternatively, state funding for the study of dolphins would skyrocket. To ensure the law is accurate and neither a farce nor insufficient, a very accurate, very clear understanding of dolphin intelligence would be needed.

4. Dolphin deaths would become literal murders and deaths resulting from fishing would become genocide.

Without a near global consensus on the issue, it will be nearly impossible to recognize dolphin personhood. Can you imagine the equivalent of the COP15 dealing with international animal rights?

Πηγή


Steven Weise: Making the Case (Zoe is Our Nature 26.X.2010)

by Steven Weise

Steven Wise isn't banking on the milk of human kindness suddenly flowing from the Miami Seaquarium or Sea World.

As an attorney, professor of law, author and historian, Wise has spent most of his professional life gearing up for the lawsuit he’s preparing to launch on behalf of certain “Class One” animals, who, he argues, satisfy all the generally-accepted definitions that are used in legal cases to define a “person.”

What’s a person?

Being a “person” is not legally the same thing as being a “human.” A person has certain rights and obligations no matter whether you are a human or a nonhuman person. (Courts have even established that corporations qualify as “persons” in certain respects and are entitled to related rights.)

In general, personhood is not defined by the fact that you’re human; it’s defined by your level of consciousness and self-awareness. A “person” has a certain level of individual, self-aware consciousness that entitles them to special treatment. A person cannot be owned by another person, cannot be bought or sold, cannot be treated like a chair or a table. A person has certain legal rights.

When the Founding Fathers wrote that “all men are created equal … with certain unalienable rights,” they were not including all humans – just the ones who, in their terms, qualified as “persons”. There were other humans who, in their consideration, did not have the legal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It took centuries of legislation, war and cultural evolution for our society to accept others of our own kind as persons. And those questions are still the subject of heavy debate: Is an unborn baby a person? i.e. Does he or she have the right to life? What about an adult in a persistent vegetative state?

And what about a non-human with the same level of individual, self-aware consciousness that would qualify a human for certain ethical treatment? What if you can prove that certain non-human animals have a level of consciousness and self-awareness that meets – or, indeed, exceeds – the average human?

Across the country, a team of legal beagles, working with Steven Wise, is preparing to bring the first formal litigation that would lead to a high court in one of the 50 states declaring that a non-human should be accorded certain carefully defined rights.

 

One small precedent for a single animal – one huge step for all animal-kind!



Right now, as part of the meticulous research that’s going into The Non-Human Rights Project, Steven Wise’s team is determining who that one non-human captive animal will be. It may be a great ape; it may be a whale or dolphin. And it could very well be Lolita, the 40-year-old orca who has spent her life in captivity, entertaining humans at the Miami Seaquarium.

 

Here’s some of what the legal team is currently doing:

*Their legal group is sifting through tens of thousands of pages of case law.

*Their sociological group is looking at everything that’s understood about how judges make decisions. “We have people who have PhD’s in psychology, sociology, political science working on that.”

*Their “super-crunchers working group” is developing algorithms that will help them better understand how judges are ruling on cases, what factors are taken into consideration – “perhaps even better than they understand it themselves.”

*And since they can only file suit in a state where a great ape or dolphin is being held in captivity, they’re ranking the various possible states to determine where they have the best chance.

“Right now,” says Wise, “we have 26 researchers scattered around the United States and we’re hoping to file that suit probably in 2011.”
Wise’s preparation has been meticulous. The research he’s been doing for 20 years has led to several books, the last of which, Drawing the Line, sets out the case that “Class One” animals, who include dolphins, whales and chimpanzees – all of whom share certain characteristics of “personhood” – have the right to a certain level of legal protection.
“When it comes to Class One animals,” he explains, “you need to stop violating their bodily integrity and bodily liberty immediately. The evidence is really overwhelming that they are the kind of creatures we would recognize should not be treated in this manner. And they should be legal persons, at least to some extent.”
Wise is against all cruelty to animals, but he’s not just promoting legislation against cruelty to animals; the case he’s putting together will be a precedent-setting lawsuit, carefully framed around the personhood of one particular animal – quite possibly Lolita.
Read our interview with Steven Wise where he explains how his case is being put together.
And here’s a fuller explanation of “personhood” by business ethics professor Tom White, author of In Defense of Dolphins.

