This lawsuit being brought by PETA that equates the treatment of five orcas in San Diego Sea World with slavery shows just how nutty these animal rights zealots can be.
Firstly, the lawyers are speaking for the orcas. Isn't that presumptuous in itself? Hell, it could even be described as speciesist.
What if the killer whales are all quite happy in captivity. They're well fed and looked after. They might figure it's a much better life than out in the ocean -- or at least not so bad.
A good rule of thumb is that if an animal can't speak for itself then you shouldn't try to speak for it. That excludes pretty much every species known except parrots. And about the only lawsuit they might want to bring is a class action against their owners for not supplying enough crackers.
Then there's this bizarre comparison from PETA:
Brushing animals off as property is the same argument that was used against African-Americans and women before their constitutional rights were protected, PETA says.
Shaw pointed out that argument does not translate because both women and African-Americans are people for which the Constitution was written to protect.
The lawsuit is so damned silly that the Sea World attorney has to point out the bleedin' obvious: that orcas are not people.
But of course PETA doesn't accept that. They think that animals are people. That's why the prospect of a victory for them in this case is so scary. Not only will there be lawsuits galore as a result -- many of them even crazier than this one -- things could get nuttier still.
I mean, if they're going to bring a lawsuit against humans for enslaving orcas, then surely they must think that the exploitation, cruelty, and oppression that goes on in the "wild" is also unacceptable, since it is also committed by "people". Therefore it should be deemed illegal as well, shouldn't it? So, are they gonna bring a lawsuit against nature itself?
If not, why not? Suing only human animals and not others seems a lot like, er, speciesism to me.