Tory Brexit vs. Animal Rights

[Seanm]

Calling for mass murder is a bit much, granted, but I don't know what purpose dialogue is supposed to serve at this stage.

 

[Still]

Garry

The thugmoron hypothetical also touches on rights of the employer/business owner.
Engaging a proper Griffin standard specimen would risk bringing the employer in to disrepute.

I can't justify spending too much time on rights for Neo-nazis.
But's let's be honest: it's want they want.

John

 

[merlin]

You are more than welcome to your view that all Tories should be murdered I suppose, but it's not one that's likely to improve dialogue or understanding.

As an aging Englishman I've kind of given up on those post Thatcherism, NuLab and Brexit. This lot are the icing on the cake and worthy of all the vitriol and violence that can be thrown at them IMO.

 

[Rockmeister]

The petition seems well worth signing, although I am unsure which animals are affected and why and etc (and before anyone starts worrying, it may be worded for specific circumstances and specific animals?)
As to the politics, the welfare rights bill was 2006 I read, and introduced by the EU. Before that I didn't notice any government, left or right, making much fuss about any domestic animal, let alone farm animals and none at all about wildlife, baring endangered species, that after pressure from groups like WWF, RSPB etc. We should keep the very best of the EU imposition, but is it possible that we might cancel the EU bill and impose our own, improved GB version, which looks at our domestic, farm and wild animal poicies with a view to doing what's best for US?

 

[Cav]

There is nothing to see here, move along.

 

[merlin]

The petition seems well worth signing, although I am unsure which animals are affected and why and etc (and before anyone starts worrying, it may be worded for specific circumstances and specific animals?)
As to the politics, the welfare rights bill was 2006 I read, and introduced by the EU. Before that I didn't notice any government, left or right, making much fuss about any domestic animal, let alone farm animals and none at all about wildlife, baring endangered species, that after pressure from groups like WWF, RSPB etc. We should keep the very best of the EU imposition, but is it possible that we might cancel the EU bill and impose our own, improved GB version, which looks at our domestic, farm and wild animal poicies with a view to doing what's best for US?

You mean THE US?

Let's throw away a decade and a half of progress and spend millions debating and creating new legislation which protects whilst giving British farmers the chance to compete against their foreign opposition.

 

[Nick_G]

I thought this thread was about a misunderstanding or a misrepresentation that the Evil Tories had voted to deny the proposition that animals were sentient. Fact is they didn't. That was put about by someone in the Opposition who subsequently fooled a lot of the commentariat.

You are more than welcome to your view that all Tories should be murdered I suppose, but it's not one that's likely to improve dialogue or understanding.

What they did was reject an amendment that the EU protocol on animal sentience be carried over into UK law post-Brexit:

https://publications.parliament.uk/...5/amend/euwithdrawal_daily_cwh_1114.8-14.html

To move the following Clause—

“EU Protocol on animal sentience

Obligations and rights contained within the EU Protocol on animal sentience set out in Article 13 of Title II of the Lisbon Treaty shall be recognised and available in domestic law on and after exit day, and shall be enforced and followed accordingly.”


Member’s explanatory statement

This new clause seeks to transfer the EU Protocol on animal sentience set out in Article 13 of Title II of the Lisbon Treaty into UK law, so that animals continue to be recognised as sentient beings under domestic law.

The wording says that this will only happen if the protocol is transferred into UK law, which suggests that there isn't one at present.

You have to ask yourself why did the Conservatives and the DUP say no to this? What do they have to gain from dropping it? Bland reassurances aren't good enough.

 

[Lee T]

I cannot believe that even this set of halfwits don't know that mammals feel pain and feel distress and fear if mistreated.

If the recent Tory government refuse to believe human beings can feel distress & pain when mistreated, what hope for an animal.

 

[Rockmeister]

You mean THE US?

Let's throw away a decade and a half of progress and spend millions debating and creating new legislation which protects whilst giving British farmers the chance to compete against their foreign opposition.

No, us, as in us in the UK.
2006 to 2017 is 11 years, which in the history of mankind is not very long.
explain why the detail of (you do KNOW the precise wording of this legislation I see) the legislation we are throwing away suits the situation in the UK?
For example.
Can grey squirels still be culled if they impinge on red squirel territory under this law you espouse?
I have another 30 questions for you when you know the answer to this one.

