💾 Archived View for spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › politics › wrongs.txt captured on 2023-06-16 at 20:07:29.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
THE "OFFICIAL" PROPOSED BILL OF ANIMAL RIGHTS - A CRITIQUE
MALCOLM MCMAHON [100015,514]
I read an article in "New Scientist" magazine about a year ago whose
advice has stayed with me. I commend this advice to animal rights people
and, in fact, all who want to change the world. The subject of the article
was "Seeing the future with hindsight" and the advice was roughly this:-
When you have an idea that you think will improve the world in
some way proceed as follows. Assume that the idea will, if
implemented have the opposite of the desired effect. Now work
out a plausible mechanism by which this perverse effect will
occur and look for a way to prevent it.
Having read the proposed bill of animal rights I think it's very much in
need of this kind of analysis. If implemented as given I think it would do
enormous harm to man and beast alike. So we know what we're talking about
it here it is as kindly provided by Deb:
Declaration of the Rights of Animals
Whereas It Is Self-Evident
That we share the earth with other creatures, great and small;
That many of these animals experience pleasure and pain;
That these animals deserve our just treatment, and
That these animals are unable to speak for themselves;
We Do Therefore Declare That These Animals
HAVE THE RIGHT to live free from human exploitation,
whether in the name of science or sport, exhibition
or service, food or fashion.
HAVE THE RIGHT to live in harmony with their nature
rather than according to human desires; and
HAVE THE RIGHT to live on a healthy planet.
This Declaration of the Rights of Animals adopted and proclaimed on this,
the Tenth Day of June 1990, in Washington, DC.
Interpretation
==============
Firstly let me say that this ringing oration is useless without
interpretation. It each clause there is a pivotal concept which requires
definition. When you make declarations with the intent that they be
enshrined in law they better be more that foolproof, they better be lawyer
proof.
In the first clause the pivotal concept is "exploitation". Now my
dictionary says to exploit is to use, with or without the implication "use
selfishly". Thus clause one implies "use selfishly" but actually only says
"use". No allowance is made for reciprocity. No allowance for the fact
that one can use an animal without harming it.
Now in the second clause we have the wooly sixtys phrase "in harmony
with" which means, as far as I can see, very little of substance. I assume
the intended meaning is "in compliance with". Now we come to "their
natures". Which natures exactly? Their natures before or after
domestication? If we take it to mean "their nature as it would exist
without human intervention" we make domestication, or indeed keeping
animals at all impossible for we would not be able to train them (thus
altering their natures) or confine them (thus interfering with their
exploratory urges). Yes, that means dogs too. Even if we take "natures" on
an is basis then since animals always attempt, almost by definition, to
act in accordance with their natures that means no form of restraint would
be allowed. To shut the gate to keep your dog from running into the road
would be a clear violation of his rights.
As to the third clause one is tempted to ask where this healthy
planet is to be found. In order for it to be anything more than a vague
expression of longing, some kind of target must be given. About the only
way a truely healthy planet might eventually be obtained would be the mass
departure of the human race.
Applicability to Humans
=======================
As stated this declaration does not exclude the human animal. Of course it
could be modified to do so but I mean to show that, if applied to humans,
it would, in some directions, go far beyond any rights ever contemplated
and destroy society as we know it. I'm not being pedantic. I'm trying to
show how wide ranging such rights could be.
Firstly in section one a good synonym for "exploitation" might be
"employment". The closest thing ever tried to this is in Gadhaffi's Libia
were he has enshrined the principle "no man may profit from another's
labour" in law. This mean no middle men. No managers as we know them. If
you want to buy a turnip you must buy it from a turnip farmer. Think that
would be practical in our countries?
Section two is the real killer. As far as I can see there's nothing to
stop, say, a rapist standing up in court and saying "If you punish me you
are attempting to prevent me from raping again. This is a clear violation
of my rights as an animal since it is preventing me from living in
accordance with my nature." Contrary to common sense? We're talking law
here, common sense doesn't enter into it.
So we'll exclude the H animal shall we? Give animals rights that
humans don't have. OK then substitute man eating tiger for rapist.
Pets
====
If clause two is given it's less radical interpretation the keeping of dogs
might just be possible for people living well out in the country (though I
doubt that sufficient domestication would be possible without physical
restraint). For people living in the city the life expectancy of a dog
would be a matter of a few days. Cat's, being more independent, are rather
more possible (though cat's that are allowed to run free are always being
killed by cars). However I don't think clause two could be stretched to
allow neutering.
Farming - Developed World
=========================
In the developed world farm animals can, just about, be regarded as a
luxury. However it must be considered that they provide a livelyhood for,
I would guess, maybe 1% of the population. Would these people receive
compensation for the loss of their livelyhood? For people who like to
compare animal liberation with the abolition of slavery I would like to
remind them that one of the costs of abolition was the Ammerican civil war,
and that the number of people dependant for their livelyhood on slavery
must have been far less than the number dependant on livestock farming.
Farming - Developing World
==========================
Here animals are not a luxury. Land is used for pastural farming because it
is unsuitable for arable farming. In addition animal labour often makes the
difference between survival and starvation. It's not for nothing that
cattle are the currency in some places. Losing the use of pastural land the
pressure to expand arable farming into existing wilderness areas would be
greatly increased. Nomadic herdsmen would, of course, have their whole way
of life destroyed. You can expect many people to oppose such a change with
total violence.
Effect on Domestic Animals
==========================
Well, presumably as soon as the amendments become inevitable breeding would
be stopped. Of course the amendment would be fought tooth and nail up to
the last moment. Immediately before the amendment they would be slaughtered
in their tens of millions. Any survivors would have to be released as soon
as the rights came into effect. They'd cause total chaos for a few months
and then all but a handful of the most independent, who might make it into
nature, would die. Maybe we could pay farmers for a few decades to keep the
animals for their natural lives. Of course such animals would not be
getting their full rights as defined by the bill.
Effect on Wild Animals
======================
At first sight the prospects for wild animals look better. Not only are
they safe from hunting (assuming, contrary to all experience, you could
prevent poaching). Furthermore humans wouldn't be allowed to protect either
themselves, their children or their crops from exploitation by the animals.
After all the bill speaks only of exploitation by humans, exploitation of
humans by animals is fine.
On the other hand the bill says nothing about exploitation of the
resources the animals need. Virtually all of the economic compensations for
reserving wilderness areas are now illegal under clause one. Wildlife
tourism is the main reason why their are still wildlife reserves in Africa,
for example. With the sudden increase in demand for land suitable for
arable farming occasioned by the demise of pastoral farming pressure on
land resources will suddenly increase. Within a few years I would expect to
see the collapse of many national parks. What wild animals survive will be
increasingly dependant on humans.
Effects on Human Attitudes to Animals
=====================================
At the moment most of us have access to animals and regard wild animals
with love rather than fear. This would certainly change. People would no
longer see animals as useful and friendly but as a menace constantly
threatening to force them into breaking the law. Animals would be our
friends no longer but our enemies.
Conclusion
==========
I'm not against animal rights as an idea but fuzzy minded rhetoric like
this does nobody any good. It's astonishing and disturbing that so many
organisations could put their names to this without, apparently, even
starting to consider the real consequences.