If chimps become "legal persons" terrorism suspects should too

The good news is that the principle of habeas corpus may soon apply to chimpanzees in the US. The bad news is it still won't apply to humans suspected of terrorism.

If the Nonhuman Rights Project wins the lawsuits they are putting forward this week, four New York chimpanzees will be given "legal person" status. If these chimpanzees are recognised as persons under the law, this will confer on them the “fundamental right of bodily freedom” and so they will be released into a sanctuary. The Nonhuman Rights Project is arguing that because of chimpanzee’s high cognitive abilities they should be recognised as autonomous human beings, and so the principle of habeas corpus should be applied to them.

It will be an interesting case to watch – and it would be great to see greater legal protection for apes. The US still carries out medical tests on chimpanzees, which is now banned in the UK as well as several other countries, although it has significantly reduced the numbers of chimps in laboratories earlier this year, transferring around 300 to animal sanctuaries.

The case couldn’t help remind me that plenty of human beings are being unlawfully detained without trial in the US too,  violating the fundamental legal principle of habeas corpus. Under US military law, terrorism suspects can be detained indefinitely without charge. Over 160 detainees are still being held in Guantanamo, some of whom have been there for over a decade, and of these only 6 have been formally charged of any crime. Around 600 of the 779 detainees held in Guantanamo since 2001 were released without charges, and nine have died in custody.

I’m not anti granting chimpanzees "legal person" status, I’d just like terrorism suspects to be treated as ‘legal persons’ too.
 

Sophie McBain is a freelance writer based in Cairo. She was previously an assistant editor at the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

Cabinet audit: what does the appointment of Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary mean for policy?

The political and policy-based implications of the new Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

The world shared a stunned silence when news broke that Boris Johnson would be the new Foreign Secretary. Johnson, who once referred to black people as “piccaninnies” and more recently accused the half-Kenyan President of the United States of only commenting on the EU referendum because of bitterness about colonialism, will now be Britain’s representative on the world stage.

His colourful career immediately came back to haunt him when US journalists accused him of “outright lies” and reminded him of the time he likened Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to a “sadistic nurse”. Johnson’s previous appearances on the international stage include a speech in Beijing where he maintained that ping pong was actually the Victorian game of “whiff whaff”.

But Johnson has always been more than a blond buffoon, and this appointment is a shrewd one by May. His popularity in the country at large, apparently helped by getting stuck on a zip line and having numerous affairs, made him an obvious threat to David Cameron’s premiership. His decision to defect to the Leave campaign was widely credited with bringing it success. He canned his leadership campaign after Michael Gove launched his own bid, but the question of whether his chutzpah would beat May’s experience and gravity is still unknown.

In giving BoJo the Foreign Office, then, May hands him the photo opportunities he craves. Meanwhile, the man with real power in international affairs will be David Davis, who as Brexit minister has the far more daunting task of renegotiating Britain’s trade deals.