Πηγή



Jonathan Leake: Scientists say dolphins should be treated as 'non-human persons' (The Sunday Times 3.I.2010)

by Jonathan Leake

Dolphins have been declared the world’s second most intelligent creatures after humans, with scientists suggesting they are so bright that they should be treated as “non-human persons”.

Studies into dolphin behaviour have highlighted how similar their communications are to those of humans and that they are brighter than chimpanzees. These have been backed up by anatomical research showing that dolphin brains have many key features associated with high intelligence.

The researchers argue that their work shows it is morally unacceptable to keep such intelligent animals in amusement parks or to kill them for food or by accident when fishing. Some 300,000 whales, dolphins and porpoises die in this way each year.

“Many dolphin brains are larger than our own and second in mass only to the human brain when corrected for body size,” said Lori Marino, a zoologist at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, who has used magnetic resonance imaging scans to map the brains of dolphin species and compare them with those of primates.

“The neuroanatomy suggests psychological continuity between humans and dolphins and has profound implications for the ethics of human-dolphin interactions,” she added.

Dolphins have long been recognised as among the most intelligent of animals but many researchers had placed them below chimps, which some studies have found can reach the intelligence levels of three-year-old children. Recently, however, a series of behavioural studies has suggested that dolphins, especially species such as the bottlenose, could be the brighter of the two. The studies show how dolphins have distinct personalities, a strong sense of self and can think about the future.

It has also become clear that they are “cultural” animals, meaning that new types of behaviour can quickly be picked up by one dolphin from another.

In one study, Diana Reiss, professor of psychology at Hunter College, City University of New York, showed that bottlenose dolphins could recognise themselves in a mirror and use it to inspect various parts of their bodies, an ability that had been thought limited to humans and great apes.

In another, she found that captive animals also had the ability to learn a rudimentary symbol-based language.

Other research has shown dolphins can solve difficult problems, while those living in the wild co-operate in ways that imply complex social structures and a high level of emotional sophistication.

In one recent case, a dolphin rescued from the wild was taught to tail-walk while recuperating for three weeks in a dolphinarium in Australia.

After she was released, scientists were astonished to see the trick spreading among wild dolphins who had learnt it from the former captive.

There are many similar examples, such as the way dolphins living off Western Australia learnt to hold sponges over their snouts to protect themselves when searching for spiny fish on the ocean floor.

Such observations, along with others showing, for example, how dolphins could co-operate with military precision to round up shoals of fish to eat, have prompted questions about the brain structures that must underlie them.

Size is only one factor. Researchers have found that brain size varies hugely from around 7oz for smaller cetacean species such as the Ganges River dolphin to more than 19lb for sperm whales, whose brains are the largest on the planet. Human brains, by contrast, range from 2lb-4lb, while a chimp’s brain is about 12oz.

When it comes to intelligence, however, brain size is less important than its size relative to the body.

What Marino and her colleagues found was that the cerebral cortex and neocortex of bottlenose dolphins were so large that “the anatomical ratios that assess cognitive capacity place it second only to the human brain”. They also found that the brain cortex of dolphins such as the bottlenose had the same convoluted folds that are strongly linked with human intelligence.

Such folds increase the volume of the cortex and the ability of brain cells to interconnect with each other. “Despite evolving along a different neuroanatomical trajectory to humans, cetacean brains have several features that are correlated with complex intelligence,” Marino said.

Marino and Reiss will present their findings at a conference in San Diego, California, next month, concluding that the new evidence about dolphin intelligence makes it morally repugnant to mistreat them.

Thomas White, professor of ethics at Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, who has written a series of academic studies suggesting dolphins should have rights, will speak at the same conference.

