All Animals Deserve Our Inalienable Human Animal Rights

It's fairly stunning when an allegedly sentient and intelligent species such as ours says to other species - "Oh, we'll give you your rights and we're going to be clear that they're not human rights." Such is the Non-Human Rights for Animals project titled. Borrowing from our Declaration of Rights/Independence would solve this issue neatly: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Animals are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable Rights, and that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Joy."

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-called-pet-peeve_l_5c7fe7ebe4b0e62f69e8b795
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-10-23/california-animal-rights-elephants-court-case?s=09

Transcript

I'm Lizanne Flynn. I'm a master healer who holds space for any Earthling as they reunite body and soul in their planetary experience. I am a bridge for relationships between all species so that 

the heart bond becomes stronger, deeper, and more loving. I serve in the roles of animal communicator, medium, and medical intuitive, and I use the tools of shamanic journeying and soul retrieval 

to support all Earthlings in their recovery from past trauma. I'm certified as a Reiki Master Teacher and as a canine massage therapist. This is the Animals' iView podcast.

You all may have noticed in the ending to my podcasts where I talk about where to find me on social media that I reference X-Twitterverse which is tongue in cheek. Because it is X-Twitter and no longer called

Twitter and it amuses me to do a play on words as in Ex-Twitter. I'm not overly fond of change in general and truth be told when something on social media changes whether it's FB/Meta and/or Yahoo or Google

or whatever I can feel a bit irritated. I'm not clear that when something is working just fine  - at least for me and others I know - why it is that we have to change the dang thing! Come to think of it it's only

the changes in human experience that seem to garner no real leaps forward in solving any of our species' bigger issues like poverty, childhood education, healthcare, etc. that I feel particularly annoyed. And when

they seem to be in name only or only for the purposes of some internal metric by a company or perhaps in branding for a company that my Irish as the saying goes, really gets up and activated. Especially if

the lives and livelihoods of other individuals are involved and negatively impacted, cue my pet peeve of X himself. And I'll have some information coming up shortly about the history of the words "pet peeve" which are definitely in play for me this week and the podcast topic of Animals deserving inalienable rights and not non-human rights. I'm hoping this beginning name game issue isn't too far of a stretch because whenever the topic of Animal rights comes up as it did on X Twitterverse this week by an attorney no less, it is usually couched in terms of non-human rights. This is the human way of saying - yeah, we'll give you rights just non-human ones because - and here's my skeptical take on the subject - our species the human Animal still has to stay on the top of the heap and who else would give you your rights except us. The non-skeptical side of me might say - "look at this! We're setting Animals apart from us and giving them their rights, isn't that great? How cool are we?!" I don't mean it to sound sarcastic except how else could one sentient being take it after another sentient being says "Lookie! We're giving you your rights except they're not the same rights as ours because well..." And the recipient species of these designated rights might throw a side eye and say "They're not your rights because why." Period, with no question mark. In the human-centric world, we're big on naming as if by doing that we claim some sort of control of information about a thing or a being and that's just it, right? Knowledge, we're big big big on knowledge in the human Animal world. While other species are big on wisdom and applying knowledge mostly from others, we're sadly lacking in that, I think. It's the same thing as usual, kids, the resonance of words fitting the Energy aka the spelling. Except we don't usually stop to consider the consequences of the naming unless someone/something makes us sit up and take notice like with a protest or a wave of protests on top of an actual evolutionary movement forward. We're capable of evolving forward, ya know, and I think it's really important we not lose sight of that over the long term. And at the same time, it's just as important that the steps we take forward aren't of the two steps forward, one step back kind of thing. Because then we're patting ourselves on the back a bit too much with the steps forward and not acknowledging the one step back. I get that this is not a perfect existence here on Mother Earth and one can be seen as too much of a skeptic for not getting behind something that feels just a little bit too good, especially on behalf of another being or group or idea or situation. That to me is privilege and humans in general have that specifically with Animals. This is a whole other podcast topic about privilege yet the non-human rights movement pretty much fits this privilege of feeling good about giving them non-human rights because hello, we've forgotten we're an Animal species as well. One of the worst things I think we've ever done as a species - if I haven't said so before - was to call ourselves human beings. That was a big step backward and continues to be in our relationship with them and with others of our extended family, the other Animal species. While we're quick to take up these non-human Animal rights as one poster put on X Twitterverse, "Sure it's fine to advocate for the non-human rights of Animals that we - their word - fetishize - like Elephant, Wolf, Bear, etc., it's another to give Lizard, Fly, and Mosquito those same non-human rights. Because we also accept diversity only up to a point certainly within our species and there are over 8 million other Aninmal species on the planet. Are we going to advocate for their non-human rights of each species? Feels like a slippery slope to me as it does to the Animals in general because just now their feeling of "yeesh, you all sure like to complicate a planet, doncha?" came in. 

