Thought provoking story of a crusading lawyer advocating legal representation for sentient animals. Some view the argument as ridiculous, but it is worth pointing out that the legal representation is only being asked to protect animals from the harmful consequences of human actions, so one can't merely dismiss the issues as irrelevant to human law!

Of course animals are often protected in law, but one thrust of the argument is that in efficacy terms, this protection will only ever be realised if they can be given legal representation.

Obviously this is a highly philosophical dilemma, but worth pointing out how the assumption of human 'uniqueness' is so often undisputed (a pervasive problem in my scientific field of social evolution where people often assume humans are especially altruistic).