You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
crosshair
But if you read that quote properly, it says we already recognised animals as sentient in all but name
cite please?
I have to say that I find "virtue signalling" one of the least worrying things I come across on a daily basis.
Rather amused that it bothers Ninfan quite so!
Only from above^
A: Absolutely. Before we entered the European Union, we recognised in our own legislation that animals were sentient beings
So if we already recognised it, the EU law did nothing practical to improve on it other than add needless red tape with a handy
get out clause for their own filthy habits., while respecting the legislative or administrative provisions and customs of the Member States relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage.
So if we already recognised it, the EU law did nothing practical to improve on it other than add needless red tape with a handy
So why do you have a problem removing the word? It seems people are pissed off by something they claim does nothing. The only thing this did was waste parliaments time and tell everyone that when they promised to not change anything it was a crock of shit.
It will, but not in the way you think.The removal of this law is to allow cheap imports of meat that's been in humanly treated.
Because imported inhumane meat is cheaper.
I don't think it's about getting cheaper meat on the table, and more about the USA government trade people having made clear that we must not agree anything with the EU as regards standards, or tie our hands by embedding EU principles in UK law, that would block them getting what the US wants from a trade deal with us… non-transparent lower standards for their exports to the UK. And we will NEED that trade deal.
Which part of that doesn't suit post-Brexit UK?
Which part of that doesn't suit the USA is the question to ask at every turn of the unraveling EU involvement in food and agriculture standards as applicable to the post-Brexit UK.
I don't have a problem with the word, just with the premise that a law from the EU that adds no practical benefit over those that preceded it should be blindly enshrined just because the EU is deemed superior by some.
Particularly as in the most important sense- the application of any law regardless of wording, we are way ahead of the mainland.
I don't see what's happening as a deception, merely a practical way of moving forward.
It is not about how the law is applied inside the UK. Or the rest to the EU. It's about the USA. Wake up.
EU law did nothing practical to improve on it other than add needless red tape with a handy
From the [url= https://www.farminguk.com/news/MPs-vote-to-reject-inclusion-of-animal-sentience-in-Withdrawal-Bill_47923.html ]Farming UK article[/url]:
[b]"Eighty percent of current animal welfare legislation comes from the EU"[/b]
How is that "nothing practical"??
I don't see what's happening as a deception, merely a practical way of moving forward.
The relevant minister was asked a direct and explicit question. His actions have been different to the direct and explicit question he was asked. That is deception and that is breaking your word.
crosshair
What's important is maintaining our status as world leaders in how we treat animals- what's not is slavishly smothering ourselves with pompous and meaningless EU drivel that we are now free to shake off.
And yet around 80% of UK animal welfare laws originate from the EU. Please explain yourself? Even takng EU legislation as a [b]minimum[/b], how does ripping it all up and leaving the EU maintain our status?
If it makes it easy - which of the following (for instances) 'pompous and meaningless drivel' would you tear up and trust to a Government who only last year attempted to begin the process of deregulation/handing code guidelines for animal welfare over to the meat and dairy industry?
1974 The Council of Europe passed a directive requiring that animals be rendered unconscious before slaughter.
1976 The European Convention for the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes, which mandates that animals be kept in conditions meeting their "physiological and ethological needs", is passed
1986 The Council of Europe issues the European Directive Regarding the Protection of Animals Used for Experimental and Other Scientific Purposes
1997 The European Union's Protocol on Animal Protection is annexed to the treaty establishing the European Community. The Protocol recognizes animals as "sentient beings" (rather than mere property) and requires countries to pay "full regard to the welfare requirements of animals" when making laws regarding their use.
1998 The EU passes the Council Directive 98/58/EC Concerning the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes, which is based on a revised Five Freedoms: freedom from hunger and thirst; from discomfort; from pain, injury, and disease; from fear and distress; and to express normal behavior
1999 The EU passes a law phasing out the use of barren battery cages
2003 EU bans the construction of new gestation crates
2006 The European Commission passes minimum requirements on the collection of information during inspection of animal farms so that the European Community can evaluate the impact of its welfare policies.
