Vegan animal advocates on the left, hunters on the right. (Beth Clifton collage)
Much touted British law recognizing animal sentience amounts to forming a Parliamentary committee with no actual powers and a mandate to do nothing challenging “cultural traditions & regional heritage”
LONDON, U.K.––The 50-odd members of Better Deal for Animals, an alliance of 50 of leading British animal welfare organizations, lost no time congratulating themselves and declaring “Victory!” to donors after the April 7, 2022 final passage of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill.
The Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill recognizes animal sentience by forming a Parliamentary committee to study it.
By itself the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill conveys no actual mandate to change any aspect of how animals are treated and used.
Animal Sentience Committee.
(Beth Clifton collage)
Weak already, weakened by amendment
Further, the yet to be named members of the Animal Sentience Committee were metaphorically defanged, declawed, dehorned, pinioned, and castrated by amendment nine days before the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill cleared third reading in the House of Commons, two weeks before clearing the House of Lords.
Pointed out Politics.com.uk after the March 15, 2022 amendment was approved by the House of Commons, “The new Animal Sentience Committee will now have to ‘respect legislative or administrative provisions and customs relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage.”
If the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill ever had any practical value at all, it was in privileging recognition of animal sentience ahead of “legislative or administrative provisions and customs” in reviewing legislation.
(Beth Clifton collage)
Sentience committee will have freedom to do nothing
Enthused Lee B. Rayment of Charity Today, apparently oblivious to the existence of the March 15, 2022 amendment, “The new law will see the formation of an Animal Sentience Committee which will have the freedom to scrutinize the extent to which any government policy has taken animals’ welfare needs into account, and is empowered to publish reports on its findings.
“The Minister with responsibility for that policy area then has a duty to lay before Parliament a written response to the Committee’s reports within three months.”
Little as being “empowered to publish reports” means, to which cabinet ministers need not respond for three months, the March 15, 2022 amendment severely limits “the freedom to scrutinize” by in effect providing an exemption for any government policy which purports to uphold “religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage.”
(Beth Clifton collage)
“Restricts the ability of litigious animal rights groups”
Explained Politics.com.uk, “The amendment was put forward by Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Member of Parliament, British Association for Shooting & Conservation vice president and chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Shooting and Conservation, and Jonathan Djanogly, Member of Parliament, chair of the British Shooting Sports Council.”
Said Djanogly, “While my colleagues and I still hold reservations around the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill’s requirements, this amendment restricts the ability of litigious animal rights groups to damage the government and those who work with animals.”
Brits celebrate bull.
(Beth Clifton collage)
Animal advocacy groups ignore amendment
Representatives of the allegedly “litigious animal rights groups” sidestepped any discussion of the March 15, 2022 amendment.
Said Royal SPCA of Great Britain chief executive Chris Sherwood, “We are pleased that the new Animal Sentience Committee will be able to influence public policy.”
How? Sherwood did not say.
“Humanity Dick” Martin in 1824 won the first British cruelty conviction after presenting an abused donkey as evidence––trumpeted by the media of the day as having called the donkey as an expert witness.
No card, no flowers, no candy, but screwed
Recalled Humane Society International/UK executive director Claire Bass, “It’s exactly 200 years since the [passage of the] United Kingdom’s first animal welfare law, so the Sentience Act is a fantastic anniversary gift to animals.”
If Bass is married, one might surmise she would expect more on a significant anniversary than just a restricted pledge to discuss her feelings.
Four Paws [Vier Pfoten] United Kingdom director Sonul Badiani-Hamment suggested that, “In passing the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill, the government has taken one huge step forwards towards truly being considered a global leader for animal welfare.”
(Beth Clifton collage)
“Leader” follows the rest of western Europe, Australia, & Brazil?
Omitted from that assessment is that European Union legislation has recognized animal sentience since 2009, as have the laws of non-E.U. nations including Australia, Switzerland, and Brazil.
As Politics.com.uk noted, “Animal sentience was the only piece of E.U. legislation that was not transposed [into United Kingdom law] when the U.K. formally left the E.U. on 1st January 2021.
Compassion in World Farming senior policy manager James West acknowledged that history.
(Beth Clifton collage)
Priorities
“We welcome the final passage of the bill that will once again enshrine animal sentience in U.K. law,” West said. “However, the Animal Sentience Committee still has a big job to do! It is critical that they prioritize those policies that have the potential to cause the greatest suffering to the largest number of animals, including, of course, the millions of animals facing welfare problems on Britain’s farms.”
Wildlife & Countryside Link chief executive Richard Benwell seemed more inclined to celebrate.
“It’s great to see Members of Parliament come together from all parties to recognize the sentience of animals,” Benwell said, albeit cautioning that, “The same consensus must hold to ensure that the advice of the new Animal Sentience Committee is followed by Government so that future policy reduces suffering and enhances the welfare of animals.”
(Beth Clifton collage)
Parliament dropped bill to ban fur & foie gras
Allowed PETA spokesperson Margarita Sachkova, “The Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill undoubtedly represents progress for animals. However,” Sachkova pointed out, “the government is apparently de-prioritizing other animal welfare measures by dropping the promised Animals Abroad Bill, which would seek to ban the sale of fur and foie gras.”
Suggested Oxford University Ph.D. candidate in evolutionary biology Ellen Pasternack in a guest column posted by Unherd.com, “For all our talk of animal welfare, the ancient and widespread practice of killing animals for food is not going anywhere any time soon. And while this is the case, legal proclamations like the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill seem rather toothless and hypocritical. What can it mean to recognize animal sentience if we also condone the slaughter of animals in the billions every year?”
