textfiles-politics/politicalTextFiles/wrongs.txt

        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.