Spain’s Parliament handed down a decision recently that on the surface looks good. However, closer examination reveals positives and negatives to the voice of support offered by this “progressive parliament” over the great ape project.

Founded by well-known philosophers Peter Singer and Paola Cavalieri in 1993, the Great Ape project argues that “non-human hominids” deserve the right to life and freedom and the right not to be tortured. Spain’s Parliament is poised across party lines to approve into law, next year, resolutions to give gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans and the like, rights normally given to humans.

These are good steps in the right direction, but for the wrong reasons. Why? Because the article that Martin Roberts writes from Madrid (Reuters) links the need for these rights for humans’ closest genetic relatives and as a victory for “our evolutionary comrades.”

Therein lies the rub. The rights of animals should not be based on how closely they are related to human beings. It’s like saying let’s give rights to all the animals that we feel a connection to like dolphins; or dogs, because they are so cute and cuddly. Regardless of how close apes may be to humans, this is not a reason to choose them over reptiles or others that might be at the furthest place on our family tree. This is faulty reasoning.

Animals should enjoy certain rights and protections regardless of their pedigree. Compassion and Ecology can go hand in hand but not based on likeness.

The other issue is the political spin given to this act. Socialism does not lead to a more enlightened governance. Socialism is as faulty as human-centricty. I’ll hold my praise for Spain for the day when it gets rid of bull-fighting, one of the poorest examples of the raging war between man and “beast.”