A couple of thoughts here:
1. While I understand the reasoning behind it, I don't like the idea of "rights" being equated to "obligations by the government." Maybe it's that Declaration of Independence upbringing in me, but it makes me want to think of some other term.
2. I think it's reasonable — more than reasonable — to grant such protections to cetaceans, given what we know about them.
3. I think we need to consider it carefully, though — because then we start needing to consider a slope / gradation of all sorts of protections ("rights") for critters that aren't quite as advanced as cetaceans, etc. Do we try to draw a series of bright line somewhere as to what living creatures get what level of protections? On what basis? What does that mean for meat-eating? Are we overfocussed on mammals?
4. I keep thinking of the classification of Blacks as semi-human, and wonder if we're setting a precedent in this way for something similar. #ddtb
Embedded Link
The case for dolphin rights – Boing Boing
It was just this understanding of rights as obligations that governments must obey that formed the basis for a declaration of rights for cetaceans (whales and dolphins) at the annual meeting of the Am…