Guest Post: The Animal Casualties of War
by Susy Pryde
English cavalry on the Western Front, 1916
‘Cry Havoc and let slip the dogs of war’
- William Shakespeare (Julius Caesar)
My brother in law rang my husband recently, to ask if the film, Avatar, would be too scary for their six year-old daughter. The cynic in me queried how a well-reasoned answer could come from dialing our number; we’re child-free and the source of such hoped for wisdom was from a man who abandoned a six year-old’s perspective decades ago. To his credit, he managed to point out that the story is set against large-scale war. So, there are graphic scenes of flaming horses caught in the crossfire of battle. That might be somewhat disturbing. At least, he added, it would be for a six year-old girl with a growing ‘My Little Pony’ toy collection.
While the boys tailed off into discussions of war, I dwelled on the plight of animals in war: The collateral damage of human conflicts. Not long ago I began reading an historical account of animals used for military purposes. As far back as 2100 BC, Hammurabi, the sixth King of Babylon and first known author of a written code of law (the Code of Hammurabi), championed the first known use of animals in warfare. He employed large dogs to fight alongside his elite warriors. Read more…
Another Fortnight, Another Links Digest
- In shocking news, it’s not just animal welfare offences that the government plan to fix by raising maximum sentences: It’s assaults on police. Experts disagree. The same logic, of course, probably applies to animal welfare.
- More coverage of the Swiss referendum on legal rights for animals:
The “No to the Useless Animal Lawyers’ Initiative” (yes, that’s actually the name of group) said, “Animal rights advocates are useless to animals. They can’t prevent animal abuse because they only get involved after it has been perpetrated.”
Is that how they feel about police officers? Child welfare and social services?
- It’s official: New Zealand has more cows than people.
- Bitch magazine fires off a salvo at welfarist-hero slaughterhouse-designer, Temple Grandin (via AnimalBlawg).
- The problem is this: ‘Grandin does not provide consistent answers on how to treat animals.’
- Twitter. For. Dogs. Why? Read more…
Animal Abuser Registry?
California State Senator Dean Florez has proposed creating an ‘abuser registry’ for serious crimes involving animal cruelty. If it becomes law, this bill would place animal abusers on par with sex offenders and require the publication of abusers’ names, photographs, addresses, and other information. A draft copy of the proposed bill can be found here.
New Animal Welfare Act Amendment Bill Introduced in Parliament
With surprisingly little fanfare or attention, the new Animal Welfare Act Amendment Bill has been introduced into Parliament. You can download a copy of the Bill and read the government’s statement behind it here.
As promised, it’s got more than just an increase in penalty for wilful ill-treatment.
Watch this space to read my review of the Bill in a few days time…
Links Roundup: ‘Quick, let’s do some research!’ Edition
Let’s just start with something that isn’t totally about animal rights. Some of you might remember me linking to GreenIsTheNewRed articles about non-violent activists being labelled terrorists. Well, things are at a bit of the 180 now. An English member of the European Parliament, Godfrey Bloom, has congratulated the French spies who bombed the Rainbow Warrior in the Waitemata Harbour. John Key PM refused to comment.
And we expect the government to get ‘tough‘ on animal welfare? John, I’m appalled.
- Meanwhile, as Bloom celebrates the sinking of a Greenpeace vessel and Key dithers, Japanese whalers have again rammed a Sea Shepherd vessel in the Southern Ocean.
- Oh, and whaling isn’t the only animal-based ‘research’ that doesn’t really…work.
- For example, Iran has launched ‘a rodent, turtles and worms to 500 kilometres above the Earth‘. Apparently, this will either help Iran launch astronauts into space, or…launch ballistic missiles. I’m not entirely sure how orbital animals could be weaponised…
- But we need ‘research’, or else we wouldn’t have worked out all the great things we can do to meat before it hits the supermarket.
- Gary Francione has posted numerous excellent pieces recently. He has: Read more…
Garth George and the Confused Culture
It’s not often I’m moved to comment on Garth George – for those who are blissfully unfamiliar with his work, he’s a longtime conservative critic for the Herald, who in the past has railed against the decriminalisation of both abortion and homosexuality. Thursday’s Herald included a fascinating editorial in which Mr George commented on the recent 33-dog slaughter in Wellsford, demonstrating a poignant knot that braces much of the globalised Western legal and social culture.
Garth begins his post by enumerating the three things he still cannot get his head around. In his own words:
The first is child abuse, paedophilia and cruelty to domestic animals; the second is male homosexuality; and the third is vegetarianism.
I will refrain from commenting on the second point since this is not the appropriate forum (although I do find the specific phraseology ‘male homosexuality’ fascinating), the first and third of Garth’s big confusions reveal a fascinating contradiction. Interestingly, he spends little time actually commenting on the relative merits or otherwise of vegetarianism or veganism (a distinction he admits ignorance of), and when he meets a member of this strange breed, he, ‘..simply shake[s his] …head in wonder.’ The rest of the editorial is devoted to shaming the perpetrators of some of the more heinous instances of animal cruelty over the recent past. Throughout the post, George makes it clear that he has no practical or comprehensible ethical or philosophical grounding from which this set of arbitrary rules are derived. Read more…
Comprehensive Review of the Animal Welfare Act?
