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.