Australia’s Capital Territory has just taken an important leap forward in the legal treatment of animals. The new laws in Australia’s Capital Territory recognize that animals can perceive and feel the world around them and have “intrinsic value.” These concepts finally depart from the legal structures which incarcerate animals as objects designed for humans’ use and abuse, and which characterize most legal systems around the world.

The laws impose sizeable fines and prison sentences for confining animals, lack of animal care and participating in cruelty to animals. They also move to restrict pet shops and the pet shop industry.
There is reason to celebrate the passing of these laws, but a good beginning mustn’t be a permanent band-aid. This article is right to point out that “animal sentience” does more to regulate treatment of pets than it does to change humans’ relationship with animals. Australian industries that harm animals won’t be expected to change. A “duty of care” is imposed on humans when they are in a relationship of care. But so many of human relations with animals are mediated through profit and product, rather than care. The new laws recognize that animals should not be humans’ property in the law. In practice they will defend the animals humans have chosen as pets, abandoning the animals victimized by industry. We can only hope that the interpretation of these laws and further activism will expand protection to animals who are still being brutalized.

Read More:

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6407314/act-passes-australia-first-animal-sentience-laws/

When Californians vote for Prop 12, they will be doing so with a sense of satisfaction that they’re helping animals. After all, Prop 12 updates Prop 2 by being more strict about how much space is given to house animals, and leaves room to ban the sale of any products involving animal confinement. Activists exposed the fact that the farming industry was still confining animals in awful conditions, due to loopholes in Prop 2. Prop 12 tries to fix these, but does it do enough?

Because it is an update on Prop 2, Prop 12 does not have to reveal its own issues. It only needs to step in as the “solution.” Who and what are its inconsistencies protecting? The answer is the incredibly lucrative California dairy industry. Prop 2 restricts the confinement of veal calves, but the dairy industry does not have to protect calves when they are not intended for veal. Prop 12 still doesn’t hold the dairy industry accountable, and it still confines animals rather than allowing them to roam free on grass or have social contact. The dairy industry can’t function without constantly lactating calves. “Leftover” animals may be literally thrown on the scrapheap (activists share horrific videos of mass graves at these farms). Unsuitable female calves or male “non-veal” calves may be confined and treated inhumanely without any prohibition. A large proportion of calves die of diarrhea from living in filthy conditions, and they are kept isolated from social and maternal contact. Whether you choose to vote for Prop 12 or not, please write to your local representative about this huge gap in the legislation that protects industry and sentences calves to a cruel fate. The inconvenient truth behind these two pieces of legislation isn’t that they aren’t perfect – it’s that the dairy industry is cruel.

Read more on this issue: https://theintercept.com/2018/10/08/california-prop-12-animal-welfare-dairy-calves/