Elephants Have Equal Value To Humans, India Court Rules

[cmotherofpirl]

Elephants Have Equal Value to Humans, India Court Rules
Insurance company injustice results in legal blurring of distinction between humans and animals

By Gudrun Schultz

JAIPUR, India, December 22, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Elephants were raised to the same status as humans by the Rajasthan High Court Wednesday, in a ruling on compensation for the death of a working elephant killed in an accident in 1988.

Granting the elephant’s owner £6,850 in compensation, the court treated the animal as a “living creature equivalent to a human being,” DNA India reported yesterday.

Saddique Khan depended on the 35-year-old elephant, Babli, to support his family, providing tourists with scenic rides through the city as a professional mahout. A speeding vehicle struck and killed his elephant in 1988.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal initially awarded a compensation of £3,300 (290,000 rupees), plus 12 percent interest, in August 1993.When the New India Insurance Company refused to treat the animal as anything but normal livestock, with a payout of no more than 2,000 rupees, Saddique took his plea for greater compensation to the high court.

Mr. Khan’s lawyer, argued that the elephant should be considered of equal value to a human because she responded to commands, performed elaborate tricks and was the main financial provider for the family, the Times reported earlier today.

The decision by the Indian court reflects a growing impetus world-wide to blur the distinctions between humans and animals, reflecting a secular interpretation of the nature of humanity. The Spanish government put forward legislation in April 2006 giving great apes many of the same rights as humans, including the rights to life, freedom and freedom from torture, according to a report by Deutsche Presse-Agentur.

See related LifeSiteNews coverage:

Socialist Gov’t in Spain to Grant Great Apes “Human Rights”
[url="http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/apr/06042702.html"]http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/apr/06042702.html[/url]

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Babar will be pleased to hear this.

Here's Babar insighting violence...notice, as a thug, he's the one in the suit:

[img]http://comptine.free.fr/comptines/images/babar.gif[/img]

Notice his gang sign...one elephant foot in the air.

"Elephant Power"

[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v172/PrRaphael/elephantpower.jpg[/img]

Gotta represent.

[dairygirl4u2c]

If all they are doing is giving out punishments equal to injury or death to humans, I'm not sure that's wrong. If elephants are endangered, you could at least have that, or maybe worse punishments. The problem would be if they valued an elephant over a human in terms of who would live if they had a choice etc.

An interesting hypo would be whether death penalty for killing elephants. The CC says no death penalty even for killing humans, uless it's appararant they will kill more if alive. If someone was so adament to kill elephants, and we couldnt stop them, and the elepants were almowst extinct, what would we do? It goes beyond elephants to other animals and maybe even property the question.

Is the threat of death to humans the only thing that can justify the death penalty in the few times it can justifiably be used? What else can be included?

Edited December 23, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c