2006 Veal crates become illegal in the EU
2012 The EU's ban on battery cages goes into effect
2013 The EU ban on all gestation crates goes into effect.
I don't understand why Leavers are so keen to 'virtue signal' when it's patently obvious to most (including the BVA AND Farming UK) that there is a massive likelhood that things will likely get worse here for animals that we currently exploit as we would move to a more US-style trading platform (production/imports/exports).
Most anyone can agree that ivory trade (for instance) is now indefensible. Yet who tried to block the EU ban on ivory trade? Any guesses?
But then, you yourself seem to think that even minimum welfare protocol (ie recognition of sentience) is just more 'drivel' and 'red tape'?
*Edit
there is a likelihood that things will [s]likely[/s] get worse
crosshair
Only from above^A: Absolutely. Before we entered the European Union, we recognised in our own legislation that animals were sentient beings
Trouble is, that quote from Gove is likely to be bullshit. The word sentience does not feature anywhere in the 2006 animal welfare act. I doubt (but haven't confirmed) it featured in any other relevant legislation prior to 1999.
+1 Malvern Rider.
Well researched!
Yes all lovely but it came from the EU because we were in it! You are assuming we wouldn't have done the same or better ourselves if we hadn't joined. The fact we have applied the law so diligently compared to other member states suggests we would be world leaders regardless.
The word sentient is irrelevant if the law has the same practicable effect. (Especially if it does increase opportunities for trade elsewhere).
The word sentient is irrelevant if the law has the same practicable effect. (Especially if it does increase opportunities for trade elsewhere).
Caroline Lucas addressed that at the end of the debate:
I am disappointed by the Minister’s response to new clause 30. It is not good enough to claim that animal sentience is already covered by UK law by virtue of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 since the protocol is not even explicitly included or referred to in that Act and the word “sentience” does not appear anywhere in it. The Act applies only to companion animals—domestic pets. It does not apply to farm animals, wildlife or laboratory animals. For those reasons, I intend to press new clause 30 to a Division.On the environmental principles, Sir Oliver Letwin made very interesting and exciting points. I have long called for an environment Act, but I still do not see why that has to be at the expense of getting something in this Bill. That is important, because essentially the protections need to be in law from day one of Brexit. My worry is that I do not share his optimism about how quickly we could get an environment Act through the House.
Trouble is, that quote from Gove is likely to be bullshit.
Not sure if you meant Gove was bulshitting, or that the quote was made up?
If it's the former, then yeah, his lips were moving.
If the latter then here is Hansard entry it is from:
The word sentient is irrelevant if the law has the same practicable effect. (Especially if it does increase opportunities for trade elsewhere).
But it only increases opportunities for trade elsewhere if it DOESN'T have the same practicable effect.
Still just seems like a case of pragmatism v bureaucracy to me and a lack of trust and belief in British business.
Of course it does if said trade is decided by petty lawyers! What's important is animal welfare....
Well it would, if you're arguing that the word makes no difference while simultaneously increasing trade then I think you're on a difficult defense there.
a lack of trust and belief in British business.
Banks
Food
Environmental laws
etc.
Trusting business is great, easier to regulate and punish when they break the rules than trust them not to and complain when they don't.
I am disappointed by the Minister’s response to new clause 30. It is not good enough to claim that animal sentience is already covered by UK law by virtue of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 since the protocol is not even explicitly included or referred to in that Act and the word “sentience” does not appear anywhere in it. The Act applies only to companion animals—domestic pets. It does not apply to farm animals, wildlife or laboratory animals.
But crosshair will prove Ms Lucas wrong. He claims it is 'already covered' in all but name. Just waiting on his reference/citation.
crosshair?
Animals do feel pain & contemptment that I can 100% fing assure you.
Again
All animals?
And yet around 80% of UK animal welfare laws originate from the EU.
