(MY) Reflecting On The Law - Animal rights, human wrongs

[Guest guest]

Columnists - Reflecting On The Law

The Star

Wednesday October 17, 2007

 

Animal rights, human wrongs

 

Reflecting on the Law: By SHAD SALEEM FARUQI.

 

We need to adopt and enforce laws and policies about

humane treatment of animals in every sphere of

interaction with our fellow creatures.

 

CRUELTY towards all other forms of life has been a

shameful aspect of human existence for thousands of

years.

 

We use our distant cousins in feather and fur for

food. Many animals are exploited as beasts of burden.

We kill beautiful creatures for their fur. To some

people fashion statements are more important than

reverence for life!

 

Poachers kill rare animals for ivory and for the

manufacture of aphrodisiacs. Medical schools use live

animals for dissection. Animal organs are used in

xenotransplantation to save human lives. Genetic

engineering of animals is increasingly common.

 

There are cruel sports such as hunting and cockfights.

Matadors pierce bulls'bodies to the roar of delighted

fans. Animal businesses employ brutal ways of

transporting creatures from farms to markets.

 

Slaughterhouses skin animals alive. Some of our exotic

food preferences and cooking techniques are absolutely

bestial. Fish and crustaceans are cooked alive. In

some gourmet restaurants live monkey skulls are split

open for connoisseurs to feast on raw brain!

 

The smugness with which man does whatever he pleases

to other species exemplifies a brutal anthropocentric

approach and is based on the principle that might is

right.

 

I have reliable reports from animal lovers that,

contrary to official denial, monkeys are being trapped

and shot in Bangsar in Kuala Lumpur. It is suspected

that unscrupulous traffickers in animals are

emboldened by the recent lifting of the ban by our

authorities on the export of monkeys.

 

Animal lovers fear that many of the monkeys trapped or

shot dead will end up in cooking pots or on

vivisection tables in laboratories.

 

I have strong doubts about the morality or utility of

monkey and crow shoots, and the offering of rewards to

catchers of stray dogs.

 

Are we ignoring the root causes of conflict between

animals and humans, the damage to our environment,

the slow elimination of our flora and fauna, the

constant encroachment on animal habitats and the slow

but sure de-gazetting of forest reserves, green belts

and parks?

 

These human-centred development policies confirm our

callousness towards animal welfare, and reinforce the

mistaken view that all other forms of life on this

planet exist only to serve human beings.

 

In fact, they have God's own reason for existence.

 

Some readers will, of course, wonder why " Animal

rights " are important. Animals are, after all, a

" lower form " of life.

 

My answer is that animals are our fellow creatures and

part of God's majestic creation. Like humans, they

have a spark of life that deserves respect and demands

compassion.

 

Whether animals can reason or talk is less important

than whether they can suffer. It is undeniable that

all animals with central nervous systems feel pain.

Their suffering at our hands is as real as our

suffering would be if the roles were reversed.

 

In an earlier age, most human beings had a " tribal

ethic " . Members of the tribe were protected, but

people of other tribes could be robbed, raped or

killed as one pleased.

 

As civilisation advanced, the circle of protection

expanded. We began to see the evil in tribalism,

slavery, caste system, racism, religious bigotry,

colonialism and gender exploitation.

 

Pete Singer says that just as we have progressed

beyond the blatantly racist ethic of the era of

slavery and colonialism, so we must now progress

beyond the species-ist ethic of the era of factory

farming, of the use of animals as mere research tools,

of whaling, seal hunting, kangaroo slaughter and the

destruction of wilderness. We must take the final step

in expanding the circle of ethics?

 

" Compassion, in which all ethics must take root, can

only attain its full breadth and depth if it embraces

all living creatures " Albert Schweitzer.

 

" Teaching a child not to step on a caterpillar is as

valuable to the child as it is to the caterpillar " Bradley Millar.

 

Many studies indicate that those who are cruel towards

animals are also more disposed to crimes against other

human beings.

 

The movement for the protection of animals is split

into two. The first approach is that animals are

sentient beings possessing inherent value and

deserving moral and legal rights.

 

Religions like Buddhism and Hinduism support this

approach fully. In most other religions there are

strictures against cruelty towards animals.

Unfortunately there is as yet no international treaty

on animal rights.

 

The second approach is that animals have no inherent

rights, but their protection is part of the

biodiversity of this planet. As such, animals should

be protected because of their instrumental value for

the survival of this planet's ecosystem.

 

Both approaches call for methods and environments that

are more humane for the lives of animals, and envisage

that the time will come when animals will not be used

as mere tools of human interest.

 

A few non-binding instruments like the International

Convention for the Protection of Animals, 1988, and

the World Medical Association Statement on Animal Use

in Biomedical Research, 1989, have been framed by

eminent legal thinkers and regional organisations.

 

Europe is providing leadership. There are documents

for the protection of animals kept for farming

purposes (1976), for slaughter (1979), as pets (1987),

and during international transport (1971).

 

The Humane Society of the US has a number of documents

on farm animals, biomedical research, animals in

entertainment, and competition and companion animals.

 

Sadly, the Malaysian legal system has not developed

along these lines. The Penal Code regards animals as

property and makes it a criminal offence to " commit mischief by killing,

poisoning, maiming, or rendering

useless, any animal or animals of the value of five

dollars or upwards " .

 

The law is obviously quite inadequate to deal with

many of the animal abuses mentioned earlier.

 

What we need to do is to adopt and enforce laws and

policies about humane treatment of animals in every

sphere of interaction with our fellow creatures.

 

In addition, we need to conserve and protect areas

that are vital to the survival of all other

inhabitants of the earth. We need to learn to live

with our fellow creatures. This new consciousness

cannot wait. Time is running out on our planet.

 

The Government must join hands with animal lovers to

remind the apathetic citizenry of the unity of life

and its interconnectedness.

 

Education should be directed towards the refinement of

the individual's sensibilities in relation not only to

one's fellow humans everywhere, but also to all things

everywhere.

 

Animals are not our underlings. They are an integral

part of the net of life and time. They are fellow

prisoners of the splendour and travail of Earth. Our

life depends on their survival.

 

 

Dr Shad Faruqi is Professor of Law at UiTM

 

http://thestar.com.my/columnists/story.asp?file=/2007/10/17/columnists/reflectin\

gonthelaw/19178729 & sec=Reflecting%20On%20The%20Law