Let me start with a local example of the name change game 

in Colorado in recent years and heads up, I'm substituting the Animal called Mole with the name Broncos about the naming and renaming and renaming yet again of the physical home of the Denver 

Broncos. Who certainly deserve their share of whacks from the past oh 14 years or so with drawn-out ownership battles, their share of whacks with the revolving door of head coaches from the last 14 years or so, 

their share of whacks with the front office proving once again that former players aren't necessarily the best decision-makers where the draft goes and certainly not where giving away future draft picks goes and well,

the list goes on. I'm not a supportive fan of the Denver Broncos and because I stopped watching football several years ago (hands off the Nuggets or Avs however) so feel free to comment with your own Denver Broncos whacks or maybe replies to why they are not deserving of any whacks, I won't be offended at all. And maybe it's nostalgia

I feel about the whack-a-corporation stadium headline naming that began with the demolition of the venerable Mile High Stadium in 2001. Because humans seem to favor ownership of what they see as a thing while completely ignoring the Energy contained within the thing. And even though sportswriters and other teams have talked about the pros and cons of any game played at a mile-high altitude and thus speaking to the Energy of an earth-based process, to which the Broncos' true fans would attest, there's a disconnect when it comes to the container of this Energy. It's as if we're all too eager to stamp our name on something and thereby claim it without regard to what the Energy represents. And how the Energy resonates with the name of the container, in this case, a stadium, for a diverse group of humans. The original Mile High stadium was built in 1948 and was formerly known as Bears Stadium

after Denver's Western League team at the time, the Bears. The Broncos moved into the place in 1960 as well as into the AFL and as you might imagine undertook major renovations which included the hopes of Denver landing a major league baseball team which we did with the Rockies (another whack a Rockies owner/manager game coming right up) in 1993. Coors Field was constructed and opened in 1995 so the Rockies moved out and the Broncos continued to stay put until 2001 when Mile High - so named because Denver is known as being located 1 mile above sea level - was demolished. 

What followed were several uproars from longtime fans about why the heck shouldn't we stick with the name Mile High Stadium and a former mayor, Wellington Webb, even getting involved. There had been legislation passed among Colorado voters that secured future funding for renovations and improvements under the Metropolitan Football Stadium District (MFSD). The MFSD is a subdivision of the State of Colorado that, “was created for the purpose of planning, acquiring land and constructing a professional football stadium”. The MFSD is also responsible for implementing the MFSD tax.[13] The extension of the original stadium tax came into effect on January 1, 2001.[12] With all of that came, of course, money, lots and lots of money from outside investors. Who thought that if they were paying for it that they should feel free to put their name on it and you know, that feels like a patriarchal thingy to me, like a marking of one's territory just because they can do so easily. The first round involved wanting to add Invesco Field before the at Mile High part which was done although the Denver Post refused to use the Invesco Field name for several years and printed stories that simply referred to Mile High Stadium. The Invesco name lasted until 2010 when it the naming rights were transferred to Sports Authority - do you all remember them before they went out of business? That name, Sports Authority at Mile High lasted until 2017 and then ever so briefly for one year in 2018 the name of the stadium was Broncos Stadium at Mile High, and from 2019 until present Empower Field at Mile High. I don't have enough ins with those in power to know what any future name change might be. The current name, Empower Field, is from a retirement plan recordkeeping financial holding company based in Greenwood Village, Colorado, United States.[7] It is the second-largest retirement plan provider in the United States. Empower was created in 1891 when parent company Great-West Lifeco was founded as an insurance provider on the Canadian prairie. The current ownership of the team which became official in August of last year Broncos includes the son of Sam Walton of Walmart fame, Sam Walton's son and dtr-in-law, Condoleezza Rice, former national security advisor and former secretary of state, Mellody Hobson who is the wife of George Lucas, and Lewis Hamilton of Formula One racing fame who was also knighted by Queen Elizabeth in 2021. I think we've come a long way, a very long way from the days of single ownership which has its pros and cons and I am very glad to see more diversity among the current owners although it does beg the question of whether or not Empower Field is going to stay associated with the location where the Denver Broncos - one more whack a bronco coming up - regularly get their behinds handed to them by most of the current NFL teams. And here's the question: was it the name-changing of the stadium that contributed to the energy of the team overall that led to poor performance in the last 14 years, non-coincidentally roughly the amount of time that the Broncos held court in the same physical location? Did the fans change? Not really, at least not the hardcore, longtime fans. Sure it could be the evolution of the history of this team to hit absolute rock bottom several seasons in a row now only to have hope spring eternal each fall. And maybe someone listening to my podcast would say - you know, Lizanne is really hitting on a pet peeve of mine right now which is not having anything good to say and not staying quiet about it as well! 