My own feeling, tho possibly to cautious for forum debate is that whilst the EU has forced the UK into some very very positive action regarding animal rights, WE (no Merlin, not Western Etheopia) have particular circumstances to address.

If that takes several millions and some time, then yes. Why not get it right?

 

[merlin]

What circumstances, why aren't they covered by current legislation and what do you imagine will be the driving force behind change? Animal welfare?

Let's get the impetus behind UK specific legislation first. Call me a cynic but I've yet to see any evidence of empathy or concern for suffering from the current UK government. Plenty of evidence that they are interested in selling everything possible and opening up markets through deregulation. Nothing about protecting the rights of anything other than shareholders. What evidence do you have that this might change?

2005 to 2019 is more than 11 years and it's "Ethiopia" by the way - sorry to be a pedant.

 

[droodzilla]

This article seems to cover the issue well and explains why the vote has caused such a fuss:

https://infacts.org/gove-makes-dogs-dinner-animal-suffering-vote/

Gove had previously promised the EU principle of animal sentience would be carried over into EU law (scroll up to see the question Gove is answering:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...ribution-CA96B591-14AA-44A8-A6C9-583DC03E1334

Given that Gove broke this promise, can anyone blame people for not trusting the Tories on animal welfare?

 

[timola]

It's taken me a lot of courage to actually post on this thread. I still don't have the balls to engage as its very hostile here. But it's interesting to see how this thread went off-topic when it was revealed that The Independent ran some 'fake news'...apparently less than 150K read it regularly. Anyway if you can bear a contrary view have a read and a listen to Zac Goldsmith here. Beware it will upset you and of course it contains no facts.

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presente...ldsmith-slams-absurd-claims-that-tories-thin/

 

[merlin]

Good stuff from Zak.

He actually doesn't say anything or make any promises at all in that interview except attack existing legislation and the EU. He doesn't state categorically that the government seeks to address animal rights concerns and to improve conditions. He doesn't state anything. He's a Conservative.

PS. It seems he's adopted the Trumpism "fake news". Sad.

 

[timola]

"However, the government argued animals are already classed as sentient beings in existing legislation and including the clause in the EU Withdrawal Bill would lead to "legal uncertainty""

It could be a lie I suppose.

 

[merlin]

What existing legislation?

 

[timola]

I don't know....I just trust the government weren't lying....Imagine the furore if they were.

 

[wyjsar]

I don't know....I just trust the government weren't lying....Imagine the furore if they were.

Well many of the current government including the cabinet lied during the 2016 referendum. btw, it isn't hostile here but expect to be able to stand up for your argument. Also, your opponent on one thread will be your ally on another.

 

[timola]

Well many of the current government including the cabinet lied during the 2016 referendum. btw, it isn't hostile here but expect to be able to stand up for your argument. Also, your opponent on one thread will be your ally on another.

The odds are not in my favour here, and I'm a whimp anyway. I just like to keep an open mind and like to trust the great British electorate. Anyway, weren't 2016 Cameron government; 'all guns blazing' to keep us in the EU? I'm sure Obama was lying for them.

 

[merlin]

I don't know....I just trust the government weren't lying....Imagine the furore if they were.

Never trust a Goldsmith or a Rothschild.

You cannot go wrong with that basic philosophy IME.

Zac Goldsmith has been accused of “staggering hypocrisy” after he was selected as the Conservative parliamentary candidate in his former seat of Richmond Park.

The former MP was defeated by the Liberal Democrats’ Sarah Olney in a by-election last December after he resigned from the Conservative Party over its support for a third runway at Heathrow.

At the time, he described the decision as “catastrophic” and claimed it would be a “a millstone around this Government’s neck for years”.

Mr Goldsmith, who lost out to Sadiq Khan in his bid to become Mayor of London last year, is now set to stand again as a Conservative candidate - despite the fact the party’s manifesto is likely to include a commitment to Heathrow expansion.

 

[andrewhockley]

Indeed. It will take a lot of convincing me before I would look upon halal slaughter with anything but abject horror and disgust.

There may be many elephants in the sitting room of animal welfare law, but this one looms more conspicuously invisible than most in much of the dabate.

I support the removal of this from UK law on animal welfare grounds. Sorry, you can't have a clause that allows animals to be treated "according to religious rites and cultural customs" - its simply wrong. There are some absolutes here.