And restrict discussion of animal sentience to only those contexts which do not in any manner inconvenience “religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage”?
George Eustice.
(Beth Clifton collage)
Was easy to see this scam coming
All of this, incidentally, is more-or-less what ANIMALS 24-7 anticipated on May 21, 2021, after George Eustice, Secretary of State for the Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, outlined the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill in a lengthy and detailed addenda to the Queen’s Speech opening the current Parliamentary session.
Lord Peter Goldsmith of Richmond Park followed Eustice’s remarks by introducing “A Bill to make provision for an Animal Sentience Committee with functions relating to the effect of government policy on the welfare of animals as sentient beings,” the original title of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill.
(Beth & Merritt Clifton)
Pointed out ANIMALS 24-7 at the time, “Forming a committee is a traditional political ploy for avoiding actually taking action.”
(See U.K. “animal sentience” law: “victory” claimed before the fight begins.)
Please donate to support our work:
www.animals24-7.org/donate/
Related Posts
U.K. “animal sentience” law: “victory” claimed before the fight begins- Five deaths of note: two vegans, two animal entertainers, & a sanctuarian
- “Great Dane/mastiff” killing of 6-year-old shows genetics trump training
- So is cruelty to animals more a part of Hispanic heritage than Catholicism?
- Los Angeles council vote against rodeo opens new fight against charreada
- Alabama wolf hybrid baby killing: Jack London knew “bastard wolves”
I really do believe that “our humanity” is defective. Stanley Milgram got it right when he suggested that the human personality could not be trusted to respond to ethical situations with compassion. The fate of these animals–all animals–is proof of our unclothed humanity. We are too proud, too arrogant, too selfish, and too cruel…. We indulge our cleverness and convenience ignobly.
Be all of that as it may, the regulatory process is among the few ways in which those of us who give a damn about animals can restrain and amend the behavior of those who do not. For that reason, it is incumbent on those who give a damn about animals to insist that regulatory measures represent what the late Henry Spira called “stepwise incremental progress” toward improvement, and not endorse and celebrate regulations that may obstruct any hope of further progress.
Carol, I’m not soo sure I can completely agree with you here, as there are plenty of old cultures who are/were very respectful of nature and animals, but unfortunately as our human population continues to spiral upwards completely out of control, and our so called great digital society continues to ensure that people’s lives are more chaotic, out of balance, and disconnected from nature, then yes…. I can sadly see where you are coming from.
But I would not say humans were created defective, we’ve simply become defective.
Having cephalopods and decapod crustaceans added to the animals of whom sentience is officially recognized, as is the case with the sentience bill, is good news in and of itself.
Unfortunately, it would be very unrealistic for Ellen Pasternack (or anyone else) to expect a bill to be passed at this point in time that would end the practice of killing animals for food. Official recognition of nonhuman animal sentience is, however, a very helpful measure in increasing public concern for nonhuman animals.
Does requiring “respect” for “legislative or administrative provisions and customs relating … to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage” necessarily mean that the sentience committee is not allowed to scrutinize issues associated with them? That seems quite a leap in interpretation.
I would be very glad if such a bill were to pass in the U.S! It’s certainly far more than we have here at present.
Cattle, horses, and sheep have been legally recognized in British law as sentient beings capable of suffering since 1822, but this recognition has yet to spare any from slaughter. Sparing millions of animals from slaughter has, however, been accomplished by vegan and vegetarian activism, already underway then, with little or no help from acts of Parliament, symbolic or otherwise, but with a great deal of help from food entrepreneurs introducing plant-based alternatives to meat––i.e., going straight to the meat of the matter.
And yes, the whole point and purpose of the hunting lobby amendments to the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill was to prevent the Sentience Committee from meaningfully considering anything that might challenge “legislative or administrative provisions and customs relating … to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage.”
While animal advocates remained distracted by abstractions and symbolism, the hunting lobby went straight to the meat of matter in a manner that will ensure that the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill will remain abstract and symbolic, while the Animals Abroad Bill, scrapped to ensure passage of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill, would have prohibited the import and sale of fur and foie gras, to the here-and-now benefit of fur-bearing mammals, ducks, and geese.
“Animal welfare law expert Mike Radford said imposing a duty to respect religious and cultural factors when making recommendations would probably make ‘not a lot of difference’ overall, adding: ‘Nonstun slaughter and field sports were never on the agenda immediately anyway…I’m sure the people behind the amendment are of the view that this has restricted the committee’s room for manoeuvre, but I’m not convinced it’s going to work like that.’”
https://bvajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1002/vetr.1634
Recognizing the sentience (or capacity to suffer) of fellow living creatures has — unfortunately, incredibly — to a great many people never seemed obviously to require that they give those creatures any heightened moral regard, or that they ought to change their behavior toward those creatures in any way. After all, look how we allow ourselves to treat our fellow human beings, who are usually quite sentient.
Do we have a good idea what the “religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage” that are likely to be found abusive of sentient animals are? Like, eating meat? Raising animals for food? Or are the examples more specific, like fox-hunting, or bear-baiting, or swinging a chicken over one’s head in order to atone for one’s sins?
One lesson we can learn from this is that alongside efforts to protect animals through new legal regulations, we should carry on as ever seeking to persuade people why protecting the lives, well-being and dignity of animals is a good way to live.