In order for chimpanzee, Matthew Hiasl Pan, to receive money, a home, and a guardian he would have to be considered a person and not property. The Austrian Supreme Court ruled against Association Against Animal Factories' attempts to gain guardianship of the animal – and their desires to create a foundation providing for his care may all be for naught. If you were a lawmaker in Austria, what would you do in this situation? Share your take in the comments below!
Featured
What's Your Take: Matthew Hiasl Pan or "Austrian Law"?
4 Comments Post a Comment
More on PetSugar
Fall Award Season
Top Brands
Disney
Per Una
Claudio Merazzi
1I hate how people think they are so much better then animals.
Watch Earthlings.
What happens to him if the people aren't allow to care for him?? Is he going to be killed? Sold? Shipped away? That makes a huge difference in what my answer would be. Unfortunately (sometimes) the law is the law and to get laws changed people have to be upset about more than one instance when the law isn't working the way they think it should. Then they can work to get the people they vote for to change the laws. Are they a democracy over there? Anyway, I think the judge should say he has to follow the law, but he can give Matthew to whomever he wants to. Why not?
2Don't donate the money to the chimp, create an organization and donate the money to that. It can still be used for Michael Pan. Get the humane society invloved. I'm assuming that this country allows people to be guardians over cats and dogs, so why should this be different?
3The thing is what is written isn't exactly accurate about Austrian law or the case from what the articles are saying. Matthew has a home and is already guaranteed a home and humane -cruelty-free treatment under Austria. They simply will not allow this group to go to court on his behalf until they have obtain "ownership" of Matthew. Furthermore, no animal in Austria can have money or property etc. Because such a right comes social and financial obligations - probably voting being one of them.
Usually in most European countries voting rights used to be tied to property rights. For if Matthew had a bank account and money, he could or someone could purchase property in his name however then that individual is going to claim or may claim that they do not have to pay taxes on said property because Matthew is an animal not a human. Now you have it working both ways - he's a chimp when it's convenient and a human when it's convenient.
If the courts keep ruling against giving custody to this particular group then why not look at what could possibly be wrong or curious about this organization? As I said before Austria has some of the most strict animal cruelty laws on the books which is why Matthew was held there rather than passed on to his original destination. What does the Austrian court know about this group that we don't? And why won't AAAF simply follow the correct procedure to obtain guardianship of Matthew instead trying to obtain trustee status over his money?
4Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.