The word pet dates back to the 16th century and is used informally to denote something that's cherished although the modern definition of pet as in Animal is a domesticated one that is kept for amusement as opposed to utility as in Cow or Goat. That's why I prefer Animal Companion so that no one is kept by anyone else including Cat who understands my gentle poke at their nature. I also prefer guardian over owner just because it's softer and talks about protecting and guiding another being. That's just me, you do you except please do not call them your children. That infantilizes them and creates a thicker emotional filter than you know so that you don't see them clearly at all during their lifetime with you. That's also for another podcast! The word peeve although in contrast to the word pet, is just as it feels and sounds, and as in - I'm really peeved about this naming of Animal right to be non-human. It's a thing/subject that is near and dear to your heart, a special dislike for something or someone perhaps. I don't have many pet peeves and most of them are related to how humans treat and/or objectify Animals except when it makes us feel good about ourselves or that we feel in an imbalanced way, especially altruistic. Like the recent article in the LA Times about the California Supreme Court considering whether to grant a hearing for three elephants — Nolwazi, Amahle, and Mabu — at the Fresno Chaffee Zoo. If granted, the hearing would determine whether these elephants are being unjustly detained and whether they should be relocated to a sanctuary. None other than Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law scholar posted on X Twitterverse - I’m among the lawyers urging that elephants must be recognized as having rights. They’re not just “things” for people to own and do as they wish. It’s just a matter of time until the courts start to agree. In the meantime, we will win a city at a time." An Animal being granted a writ of habeas corpus means that their standing of having rights of their own must come first. In the situations thus far, no court has awarded an Animal the same right as a citizen which would enable the Animal and those working on their behalf to bring a case before a court against illegal imprisonment. So far the success in cases like this is zero and it's interesting that it is Elephant upon whose behalf they are being brought. I can see a case being brought on behalf of Tillikum when he was with us and Lolita as well who recently transitioned both captive Orca. To the point of the commenter to Professor Tribe's post - why just Elephant, why not all? And in response to Professor Tribe, my own comment was - let's start with inalienable rights such as what is found in the first lines of the Declaration of Independence. Why are we not willing to give to our family members that which we declared for ourselves simply because we think they're different? And so you don't have to look it up, the word inalienable means unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor. 

When the original colonists escaped from King George we declared ourselves liberated and stated  "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." I like it myself and think pretty much any Animal would not oppose these rights at all. If we must hold Animals separate I would offer my take on Animalhood such as in Personhood when that was also making the rounds earlier in discussions about giving Animals personhood. Here it is: All animal beings of all species are afforded the same self-determined rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Nothing about their physical form or place as predator or prey in the Natural World can or will be used against them by humans.  Nor will the human species interfere in their lives and interrupt the animal’s life cycle, habitat, or natural order of animal experience on Earth.  Animal beings will be protected under the law and given the same protection from abuse and violent crime perpetrated against them by human beings as is given to human beings.  Animal beings alone will consent to interaction with humans upon request and will alone designate the scope, length, and depth of any interaction.  This will include their offspring as their parental rights will not be waived by any form or perception of ownership by humans.  From this point forward the only relationship between animals and humans will be mutual respect and compassion.  It will be recognized and accepted as mutual truth that all sentient beings are connected members of the whole Earth system and no subgroup of either human or animal will have dominion over the other. This might go too far and that is better than two forward and one back. At least, that's how the Animals see it.

Thanks for listening today. Leave a review and be sure to subscribe to this podcast. I offer all new clients a free 15-minute 

consultation, to schedule online go to lizanneflynn.com. Come find me on social media - 

FB, X-Twitterverse, Instagram, and Linkedin. I encourage you to sign up for my quarterly newsletter on my website where I also post notices 

for upcoming events, the starting date of courses in The Animals' iView Academy, and online psychic fairs. The episodes of this podcast are available

on my YouTube channel complete with subtitles, you'll find that link in my podcast footer, and be sure to subscribe. 

This has been the Animals' iView podcast - I'll see you next time.