{"id":769102,"date":"2022-07-16T06:51:28","date_gmt":"2022-07-16T10:51:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/animalrightswatch.us\/?p=769102"},"modified":"2022-07-16T07:06:17","modified_gmt":"2022-07-16T11:06:17","slug":"legal-fight-to-free-happy-the-elephant-continues-in-new-york","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/animalrightswatch.us\/?p=769102","title":{"rendered":"UN-HAPPY: Legal fight to free Happy the elephant continues in New York"},"content":{"rendered":"\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t

It\u2019s important to do all we can in pursuit of freedom for Happy. This includes challenging the wrongness of the majority decision, which, as the two dissenting judges understood, harms Happy as much as it undermines the values and principles of justice upon which our own human rights depend.<\/p>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/blockquote>\n\n

NhRP:<\/strong> The Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP) filed a motion to reargue the 5-2 decision by New York\u2019s highest court issued in June in a landmark case that seeks Happy the elephant\u2019s right to liberty and release from the Bronx Zoo to an elephant sanctuary.<\/em><\/p>\n

The New York Court of Appeals \u201cmisapprehended and overlooked crucial points of law and fact \u2026 resulting in an arbitrary and irrational decision \u2014 one that not only sanctions the daily injustice inflicted upon Happy at the Bronx Zoo, but has created instability and confusion in New York law with grave implications for illegally confined human beings,\u201d the NhRP writes in its motion.<\/em><\/p>\n

The NhRP repeatedly cites the two dissenting opinions, which harshly criticize the majority and have been lauded as a historic mark of progress in the global fight to secure fundamental legal rights for nonhuman animals. If the reargument motion is granted, the Court may order another hearing and will issue a decision explaining why it will either reverse or clarify its prior decision.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cNo differently than if we had a human client, we feel it\u2019s important to do all we can in pursuit of freedom for Happy,\u201d said Monica Miller, the NhRP attorney who argued Happy\u2019s case. \u201cThis includes challenging the wrongness of the majority decision, which, as the two dissenting judges understood, harms Happy as much as it undermines the values and principles of justice upon which our own human rights depend. That\u2019s what this motion is about.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

In May, the Court of Appeals became the first state high court in the US and the highest court of any English-speaking jurisdiction to consider a case calling for a nonhuman being to be recognized as a legal person (i.e. a rights-holder). In a widely covered hearing, the NhRP argued for recognition of Happy\u2019s fundamental right to liberty and release to a sanctuary where this right would be respected… With the Court not in session for the remaining summer months, the NhRP does not expect a decision on the motion until September at the earliest.<\/em><\/p>\n

Meanwhile, the NhRP\u2019s first case in California\u2013on behalf of Amahle, Nowalzi, and Vusmusi, three elephants held in captivity at the Fresno Chaffee Zoo who are victims of the continuing importation of elephants to US zoos\u2013is already underway… The NhRP sees both Happy\u2019s case and the Fresno elephants\u2019 case as examples of how \u201czoos mislead the public into thinking captivity in zoos is for the elephants\u2019 own good,\u201d said Miller, who is Amahle, Nowalzi, and Vusmusi\u2019s California counsel. SOURCE…<\/strong><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

RELATED VIDEO:<\/strong><\/p>\n