Interesting comment from David Carter, Minister of Agriculture – and responsible for the Animal Welfare Act 1999. Not surprisingly, Parliament is fast-tracking Simon Bridges’ Bill to up the penalty on wilful ill-treatment, but Carter indicated in this article that he would consider ‘whether [the Bill] should be widened to make the Animal Welfare Act work better’. Wow! Could be significant. Stay tuned…
Blowing Off Some Steam about Wellsford and Politicians
There’s a lot to be angry about these days. Ever since a couple of lunatics decided to commit the ‘Wellsford Massacre’, by emptying their shotguns into a shed full of puppies, the media has been alight with stories about animal welfare. In one sense, that’s good. We certainly need to be paying more attention to what is, sadly, a prevalent problem. Nonetheless, there’s a lot to get angry about from the media coverage as well. I’m not sure whether it’s the media, the killers up in Wellsford, some lady calling me a dick-head, or a combination of all these things, but I’m feeling pretty steamed. Rather than attempt a coherent blog in this state, I’ll throw out a few points on the ‘things that are making me mad’, and hope it makes some degree of sense in the end.
Disclaimer
Before doing so, a disclaimer. I worry some times that people read parts of my comments rather than the whole. So let me state this loud and clear: I am not against punishing people who commit cruelty against animals. Far from it. I’ve done as much to try and get sentences fairly applied as anyone, and have written legal articles, drafted submissions to Parliament and worked with prosecutors to bolster sentences for animal abusers. It is, to be sure, a component of what needs to happen in order to have a country that treats animals better than it currently does. Nonetheless, as you’ll see from my comments below, I have serious reservations about the way this has suddenly become ‘the answer’ to our problems.
My Talk with Simon Bridges, MP
A few weeks before he introduced his new Bill to raise the maximum penalty for wilful ill-treatment to animals causing death from three to five years, Simon Bridges called me to see what I thought. I told him I thought it would do absolutely nothing for animals, and might even set back the cause. I think he was taken aback, as my position seemed both counter-intuitive and contrary to the ‘animal lover’ position. So I explained. The problem, as I see it, is not the maximum sentence for the single most serious crime relating to animals. A three year maximum, believe it or not, is fairly high by New Zealand standards. Sure, judges rarely impose the maximum, but that’s true for all crimes. Nonetheless, the three year maximum is not out-of-whack with other jurisdictions, and gives plenty of room to get jail time for those who commit horrid acts. Read more…
A few more thoughts on the Wellsford Massacre…
As more details emerge from what happened in Wellsford two days ago, the whole picture gets a great deal grimmer. In New Zealand terms, this was a huge story, splashed all over the front page of the Herald, and it has garnered considerable attention. Sadly, it says a lot about our view towards animals, and highlights some of the weaknesses of the existing animal welfare system. Incidentally, if you haven’t done so, it’s probably worth reading what I had to say on this yesterday, as I don’t plan on repeating any details of the case that I talked about then. But here are six additional things to think about:
First, the horrors of the incident should not be underestimated. When SPCA inspectors, who see plenty of awful things done to animals every day, are left speechless – it’s pretty bad news. The perpetrator of the act deserves the condemnation he’s getting now, and hopefully the jail time he deserves. Let’s be honest. That’s one pretty sick guy. Read more…
Ummm… What’s There to Think About?
Depressing images from this morning’s New Zealand herald. The lead story on the internet version of the paper is entitled ‘33 dogs massacred in ‘rifle-killing frenzy‘.
I’ll let you look over the depressing facts yourself. I’m interested in the legal aspects of the case. Consider the following facts set out in the Herald – keeping in mind that the Herald ‘facts’ are not necessarily actual ‘facts’:
Yesterday, holding back tears, [the owner] described the sounds of his dogs being shot – sounds that echoed off the quarry walls for 20 minutes.
“They were screaming, making sounds dogs just don’t make. When one was gone, the others knew they’d be next, but they had nowhere to go.”
In all, 23 pups and young dogs, which slept in the owner’s truck, were shot, as were a male and female dog living in a van wreck and eight adult dogs housed in a kennel. They were shot through the grating.
Four pups hiding under their mother in the van survived, as did two other dogs the shooters didn’t see.
These six were taken to the owner’s workshop in Wellsford, but one later died. None of the dogs had been registered.
Pretty despicable stuff, all arising out of a dispute between neighbours over actions taken by the dog.
Almost is frightening is the last paragraph of the story:
SPCA executive director Bob Kerridge said two investigators had visited the property and would determine whether the dogs suffered before they died. A decision would then be made on whether to charge the gunmen. Wilful ill-treatment carries a penalty of up to three years’ jail.
Ummm… Bob, what’s to think about? Read more…
