Do animals need lawyers?
When I read this story the other day, I straight away pictured what cartoonists and Monty Python would make of it. Lawyers for animals? Surely you're not serious?
But yes, it's serious, and none are more serious than the Swiss, who've just voted to reject a proposal for animals to have their own appointed lawyers.
In Zurich there's already a scheme for animals to have legal representation in cases of cruelty. The specialist animal-lawyer there deals with 150 to 200 cases a year. Last month he represented a dead pike that an angler had allegedly left too long on the hook.
Which conjures up a Pythonesque picture of a passionate barrister directing a jury's gaze at the victim...who's lying in an icebox on the prosecution bench.
But there's a serious point to be made, I guess, and the 29.5 per cent of Swiss voters who backed the lawyers-for-animals plan evidently bought it.
It's that in a case of animal cruelty, is anyone truly representing the animal? Does anyone have the clear role of speaking up for the cat, dog or cow that's been made to suffer? Who's the advocate for the kittens who got eaten by a dog, or the dog stolen to be fight-bait?
In New Zealand cases, you often hear an SPCA case put forward. They are speaking up for the animal.
But a lawyer? I don't know what practical gain that would bring, whether animals would be better advocated for. But maybe so; I'd like to hear what you think.
What about a national advocate for animals and their rights?
Apparently at least two political parties - Green and United Future - support having a Commissioner for Animals.
We've got a Commissioner for Children who speaks up for children. We have a Race Relations Conciliator who speaks up for race relations. We have a Commissioner for the Environment, a Youth Affairs Ministry...and so on.
Would animals be better off if a government official had the job of speaking up for animals - to scan laws and practices, to get people thinking, to take on business or government power where animals are being badly treated?
I kind of like the idea. It would need a powerful, persuasive person, and no doubt someone who knows how to pull political levers. What appeals to me is that there'd be someone using a potent bully-pulpit, along with a decent budget, making the case that animals' rights have to be stitched into the fabric of how we all live.
But I'm also an ingrained sceptic about setting up commissions and ministries simply because some put-upon group has been identified, and therefore that group should have its own bureaucracy because everyone else has theirs. I reckon it prompts a culture of cynicism and lip-service as much as it brings real progress.
People would certainly grow cynical if rule-making for animal rights became too sticky-beak. Switzerland's 160-page animal-protection law tells you how many square centimetres you must allow for your Mongolian gerbil, and how warm your African clawed frog needs to be. You can't keep a single goldfish in a bowl, and your budgie must have a fellow budgie around. Dog owners have to take a training course.
In that kind of setting, having lawyers representing dead fish is not such a weird idea.
I just can't see it taking hold here. The question of who stands up for animals, though, is still a fair one.
» Join Four Legs Good on Facebook.
Sponsored links
Newest First
Oldest First
I think it would be an excellent idea. If we look at what has happened recently with regard to the pig board trying to delay the release of the draft pig welfare codeit shows that there is some need for legal representation for animals. It seems unfair that the pig board could threatened legal action to delay the codes release yet the animals that would have to endure the suffering (that the code aims to eventually stop) had no legal protection. If we are going to use animals for food etc then I think we ought to give them some form of basic legal protection. Minimally this might be that they have a legal right to food, shelter, water and protection from unnecesarry suffering.
What I can't figure out is if it is against the law to be cruel to animals then why is it the police never prosecute why does it have to be left up to the SPCA to decide, surely if a law is broken then police should be fronting up to do the decent thing and lay charges, then animals would start having rights and also would be really good if upon being found guilty that judges actually gave out the maximum sentence instead of a slap on the wrist especially after all the hard work gone into presenting the case. Own lawyers for animals probably not but a nice idea all the same.
No I don't so do we truly know how an animal feels when we lock them up or put them in a bowl? NO animal on the face of this plant was created to be treated the way we treat any them.
Animals deserve freedom from cruelty.
Animal abusers go on to abuse humans - why not intervene with this sort of person ASAP?
Sounds all good to me. Woof, woof.
Agree with #3 comment of laws which are broken that Police seem not to be involved and prosecute. Lawyers for the abused/neglected animals would be very expensive, But Animals Do need a voice. SPCA shouldn't have to use its funds from donations to prosecute, as the money is better spent where its needed to help the many animals that come into its care; maybe animals should be afforded Legal Aid? Kudos to the Law Firm In Auckland that represents abuse cases Pro-Bono, I Really hope other Law Firms around the country follow this admirable example.The Justice system certainly needs a big over haul, as the pathetic fines and punishments (if any) are a joke and certainly don't deter further criminal acts. I also believe that organisations like SPCA should be subsidized by the Government.I think the Swiss deserve full credit though, for showing the world that it takes animal cruelty, abuse and neglect seriously. To borrow the words from Ghandi ~ The Greatness of a Nation can be judged by the way it treats its animals. PS: Shame on John Key for considering pandering to Japan to allow the whale hunt and slaughter to continue; how hypocritical too; we have Whale Watch expeditions and yet the Govt. is condoning their slaughter, inhumane slaughter at that! National has lost my vote I'm afraid.
Animal law is an emerging social justice movement. For more information see: http://www.voiceless.org.au/
I thought we were animals. Did I miss something at school?
I support animal rights.
Animal cruelty is wrong. Its simple. The most powerful weapon to hurt or save animals is our shopping list. Choose a side. Money talks.
We do have a long way to go, this country was built on animal cruelty and continues to be pushed in that direction. Few politicians have a vision beyond pedaling flesh and blood via meat and dairy exports.
Those that support the fight against speciesim get my vote.
Police don't get involved because there is not enough of them, and like it or not they have to prioritize. New Zealands laws on animal welfare are gutless, like the politician's who make them. As for the scum that abuse animals, 20 years should be possible, not 3. Lawyers for animals? Who's going to pay. Because animals can't speak, maybe there should be a animal welfare task force, government funded to back up their laws! Has anyone here ever been to an abattoir and heard the un-natural cry cows make when there are waiting in line for slaughter? It is no doubt cruel. Should we get the cow's lawyers? Should we all be sued by the cows for eating the proceeds of there abuse? Where is the line drawn? I love a good steak. Maybe one day it will be illegal to eat meat.
P.S. As for the NZ government supporting whaling. My advice, get rid of your government. Is anyone protesting this or do you all just lie down and take it? Come on New Zealand, stand up!
Dotcom accused van der Kolk 'flabbergasted'
One dead after SH1 crash near Wellington
Adele's the big winner at Grammys
Body found in Sydney tree identified
Police find woman's body in Manawatu
Woman crushed, friend watched 'helplessly'
Houston died in bathtub - coroner
I think it's a great idea. The SPCA has no teeth when it comes to prosecution and the existing animal cruelty laws certainly don't make it any easier. There's plenty of evidence that links animal cruelty to criminal behaviour against people either contemporaneously or later in life. Not so sure about lawyers representing individual animals but a commissioner for animals would be a great start.