That’s funny, I remember before the referendum all you remainders telling us that our laws weren’t nearly all created by the EU, that claiming that was all right wing lunacy
You’ve shot your own fox there I’m afraid 🙂
Of course it does if said trade is decided by petty lawyers!
So you're saying it might block trade if we had a principle in our law stating that since animals are sentient beings we must regard the welfare requirements of animals when implementing agriculture, fisheries, transport, internal market, research and technological development and space policies.
But you're also claiming we already have that principle in law?
[img] 
[/img]
The can is both in and outside of the box on this one.
That’s funny, I remember before the referendum all you remainders telling us that our laws weren’t nearly all created by the EU, that claiming that was all right wing lunacy
Given the state of your memory...
Ready to answer why the word sentient should be removed from the law?
classic virtue signalling
Remember kids, if someone does something good or positive and you don't like it, but you can't find any rational way to criticise it- it's virtue signalling.
AgainAll animals?
It is a guiding principle. It is allowed to be vague.
In much the same way you can have a guiding principle of equal opportunity without defining exactly what that means.
Ready to answer why the word sentient should be removed from the law?
Just wondering if one of the Nasty Party drones had answered the question yet - looks like Mike has done it for me and (surprise, surprise) no answer yet.
Beyond parody.
Ready to answer why the word sentient should be removed from the law?
Just as soon as you give me a [u]legal[/u] definition of the word, and confirm whether in your opinion it fits [u]all[/u] animals.
Edit:
It is a guiding principle. It is allowed to be vague.
Ah, vagueness in legislation, very EU. There alone is a reason why it doesn’t belong in British Law
To be clear here, I personally don’t accept that all Arthropods are sentient beings, despite some undoubtedly displaying indicators consistent with pain or stress
Ah, vagueness in legislation, very EU. There alone is a reason why it doesn’t belong in British Law
Eh? British law is [i]full[/i] of guiding principles, codes of practise, and the like*.
As is most law.
Arguing over what those principles are, how they are interpreted and what their limitations should be is pretty fundamental to how law and democracy works isn't it? (see for example your other favourite subject: the US 2nd Amendment)
.
*(including this one, if crosshair is to be believed)
Just as soon as you give me a legal definition of the word, and confirm whether in your opinion it fits all animals.
Who needs legal definitions when the basic science of how the nervous system and stress hormones work are widely known? Unless you're just vainly trying to get someone to concede that less "complex" animals feel pain or emotion to a lesser extent? No one is going to argue that a sponge will feel pain the same way as a cat. But any animal used in agriculture within the UK is perfectly sensitive enough to pain to suffer.
We're all pretty similar as far as our biology goes in the mammal world - all feel pain etc - you have to get down to sharks and rays before there is a solid argument for diminished pain, and even then, they still respond to tissue damage in such a way as they are conscious of the harm being done to them.
Apes, many cetaceans, elephants, carnivrora, ruminants etc all have emotional responses to their own mistreatment or their group/families'.
Article 13In formulating and implementing the Union's agriculture, fisheries, transport, internal market, research and technological development and space policies, the Union and the Member States shall, since animals are sentient beings, pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals, while respecting the legislative or administrative provisions and customs of the Member States relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage.
What meaningless bollocks.
Makes perfect sense to me. Which words are you struggling with?
I personally don’t accept that all Arthropods are sentient beings
Whats your definition of sentient then and which artropods are non sentient? You asked for a definition but have jumped the gun a bit.
Pretty sure all arthropods can detect stimuli they respond to either positively or negatively
Which words are you struggling with?
I guess It's hard to pay full regard to an animal's welfare whilst knowingly letting archaic and/or religion-based mistreatment occur.
Which words are you struggling with?
None.
Thanks for the attempt at condescension. 🙂
Makes sense to me.
Then explain to me how we can "pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals" whilst [s]slowly spearing cows for sport and chucking donkeys off rooves[/s] "respecting the legislative or administrative provisions and customs of the Member States relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage".
Seems mutually exclusive to me.
