This article is reprinted from National Review with the permission of the author.

Animal-rights activists never quit. The Nonhuman Rights Project, having lost cases seeking writs of habeas corpus for chimpanzees and an elephant named “Happy” in New York, has now brought a case in Colorado. It was properly tossed out of court at the trial-court level.

This advocacy thrust is known as “animal standing.” The idea is to allow animals to sue in their own name — represented by animal-rights ideologues, of course. This is precisely what the current suit is about, naming the Nonhuman Rights Project as the guardian of five elephants — currently located in the Colorado Springs zoo — to bring the case and take control of their care after the writ of habeas corpus “frees” them from supposed wrongful detention.

The Colorado supreme court agreed to hear the appeal, which will be argued on October 24. From the CBS News story:

Fern says her group has filed a lawsuit against the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo on behalf of the zoo’s elephants, arguing that the animals are suffering in captivity at the Colorado Springs Zoo and should be released.

“The elephants do not want to be held captive, and they want to be free,” said Fern.

Oh, brother. How would Fern know what the elephants want? The animals have lived in the zoo — which has a sterling reputation — for years. Moreover, if a writ of habeas corpus is issued, the elephants won’t be free. Their care will just be transferred to a different human organization.

The ultimate goal of animal rights organizations

Understand, animal rights isn’t the same as animal welfare. The former is an ideology that sees no moral distinction between humans and animals. In PETA’s alpha wolf’s infamous slogan, “A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.” Animal-rightists oppose animal-welfare approaches to husbandry because, by definition, that assumes that humans have the right to own and control animals if done humanely. In contrast, rightist ideology seeks to prohibit all human ownership of animals and our instrumental use thereof — whether for food, entertainment, science, or even companionship.

We should not be sanguine that this case will fail. Many law schools teach courses in animal rights, training lawyers for the day the courtroom door opens to animals. And two dozen law professors wrote in support of the NHRP and against the zoo. Moreover, two of the seven judges in New York’s highest court would have granted Happy personhood and rights. Think about that! In the chimp case, no judges voted in favor (although one opined in dicta that he approved of the idea).

It would only take one radical court to make terrible history. Let us hope that the Colorado supreme court tosses the case. If it allows the elephants to sue, no use of animals or animal industry will ultimately be safe.