Chapter 3 Concepts, Theories, and Theorists SHIFTING PERSPECTIVES: Should Animals Have Rights? Some people would argue that, in Canada, we treat our pets better than we treat some people. On the other hand, ever since humans and animals have co-existed, humans have eaten animals, bought and sold them, bred and experimented with them, hunted them for sport, and made their body parts into trinkets and trophies. Animal-rights activists in Canada are now arguing that animals deserve more protection in law. Some have gone so far as to suggest that certain animals should have equal status to humans to enjoy life and liberty. A group of animal-rights lawyers and advocates have argued that our closest biological connection, the chimpanzee, should be given three fundamental rights: the right to life, the right not to be tortured, and the right not to be imprisoned. Animal-rights activists point to the fact that scientific discoveries have led us to an increased awareness that many animals have a much higher level of thinking skills and social development than was previously believed. Canada's federal laws on animal cruelty have not changed since 1892, and in response to changing attitudes and more concern for the well-being of animals, the Canadian govern- ment tabled Bill C-10B in October 2002, with the intention of strengthening the present animal-cruelty legislation. Acceptance of the legislation would mean that those convicted of causing "unnecessary pain and suffering or injury to an animal," could face maximum jail sentences of up to 5 years and a $10 000 fine. The present maximum penalty for animal cruelty is a $2000 fine and 6 months in jail. In part, the bill reads as follows: 182.1 In this Part, "animal" means a vertebrate, other than a human being, and any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain. 182.2 (1) Every one commits an offence who, wilfully and recklessly, (a) causes or, being the owner, permits to be caused, unnecessary pain, suffering or indignity to an animal; (b) kills an animal or, being the owner, permits an animal to be killed brutally or viciously, regardless of whether the animal dies immediately; (c) kills an animal without lawful excuse; (d) without lawful excuse, poisons an animal, places poison in such a position that it may be easily consumed by an animal or, being the owner, permits anyone to do any of those things. The House of Commons passed the bill, but the Senate refused to pass it unless the government adopted the Senate's proposed changes. The original bill defined an animal as "a vertebrate, other than a human being, and any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain." The Senate committee proposed amending the definition of "animal" to read "a vertebrate, other than a human being." The term "vertebrate" refers to species with a back- bone, such as fish, birds, mammals, and amphibians. Using that word would exclude crea- tures such as octopuses, squids, lobsters, and crabs. The Senate argued that "the definition in Bill C-10B feeds into concerns that the bill adheres to animal rights philosophy and that an ideological shift is taking place in favour of the emancipation of animals" (Lunman 2003).Unit 1 Our Legal Heritage The Senate is also considering exemptions for hunters, trappers, scientific researchers acting under "generally accepted standards," those who practise animal husbandry or slaughter, and natives who practise "traditional hunting, trapping or fishing." Advocates for various animal-based busi- nesses have appeared before the committee to ask that their industries be exempt from the bill. They want assurances that people HONK who use humane methods to kill animals will not be subject to attempts by animal-rights TO HELP groups to prosecute them privately. Experts on pain also appeared before the Senate DOLPHINS committee and testified that a lobster being boiled does not feel pain. Animal-rights advocates accuse the Senate committee of giving in to the animal- industry lobby and losing sight of the very serious problem of animal cruelty in Canada. David Loan, campaign manager for the MORE International Fund for Animal Welfare said, DOLPHINS "I'm hoping the Senate will take a step back and remember what this law is for. They're 3.4 Valerie Roberton (centre) from the animals rights setting it back prior to 1892" (Lunman oice for Animals holds a inflatable dolphin during a protest 2003). it the owners of West Edmonton Mall in 2003. The group ppy with the mall's treatment of Howard the dolphin SOURCES: Adapted from Tizon, Alex. "Apes in the g the death of another dolphin recently. Do you believe Courtroom: A Group of Lawyers Is Fighting for vs are needed to protect animals in Canada? Recognition of Apes as Legal Persons." National Post 1 Apr. 2000; Adapted from Lunman, Kim. "Definition of 'Animal' May Hold Up Cruelty Law." The Globe and Mail 22 Apr. 2003. Your Perspective 1. The Senate committee suggested that an "ideological shift is taking place in favour of the emancipation of animals." What evidence could you offer to show that the senators are correct? 2. Scientists are now discovering that fish feel pain, elephants show compassion, and dolphins display intelligence. Will we look back 100 years from now and see our cruelty and use of animals as barbaric, just as we now view the enslavement of people? Discuss. 3. Read the above excerpts from Bill C-10B. Would you pass the bill into law? Why or why not? 4. Draw up your own Bill of Rights for Animals. 5. Some philosophers argue that people who do not know they have a right or are inca- pable of understanding what a right is cannot exercise their rights. Do you agree with this argument? Does this mean that animals can never have rights? Explain