“The scientific research . . . suggests that dolphins are ‘non-human persons’ who qualify for moral standing as individuals,” he said.
Πηγή

 

A. Neilson: The Brilliance of The Loving Dolphins-The 'Non-human People' of the Waters (8.XI.2011)

Summary: Dolphins are so brilliant that human beings are just finally evolving enough to realize that, albeit almost too late. Myself & many others, believe that Dolphins should be a Protected Species with protected rights to Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness! :D There should be International Laws against murdering Cetaceans!

by A. Neilson

Full Article: The Brilliance of The Loving Dolphins-The 'Non-human People' of the Waters

  Dolphins deserve to be alive and free! Yay! This is what i have been pulling for & made a resolution for, that there should be International Laws to protect Dolphins from murder and slaughters! These are highly intelligent sea-mammals (and/or River mammals ect) who have their own strong family bonds and pods (tribes) and their own culture.!!! :D Dolphins are NOT fish, they are marine-mammals. You may at first think it strange that some scientists and others have called the Dolphins, Non-human persons, but hear us out. Dolphins are brilliant and they are friends to humans, not enemies. And is it not even stranger that those who slaughter Dolphins would prefer to be called 'fishermen ', when Dolphins are NOT fish?!!! Let me translate that, so there is no misunderstanding: ‎"Dolphins are not fish, they are mammals" イルカは魚ではありません。イルカは哺乳類です . Besides, Dolphin meat is mercury laden and it is like poisoning someone to offer their meat as food and there is also no other excuse to senselessly kill them either.

That's right! Humans who slaughter Dolphins are not rightfully called just  'fishermen' though they are in fact dolphin-killers and considering further that due to some of those Dolphins killed along with other precious cetaceans, some of whom are endangered or threatened species, could certainly warrant the killers even being called poachers.( And besides Dolphins can not rightfully belong to them for the picking and killing.) Though there may some human claims to which territory of water is included with their land, this should only be to protect Dolphins and not to claim right to capture and kill them if they pass through the waters that country considers their territory, for pete sakes!   

     Dolphins are highly intelligent free agents, living in their own home, whether in seas or rivers. When we surf or play in the ocean, we are just visitors in the Dolphins home. That the Dolphins may be friendly to us when we visit their home in the Ocean, does not give any human the right to murder them. We should respect the Dolphins home that we are visiting and not reward their loving nature, with cruel murder instead. I am thankful for those who are with us in wanting Dolphins to be protected from slaughter, such as the many conservationists and activists willing to travel the world to defend Dolphins! 

     Is culture an excuse to kill Dolphins? Many people believe it is the closest to canabilism a human can come, to even try to eat a Dolphin! But what about the Dolphin's culture? Dolphins do not deserve to see their families slaughtered to begin with! They are bright, playful and love each other and have close bonds and will sometimes die because they do not want to abandon each other when they see their loved one is in danger or even wounded to death. It is very horrible to watch, knowing how great their love and comprehension is, only makes it harder.

YOUR CHILDREN talk about you. They want the dolphin to live.
あなた方の子供たちもあなたのことを話しています。彼ら はイルカを生かすことを望んでいます。

    Although it is sometimes difficult to find humans who will agree on every little point in a plea even for such wonderful beings as the Dolphins, can all of you at least ask yourselves if you can simply agree that Dolphins do not deserve to be harmed and killed and support their protected status? Nothing about Dolphins invites harm! The harm done to Dolphins is unprovoked cruelty. Dolphins have a much more complex language than humans and more words in their vocabulary. Scientists have proven Dolphins can already learn our languages and comprehend the words, but are we evolved enough yet to learn their more advanced language? ♥ Thankfully, there are those who are trying to do just that!  Dolphins are so brilliant that human beings are finally evolving enough to realize that, albeit almost too late. Myself & many others, believe that Dolphins should be a Protected Species with protected rights to Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness! :D There should be International Laws against murdering Cetaceans!

     Wild Ocean Dolphins truly are the Persons of the Sea & the Seas cover most of our earth, so how can we even have a 'Peoples Sovereignty Movement'without thinking of their rights to life, liberty & their excellent pursuit of Happiness? Dolphins are Loving, intelligent joy spirits we could learn alot from their joyful way of life which is more in harmony than ours. ;)

      Many River Dolphins are close to extinction already, due to harmful human intervention.  The Dall's Porpoise is nearly extinct and yet those killing Dolphins also continue to slaughter this endangered species as well! Cetaceans need our help to stop these mass slaughters! Can you really imagine living in a world without these bright loving Living-Beings we call Dolphins or Cetaceans? What would you tell your grand-children if the Dolphins, went the way of the unicorns and became nothing but a fairy-tale from the past in the minds of future children? Would anyone even believe those that claimed that so wonderful a living being as the Dolphins could have ever existed, once they were gone? Every time a Dolphin is slaughtered the world grows a bit darker.