Thank you in advance for your help.
Eh? British law is full of guiding principles, codes of practise, and the like*.As is most law.
Most common law, the Napoleonic code is different (for example).
This is useful:
By current European law, animals are recognised as sentient beings, acknowledging their ability to feel pain, suffer and also experience joy. No one who has seen a cow going outside for the first time after a winter indoors, a hen dust bathing, or a pig wallowing in a fresh patch of mud would disagree with that. The law says that as animals are sentient beings, full regard must be given to their welfare when creating new legislation or regulations.
Securing this status for animals was a massive step forward for animal welfare in 1997. It was the biggest campaign Compassion has ever run. The recognition of animals as complex and intelligent creatures has been the cornerstone of European animal welfare legislation since that time, and the basis for so much of the progress we have made together.So what’s the problem?
The EU Withdrawal Bill, which moves all European law into UK law once we leave the EU, has left out this important protection. It is completely absent; both the recognition of animals as sentient beings, and the requirement for governments to pay “full regard” to their welfare.
More on sentience (Not just physical 'pain', which is also subjective/vague, ask any doctor!) here:
Thanks for the attempt at condescension.
I'm not being condescending, I'm too busy thinking about far more important things you wouldn't understand. 😉
(Thank you Jimmy Carr)
I guess It's hard to pay full regard to an animal's welfare whilst knowingly letting archaic and/or religion-based mistreatment occur.
As I said before, the text is a guiding principle.
All it says is that the policies they make will consider the welfare of animals, but they recognise they must also respect the laws and cultures of member states.
The extent to which animal welfare laws can override those cultural practises or vice versa, is a matter for further and ongoing debate as the policies and directives are actually developed.
Look I'm not the sharpest tool in the box but does the European law mean that religious principles take precedence over animal welfare in this instance?
I think I'm having a change of mind. I'm inclined to agree that Article 13 as quoted above doesn't fit into the way Britain should be run on or after Brexit. It is hypocritical. Essentially saying if Catholics kill or transport their animals one way and Muslims kill or transport their animals another way then both methods shall be respected regardless of whether it is humane or not. The statement respects cultures more than the animals rights which I think is wrong.
I've received a response from my local MP referring to the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
Maybe the term vertebrate could be replaced with sentient being as I thought Octopuses were meant to be pretty intelligent. I wouldn't sit down and have dinner with it but then nor would I with a shark.
This is the relevant section from the AWA 2006
Duty of person responsible for animal to ensure welfare(1)A person commits an offence if he does not take such steps as are reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that the needs of an animal for which he is responsible are met to the extent required by good practice.
(2)For the purposes of this Act, an animal's needs shall be taken to include—
(a)its need for a suitable environment,
(b)its need for a suitable diet,
(c)its need to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns,
(d)any need it has to be housed with, or apart from, other animals, and
(e)its need to be protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease.
(3)The circumstances to which it is relevant to have regard when applying subsection (1) include, in particular—
(a)any lawful purpose for which the animal is kept, and
(b)any lawful activity undertaken in relation to the animal.
(4)Nothing in this section applies to the destruction of an animal in an appropriate and humane manner.
You could argue that sentience is covered under 2(c) but to it feels like a watering down.
All it says is that the policies they make will consider the welfare of animals, but they recognise they must also respect the laws and cultures of member states
You might as well have just copied and pasted the quoted text...
The extent to which animal welfare laws can override those cultural practises or vice versa, is a matter for further and ongoing debate
So we're back to it being meaningless bollocks!
TL;DR, but I’m honestly having trouble understanding how it’s important to keep EU legislation that allows open torture of animals for entertainment, as Spain does.
The UK banned the likes of badger baiting, dog fighting, cock fighting etc years ago, yet EU legislation allows bull fighting, so how would things be different?
..does the European law mean that religious principles take precedence over animal welfare in this instance?
I don't think it is hypocritical. I think it rightly recognises that the paradox exists and calls it out into the open as part of the principle.
