I see two problems with this-
Firstly, the court case is using the legal structure of Personhood, which is understandable, given the system that they’re working within, but it also turns the situation into a ridiculous “all or nothing” affair, with ridiculously wide ramifications. You remember all the the problems that granting personhood to corporations caused- that’s the size of a shift in legal status we’re talking about here.
Secondly, this entire process goes to the roots of what is wrong with much of the talk about human rights. It imagines that rights are created and conferred by a benign legal body. I think that’s a dangerous view. If rights are conferred by law, then they can also be removed exactly the same way.
Instead, if you look at history, all human rights have not been conferred, they have been claimed by the people whose rights they are, and only after a struggle are they recognised and codified by law.
