Animal rights; where is the law?

by AlexR on February 24, 2015 - 2:23pm

Two animal right activist from the United-States face 10 years of prison and a title of terrorist after being caught releasing mink and foxes from a fur farms. They face charges under the 2006 law where damaging property or profit line of animal businesses can carry terrorism conviction, all without any violence. Kevin Johnson and Tyler Lang will plead for the federal charges to be dismissed. The lawyer of the two defendants claims that the use of the concept of terrorism is not appropriate and is use to stop free speech. The AETA (Anima Enterprise Terrorism Act) was adopted by the congress after a strong lobbying from fur farms and pharmaceutical companies. In United Kingdom, a group of animal right activists filmed what we can describe as “horrible” in a slaughterhouse near London. The footage showed abusive practices including sheep being thrown, and kicked in the face and head. The Food Standards Agency will launch an investigation. In you are an animal abusers, one of the best place for you is Quebec. Law surrounding animal abuse and animal right are vague and weak. According to Pierre Paradis, the province’s Civil Code is about to change. The court will now consider pain and suffering when imposing penalties or fines on abusers. The Agriculture Department will be responsible to carry inspections. In total, 250 inspectors will be in charged to ensure the quality of the treatment of every animal.

            Nowadays, animal right is something that takes a lot more importance. In Quebec or across the globe, animals are treated according to how the law want them to be treated. This small essay will treat of three articles from three sources about animal right. The first article is from the CTVnews, the second from the Guardian and the third, from the Global News. In the United-States, law toward animal protections are biased and contradictory. They work in favour of the animal owner, not the inverse. For example, if you free fox from a fur farm where they are mistreated, you get 10 years of jail plus you are branded as a terrorist for life. This law was made to protect the fur farm and/or pharmaceutical companies who use animal for their experimentation. In Quebec, the law that protect animals are weak. People abuse of animal and come out with little penalties. According to Pierre Paradis, time is about to charge. The law will now take into consideration that animals can feel pain; therefore, offenders will be more strongly punished.

In conclusion, I think, that everyone how threatened animal should be severally punished. I also think animal activist should have more power and law to protect them. Of course, law will vary from a country to another, which is a non-sense, since animal are the same. Therefore, law should be equal for every country.

 

Article #1 Title: Civil code changes to protect animal rights in Quebec

Written by Martin Ouellet for The Canadian Press on August 9, 2014

Active link: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/civil-code-changes-to-protect-animal-rights-in-quebec-1.1952651

 

Article #2 Title: Animal rights activists challenge federal terrorism charges

Written by Ed Pilkington for The Guardian on February 19 2015

Active link: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/19/animal-rights-activists-challenge-federal-terrorism-charges

 

Article #3 Title: UK animal rights group secretly films practices inside halal abattoir

Written for The Associated Press on February 3 2015

Active link: http://globalnews.ca/news/1809061/uk-animal-rights-group-secretly-films-practices-inside-halal-abattoir/

 

Comments

This is an interesting article since it explores animal cruelty internationally, especially farm animals. I think that the organisation the SPCA would be of interest to you, while the actions of SPCA is more centered on domestic home animals. The SPCA does try to prevent animal abuse and have been involved with some cases of animal cruelty in farms such as foxes in fur farms. They have attempted to put pressure on the provincial Government to adopt stricter laws and regulations as to at least establish a minimum level of well-being for animals. Here is a link to the article which I got the information concerning the foxes: http://www.spca.com/?p=9772&lang=fr

If you would like to volunteer for the SPCA please consult their website: http://www.spca.com/?page_id=7&lang=en

This is an interesting article since it explores animal cruelty internationally, especially farm animals. I think that the organisation the SPCA would be of interest to you, while the actions of SPCA is more centered on domestic home animals. The SPCA does try to prevent animal abuse and have been involved with some cases of animal cruelty in farms such as foxes in fur farms. They have attempted to put pressure on the provincial Government to adopt stricter laws and regulations as to at least establish a minimum level of well-being for animals. Here is a link to the article which I got the information concerning the foxes: http://www.spca.com/?p=9772&lang=fr

If you would like to volunteer for the SPCA please consult their website: http://www.spca.com/?page_id=7&lang=en

Evolution favoured humans to adapt and rise to the top of the animal kingdom. That does not mean humans should be allowed to abuse and exploit other creatures inhabiting the Earth. I agree with your point that animal rights deserve more political attention and needs change in their policy. I will apply Kant’s deontological system of morality to support your argument. From the perspective of the animal activists, their motive behind their actions of freeing the animals was good. Their intent was to free the animals from an abusive and unnatural environment. Because of their righteous motive, Kant would argue that their actions were morally just.

Your call for a strengthening of animals’ rights’ laws, and reconsider the current penalties for disrespecting the animals’ owner fits in with Kant’s principle to apply reason to everything. In this case, the 10-year sentence and lifetime title of being a terrorist seems rather unreasonably harsh for the activists’ public demonstration to promote their cause as animal lovers. Humans have agency, or the power to choose, and animals do not. Deontology focuses on the duty to apply certain rules, called universal maxims, to all situations. In this case, the court should dismiss the activists and follow the duty humans have to advocate for the rights and protection of living organisms that cannot defend themselves.

I never knew that laws on animal rights were so weak around the world, even in our home province. The terrorism charges on the animal rights activists you have mentioned in the article are disheartening. There exist criminals who have committed worse crimes than these activists that are sanctioned less.

However, while I do consider these sanctions to be excessive, I do agree with punishing these law-breakers. I feel like you are ignoring the fact that their actions were immature and unnecessary, and that you think that their actions should be encouraged. The animal rights activists that you have mentioned are breaking the law. They do not have the right to release those animals, no matter their opinion. By protesting this way, they are not only weakening the image of animal rights organizations, but also reinforcing the laws that protect the fur farms.

You mention in your conclusion how you’d like animal rights activists to have more power and protection from the law. By defending these immature actions, you are not only being contradictory, but you are also encouraging delinquents to protest by breaking the law. Instead of advocating illegal practices, you can encourage animal rights activists to write to their representatives and to organize legal protests to improve the state of animal law, for example.

Thanks, friend.

Your post is very absorbing. You give people specific example of events where animals are victims of human’s cruelty. Your post is really convincing for people to realize that animal are not treated right according to our laws. I just wrote a volunteer research paper two weeks ago and our two post are linked. It provides a connection since both of our posts are trying to improve the conditions of animal in the world. If you would like, here is the link to do some volunteer work and try to establish a minimum level of well-being for animals.
http://www.newsactivist.com/en/champlain-college-2016-newsactivist-conte...

I am shocked to see that still so many bad things happen to animals and there is so little we can do because of the law. But an organization that might interest you is the Rosie Adoption. The Rosie Adoption is not a shelter, but their mission is “dedicated to the coordination of orphaned animals and adoptive homes into a support network to ensure the survival of unwanted pets”. This non-profit started when two friends, who loved to volunteer at shelters, decided to team up and make a difference. “Rosie Animal Adoption finds homes for dogs through their Foster Care and Adoption Care programs. Medical care, spaying and neutering and basic necessities such as food, shelter, kindness and compassion are provided by dedicated professionals and volunteers”. If you would like to help them make a difference you can volunteer. Volunteers are really appreciated and to volunteer, people must fill out a form answering a variety of question on the Rosie Adoption site itself.