The rest is up to lawmakers and politicians to debate and sort out.
I think I'm having a change of mind. I'm inclined to agree that Article 13 as quoted above doesn't fit into the way Britain should be run on or after Brexit.
The existing UK legislation is what we'll be left with after Brexit, which allows these religious practises.
I don't think the [url= https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/45/contents ]Animal Welfare Act 2006[/url] makes any mention of slaughter methods or transportation for instance. It does have a general section on "unnecessary suffering" (as well as docking tails, fighting, and prize goldfish).
This is where the EU are quite clever. They get to look all progressive to the hand wringing worry-alots then stick in an all inclusive get out clause for their shoddy mates in the dingiest corners of the EU but because the UK bigots don't view them as 'Tories' they get away with it over here. Well good riddance!
I'm sure there's enough busy body know it alls with enough Twitter power to hold the government to account and make sure welfare standards remain world class- and all for free too 😆
It's a funny old game when people who want rid of the EU for meddling in our laws are complaining about the EU [i]not[/i] forcing laws onto member states. 😕
UK bigots don't view them as 'Tories' they get away with it over here.
Two points:
1) are you suggesting it [i]wasn't[/i] Tories that rejected this clause? Because it looked that way to me. No 'bigotry' involved there.
2) the Tory party were, not so very long ago, massively in favour of EU membership.
No, but read the thread. The anti-Tory bile is disgusting.
I don't think the EU should have forced anything on anyone but I bet they didn't come up with the law for free. Total waste of money.
The anti-Tory bile is disgusting.
You think that's bad - you want to see what the papers say about Remainers. Enemies of the people, mutineers, put them in the tower, heads on stakes.
And that's before you even get to the death threats from the general public.
Total waste of money.
So you are, again, saying they did nothing and completely ignoring the quote about:
"Eighty percent of current animal welfare legislation comes from the EU"
I'm not saying that some legislation isn't desirable and necessary though merely that in this instance; getting hung up on the word 'sentient' is totally irrelevant because they also include an escape clause to justify doing whatever you want to animals.
It's a pointless 'what if' but if we hadn't joined the EU, we would have still been trading with them so we would have had to have had some kind of similar legislation to get access to their market. So the fact 80% of it came from the EU is ONLY BECAUSE WE WERE IN IT. If it had been created at home, it would have given jobs to UK lawyers and been a lot cheaper no doubt!
The world has moved on, the EU hasn't so flexibility is key as we forge our own way once more. Tying ourselves to some pointless semantics that a)achieve no desirable outcomes for animals on an EU scale and b)may limit our future options is foolish in the extreme.
crosshair - Member
No, but read the thread. The anti-Tory bile is disgusting...
Sorry about that, but I tend to get a bit worked up about a govt whose policies are killing so many of our poor weak and vulnerable.
What was it claimed in the papers the other day? 120,000 over the last 5 years of austerity deaths?
Even 10,000 would be too many.
So yes, bile.
No, but read the thread. The anti-Tory bile is disgusting...
You ok Hun?
😆
The world has moved on, the EU hasn't
I'm not saying that some legislation isn't desirable and necessary though merely that in this instance; getting hung up on the word 'sentient' is totally irrelevant because they also include an escape clause to justify doing whatever you want to animals.
Surely it's better than nothing at all, which is what they've replaced it with.
Small steps and all that. Perfection is the enemy of the good etc..
getting hung up on the word 'sentient' is totally irrelevant
Okay so ignoring the "sentient" part for a moment, what about the general principle that any policies and laws we make should "pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals"?
So the fact 80% of it came from the EU is ONLY BECAUSE WE WERE IN IT.
Yes I agree.
And in fact the first thing Caroline Lucas did while discussing this clause was point out that it was the UK that convinced the rest of the EU to include this clause and to recognise that animals were sentient!
Quotes from her:
By way of background, in 1997—20 years ago—the UK Government, during their presidency of the EU, convinced the then 14 other member states that EU law should explicitly recognise that animals were sentient beings, and not simply agricultural goods like bags of potatoes that could be maltreated with impunity.