Together we can stop the senseless suffering, torture and murders of these bright feeling beings, called Dolphins. You may say "A rose by any other name smells as sweet, but we need Dolphins and other cetaceans to have PROTECTED STATUS as soon as possible! We need to recognize that they do qualify as the 'non-human people of the waters' so we can inact laws to protect their rights to live and not be murdered. Fortunately for us, Dolphins do not need laws to keep them from murdering us, even after what some human people have done to slaughter them. So how evolved are we? It is sad that we even have to worry about the people killing Dolphins, to begin with! They should know better! Please think about whether you want Dolphins to continue to live in this world? Together we can make a difference! Thank you so much for considering my plea on behalf of the beloved Dolphins!

Note: The Dolphin Poll is Right below my brief article. Thanx to All Who Checked this Article & POLL out for the Dolphins! luv apple ♥ p.s. Feel free to comment whilst U are here too. And my FB Friends, U may Share this link if U like also.

Article by a friend of the Dolphins named, A. Neilson PHD aka 'Dolphin-Sprite'

Πηγή

Διακήρυξη Δικαιωμάτων των Κητωδών

  

Η παρούσα διακήρυξη αποτελεί απόσταγμα Ακαδημαϊκού Συνεδρίου στο Πανεπιστήμιο του Ελσίνκι της Φιλανδίας που ανακοινώθηκε στις 22 Μαϊου 2010.

1. Το κάθε άτομο που ανήκει στην οικογένεια των κητωδών έχει δικαίωμα στη ζωή.

2. Κανένα άτομο της οικογένειας αυτής δεν επιτρέπεται να γίνεται αντικείμενο κανενός είδους εκμετάλλευσης σε συνθήκες αιχμαλωσίας, βίαιης μεταχείρησης, ή μεταφοράς από το φυσικό του περιβάλλον.

3. Όλα τα κητώδη έχουν δικαίωμα στην ελευθερία της κίνησης και της παραμονής στο φυσικό τους περιβάλλον (βιότοπο).

4. Κανένα μέλος της οικογένειας αυτής δεν μπορεί να αποτελέσει αντικείμενο ιδιοκτησίας για καμία χώρα, επιχείρηση, εταιρία ή σωματείο, καθώς επίσης και για οποιαδήποτε ομάδα ατόμων ή μεμονωμένο άτομο.

5. Η προστασία του φυσικού περιβάλλοντος στο οποίο διαβιούν τα κητώδη αποτελεί ΔΙΚΑΙΩΜΑ.

6. Η έλλειψη σεβασμού και η οποιαδήποτε διατάρραξη ή αποδιοργάνωση των κοινωνικών ομάδων των κητωδών αποτελεί επίσης παραβίαση των δικαιωμάτων τους.

7. Όλες οι ελευθερίες, τα δικαιώματα και οι κανόνες που καθορίζει η παρούσα διακήρυξη θα πρέπει να αποτελέσουν αντικείμενο προστασίας τόσο από την Διεθνή Νομοθεσία όσο και από τις κατά τόπους νομοθεσίες των διαφόρων χωρών.

8. Τα κητώδη υπάγονται σε μία κατηγορία εμβίων όντων, για τα οποία τα δικαιώματα, οι ελευθερίες και οι κανόνες που αφορούν στην αντιμετώπισή τους οφείλουν να εφαρμόζονται ΔΙΕΘΝΩΣ.

9. Κανένα κράτος, επιχείρηση, εταιρία, σωματείο ή οποιαδήποτε ομάδα ατόμων (όπως επίσης και κανένα άτομο μεμονωμένα) δεν επιτρέπεται να εμπλακεί σε οποιαδήποτε δραστηριότητα που θα υπονομεύει αυτούς τους κανόνες, τα δικαιώματα κα τις ελευθερίες.

10. Η παρούσα διακήρυξη δεν αποτρέπει καμία χώρα από την ψήφιση ακόμα αυστηρότερης νομοθεσίας όσον αφορά στα δικαιώματα των κητωδών.

Ζητάμε από τα Ηνωμένα Έθνη να κάνει αυτήν την διακήρυξη ΝΟΜΟ!! Όσοι συμφωνούμε υπογράφουμε εδώ.

Μετάφραση

Filikaki Tataimouκτηνίατρος