Finally: PETA argues Constitutional rights for whales

A California federal court is deciding a case brought by PETA concerning Seaworld's breach of the constitutional rights of their employees. Specifically, they are suing to end Seaworld's slavery of their whales.

Yes, you read that right. Whales.

PETA filed a lawsuit in October of last year on behalf of five living orcas, named
Tilikum, Katina, Corky, Kasatka and Ulises. Presumably PETA intervened because the orcas were unable to fill out the necessary paperwork themselves.

PETA argued that "continuing the whales' "employment" at SeaWorld violates the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution, which prohibits slavery...Slavery does not depend on the species of the slave any more than it depends on race, gender or ethnicity...Coercion, degradation and subjugation characterize slavery and these orcas have endured all three."

District Judge Jeffrey Miller has reviewed the response by Seaworld (including their motion to dismiss) and is expected to decide later.

The PETA complaint demands legal guardians be appointed for the whales, in order to get them to more suitable habitats "in accordance with each plaintiff's individual needs and best interests." Presumably, these guardians would also be responsible for setting curfews and assisting the newly emancipated whales in finding gainful employment.


"It's a new frontier in civil rights," said Jeff Kerr, PETA general counsel.

Seaworld agreed, saying that the case is unprecedented because the claims "are so baseless that no party has ever wasted the time, energy and expense of any court in making such claims in a lawsuit". Seaworld's motion to dismiss went on to say that "[The 13th amendment] only protects people, not animals, from slavery and involuntary servitude." and that the courts lack authority to extend the amendment to animals, which could "open a veritable Pandora's Box of inescapable problems and absurd consequences."

The whales themselves could not be reached for comment.

I think...well, at least I hope...it's safe to say that this patently ridiculous lawsuit will be jettisoned from the court system. Imagine, though, if it isn't. If Constitutional rights are extended to whales in order to prevent slavery, what would be in that "Pandora's Box" of problems?

Well, to start with, why would they only get 13th amendment rights? Why not 1st? Or 2nd? We can't be abridging the right of whales to bear arms. And naturally the next question is, what makes whales so special? If them, why not all mammals? Obviously all meat eating would have to cease immediately. After all, if we can't have whales performing tricks for fish, then having cows being slaughtered so I can have a delicious steak is obviously a breach of cow rights. We'd be down to eating chicken or fish.

But wait! It would only be a matter of time before the powerful Land Impaired Lobby for Birds and Fish argued that mammals aren't so special, and that fish and birds should also receive such protections.

Of course, we'd have to put the brakes on the whole circle of life thing. Entire new police divisions would have to be funded to investigate all the cases of murder whenever one animal kills another, violating the victim's right to life.

Plaintiff, Mr. Fluffy Tail, alleges his "life partner" Mr. Poofykins" was eaten by the cat, Mr. Whiskers.

Mr. Whiskers refused to comment.

Brave new frontier, indeed, PETA. Well done.