..
The resulting protocol, which came into force in 1999, changed how animals were regarded and ensured that future EU legislation was not implemented on the basis of the lowest standards of animal welfare, but that it took animal sentience into account. That understanding has since informed more than 20 pieces of EU law on animal welfare, including the ban on sealskin imports, the ban on conventional battery cages and the ban on cosmetics testing on animals.
..
The Government have rightly and commendably committed to transferring all existing EU law on animal welfare into UK law under the Bill, but because the text of the Lisbon treaty is not transferred by the Bill, the wording of article 13 on animal sentience will not explicitly be incorporated into UK law. As things stand, despite having one of the longest-standing animal welfare laws in the world—something of which we are rightly proud—the UK has no legal instrument other than article 13 of the Lisbon treaty to provide that animals are sentient beings.
[url= https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-11-15a.475.0 ]Full debate here[/url]
So we ARE world leaders in animal welfare. We do set higher standards for ourselves than the rest of the EU. And all of that good work is undermined by the EU and the 'unless you are culturally disposed to animal cruelty' get out of jail card for the rest of Europe.
As I say, with us- world leaders in high animal welfare standards don't forget- on the outside, the world has moved on and until the shape of the new world order is apparent, it seems ludicrous to cable tie our hands.
No doubt we will continue to set the bar high in all future negotiations- whoever they may be with.
And all of that good work is undermined by the EU and the 'unless you are culturally disposed to animal cruelty' get out of jail card for the rest of Europe.
And that will be fixed by us leaving Europe and no longer being able to try to influence European policy?
Or will it be fixed by us ditching that inconvenient animal welfare principle the very first chance we get? Does that set a good example to those other countries?
No doubt we will continue to set the bar high in all future negotiations- whoever they may be with.
That being the case, why would we want to [i]drop[/i] recognition of the sentience of animals?
How does recognising sentience, in any way, "cable tie our hands" in future trade negotiations where we want the same or better animal welfare than we have now?
Because in the context of the whole piece of legislation- it's totally undermined and completely irrelevant!
"Ah yes, we recognise animals are marvellous sentient beings, aren't we wonderful human beings! Pardon? You want to stick a sword in one and chase it to a bloody and protracted death? No problem my friend! We can cater for you too!"
What's important is the action on the ground, not a meaningless word.
We don't want to drop the [i]implications[/i] that the word sentient should carry with it but neither do we want to get hung up on it.
Because in the context of the whole piece of legislation- it's totally undermined and completely irrelevant!
Or does it possibly interfere with what you do? You seem very worked up on what you see as a piece of irrelevant legislation.
Not at all! I just get fed up with unchallenged remoaning 😉
I'm under no doubt about the sentience of animals- we care for enough of them 😆
The anti-Tory bile is disgusting.
& well deserved it is too!
"Ah yes, we recognise animals are marvellous sentient beings, aren't we wonderful human beings! Pardon? You want to stick a sword in one and chase it to a bloody and protracted death? No problem my friend! We can cater for you too!"
Then surely [i]that[/i] is the part that shouldn't be replicated into UK law, not the part about sentience?
That part is redundant because we won't be making laws that challenge [i]"the legislative or administrative provisions and customs of the Member States"[/i].
Sounds inefficient to me. Just ditch it and make something fit for purpose as and when required in the future. In the meantime, let our existing and amply adequate law take the slack. Simples 🙂
In the meantime, let our existing and amply adequate law take the slack. Simples
The implication is that our existing law is amply adequate. As Caroline Lucas said:
..It is not good enough to claim that animal sentience is already covered by UK law by virtue of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 since the protocol is not even explicitly included or referred to in that Act and the word “sentience” does not appear anywhere in it.The Act applies only to companion animals—domestic pets. It does not apply to farm animals, wildlife or laboratory animals. For those reasons, I intend to press new clause 30 to a Division."
Simples
Someone using Simples, and quoting breitbart in another thread...the irony.
