In October, the radical animal rights group PETA—best known for assaulting fur coat wearers with paint—filed an unprecedented lawsuit naming five killer whales as plaintiffs against SeaWorld, seeking freedom from slavery.
In other words, PETA was asking that animals be protected by the 13th Amendment, which bans slavery and involuntary servitude.
The lawsuit was not only unprecedented in its attempt to apply constitutional rights to animals, but also unprecedented in its hypocrisy and stupidity, which is saying something for PETA.
Yesterday, a federal judge in San Diego dismissed the suit—thankfully. What a waste of time and money.
In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Miller wrote, “As ‘slavery’ and ‘involuntary servitude’ are uniquely human activities, as those terms have been historically and contemporaneously applied, there is simply no basis to construe the Thirteenth Amendment as applying to non-humans.”
PETA attorney Jeffrey Kerr responded, “Today’s decision does not change the fact that the orcas who once lived naturally wild and free, are today kept as slaves by SeaWorld. PETA will regroup and determine how to continue to work for the legal protection they deserve.”
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at that statement.
Why would PETA ever think the Constitution applies to animals? I mean, you have to really be warped to come up with that argument.
The reason PETA’s argument is hypocritical is because it picked-and-chose what parts of the Constitution it wanted to grant to animals.
Why didn’t PETA also demand that cows have the right to bear arms? Or horses be given the right to free speech? Or pigs be allowed to vote?
Another example of PETA’s hypocrisy (and stupidity) is not considering the consequences of taking the slavery argument to its logical conclusion.
That is, if whales in SeaWorld are considered slaves, then pet dogs are too. So are pet cats, pet fish, pet hamsters, lizards, snakes, as well as all farm animals. Zoos would be illegal too. After all, no animals should be owned by humans, according to PETA’s argument.
That means all animals would be roaming the streets and sidewalks. You couldn’t ship them back to their native habitat because that would be humans forcing animals to be “enslaved” in particular locales rather than giving them true freedom to pick and choose where they want to live.
I doubt PETA would argue that we let animals have complete freedom. I’m sure PETA would argue the animals be returned to their “normal” habitat, right?
But either humans have dominion over animals, or animals must have the same exact freedom in all aspects as humans do. To pick-and-choose the amount and type of freedom is hypocrisy.
Or absurdist comedy to the extreme.
In celebration of the judge’s ruling, I’m going to have a big tasty steak for dinner.
After all, doesn’t PETA stand for ‘People Eating Tasty Animals’?