It was the first link that illustrated my point- I'm not fussy 😆
Look, let's stick to arguing the topic hey? Although people lashing out is a good sign that the crux of your argument is weak.
Graham- So you were happy with the EU law WITH the cultural and religious clause but not with the far more pragmatic AWA 2006?
Blind 'EU GOOD- TORY BAD!' behaviour no?
If AWA 2006 needs amending in the future to address a specific situation where animals not being treated as sentient is causing welfare issues, then that's one thing.
To get hung up on a word that has no applicable significance given the rest of the wording of the law- just seems pointless??
Caroline Lucas-
The Act applies only to companion animals—domestic pets. It does not apply to farm animals, wildlife or laboratory animals. "
Is also wrong!
AWA is all inclusive.
The welfare of all farmed animals is protected by the Animal Welfare Act 2006 which makes it an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to any animal. The Act also contains a duty of care to animals - anyone responsible for an animal must take reasonable steps to make sure the animal’s welfare needs are met.The Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007 set minimum standards for all farm animals. These regulations replaced the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000 on 1st October 2007. The new regulations are made under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and are very similar to the previous regulations.
Although people lashing out is a good sign that the crux of your argument is weak.
A Breitbart reading Gamekeeper wanting to get rid of EU laws on animal welfare shocker.
I thought I'd just get to the point.
Just thinking out loud here, but setting aside the word 'sentient', the suggestion seems to be that we could do better than the EU legislation by, for example, getting rid of the bit about respecting religion or tradition - that's the bit people are referring to when talking about stabbing bulls with swords and chasing them to death I presume?
So where would that leave the Government (the Tories specifically) with regards to men and women on horseback galloping through the countryside in pursuit of a fox to watch it get ripped to death in the name of sport? I presume 'doing better' would mean that any future debate about lifting the ban would be dead in the water?
As an aside, didn't Boris describe the push to ban bull fighting in Spain as political correctness gone mad?
Graham- So you were happy with the EU law WITH the cultural and religious clause but not with the far more pragmatic AWA 2006?
Two different things, as I understand it.
The EU wording is a [b]Principle[/b], designed to inform the development of other laws and policies (i.e. it is from Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union: Part 1 - Principles: Title II - Provisions having general application")
As a guiding principle, I think it is fine and I understand why it is worded as it is (as discussed previously).
The AWA 2006 is an act of law, and is obviously far more prescriptive and exacting, going as far as to state [i]"animal" means a vertebrate other than man... [not] while it is in its foetal or embryonic form.. “vertebrate” means any animal of the Sub-phylum Vertebrata of the Phylum Chordata and “invertebrate” means any animal not of that Sub-phylum.[/i]
To answer your question, I was happy with the AWA (which implements specific protection for some domesticated animals) with the knowledge that there was also a general principle that allowed us to challenge new legislation that could be deemed harmful to animals.
I don't read Brietbart thanks, I linked it to illustrate a point that was being ignored.
At no point have I argued against the need for robust and effective animal welfare legislation though? In fact I think some of my points have done the opposite- highlighting inadequacies in the wording of the EU law.
I get great results at what I do precisely because I treat the animals in my care with respect for their sentience thanks. The fact my charges are free to wander off wherever they please is testiment to their needs being met- I wouldn't have any otherwise 😆
So where would that leave the Government (the Tories specifically) with regards to men and women on horseback galloping through the countryside in pursuit of a fox to watch get ripped to death in the name of sport?
Yes, that is a clear example of [i]"customs of the Member States relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage"[/i] part that crosshair objects to and I'd agree with him on that, it shouldn't be allowed.
I think some of my points have done the opposite- highlighting inadequacies in the wording of the EU law.
Again, it is a Principle in a Treaty, not a law.
Apart from the fact that fox hunting is not comparable with the Bull fighting case.... so I definitely didn't say fox hunting shouldn't be repealed 😆
(And Gamekeepers are the traditional enemy of the fox hunting landowner so I don't say that lightly 😆 )
fact that fox hunting is not comparable with the Bull fighting case.
Think you might want to look up what "fact" means rather that "sentience" .
I definitely didn't say fox hunting shouldn't be repealed
Eh????
But that is [i]exactly[/i] the kind of cultural tradition and regional heritage get-out clause that you were complaining about in the EU treaty!!
In fact, given that the UK Gov apparently proposed that Principle, it is probably a significant factor in why that wording was included in the first place!
It is also highly relevant to the discussion, because the AWA doesn't protect wild animals such as foxes.
Graham- No, I don't think it is. Foxes are wild and one hunted ethically dies. Quickly.
Bullfighting, baiting and fighting of other animals and some religious practices take an animal exclusively in your care and subject it to undue and unnecessary suffering.
The fact you can legally hit a wild animal (including old foxy) with your car and not have to ensure it is speedily and humanely followed up and dispatched is proof that people don't really care about treating wildlife with the same stringent regard as animals solely in a humans care.
Any malpractice by hunts that questions the wildness of said fox or indeed the ability of it to escape capture to its full ability would then bring it in line with fighting and baiting in my mind.
But as pest control, finding a wild fox with a scent hound and killing it with overwhelming strength of numbers is absolutely ok.
Pest and predator control is always going to feature in our managed farmscape so a method should be judged by its effectiveness not the voting intentions of those carrying it out.
Ok, so the fox 'hunted ethically' dies quickly? But only after being chased in fear of its life and the point of desperation/exhaustion by a baying pack of hounds. Im afraid that sounds a lot like inflicting undue necessary suffering to me.
*editted to remove unhelpful sarcasm.
Hilarious, though after losing he argument on the facts (since not [u]all[/u] animals are sentient anyway) I suppose that switching back to good old class war and trying to turn the debate around to fox hunting (which, they may have forgotten, is widely practiced in several European countries despite their all conquering ‘sentience’ legislation) was inevitable
Just wait till they read what the ex-director of the League Against Cruel Sports has to say about the hunting ban 😀
Foxes are wild and one hunted ethically dies. Quickly.
Does it? I was under the impression that hunts went on for some time.
...subject it to undue and unnecessary suffering.
A bit like chasing a wild [i]sentient[/i] animal with a pack of hounds until it is cornered or too exhausted to run, and then ripping it to pieces? For fun.
..so a method should be judged by its effectiveness not the voting intentions of those carrying it out.
That pesky Will of the People eh?
Apart from the fact it isn't suffering- provided it is free to escape to the best of its ability as I've already qualified.
A healthy fox on home territory with unstopped earths will make hounds look foolish every time.
And if it's earths are unstopped, it will soon be to ground where it can be dispatched anyway. (Humane terrier work is still legal don't forget).
That is highly specific and targeted pest control that far and away beats the alternative of shooting every fox you see until you get the 'problem' one.
I love how much people care about the 10-12,000 foxes killed by hunts pre ban compared to the 100,000 maimed and squashed by vehicles. Or does getting places in a hurry and getting stuff delivered from Amazon or making sure the supermarket shelves are stocked all fall under the cultural tradition and regional heritage get-out clause too 😉
Do give over ninfan.
There is no switching going on here.
Crosshair has argued for most of the day that the good work of the treaty was fundamentally undermined by [i]"the 'unless you are culturally disposed to animal cruelty' get out of jail card for the rest of Europe"[/i]
So him revealing that he is a supporter of fox hunting, which definitely falls under that same cultural or regional tradition clause, but notably isn't covered by the Animal Welfare Act, is highly relevant to the discussion.
...after losing he argument on the facts (since not all animals are sentient anyway)...
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall anyone being declared a winner or loser.
...switching back to good old class war...
No mention of class anywhere that I can see.
...trying to turn the debate around to fox hunting...
My mention of fox hunting was a genuine question as to how it would stack up against our apparent ability to create better legislation by removing the cultural/traditional/religious get out clause.