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/

This Vice headline sums the Amazon situation up with the kind of bluntness that’s needed at the moment: “Sad About the Amazon Fires? Stop Eating Meat.” The article is a timely correction to the assumption that logging is the reason we are losing the Amazon rainforests. Many posting on social media accounts about the Amazon fires are unthinkingly connecting the damage to “other people”: greedy logging companies etc., when in fact the trail leads directly back to the people posting – many of whom eat meat. Cattle ranching is the leading cause of deforestation in the Amazon, and clearing lands to make way for cattle is what is causing the fires.

The growing demand for meat is driving this destruction, in particular the demand for beef. With plenty of healthy protein substitutes available, the slaughter of cattle is completely unnecessary. Industrial farming harms the environment in other ways through water pollution from slaughterhouses. Animal suffering is an inevitable byproduct of treating animals like products, to be mutilated and packaged. In the tragedy of the Amazon rainforest we can see how this approach to life has outward ripples. When we treat life like an industrial product, when we kill animals brutally, we lack the respect for other life that is ultimately needed to save our own lives and habitats.

Read More:
https://www.vice.com/en_in/article/bjwzk4/feeling-sad-about-the-amazon-fires-stop-eating-meat

by Dr. Kevin Boileau

In Santics v. Vancouver (City) Animal Control Officer, 2019 BCCA 294, The appellant’s dog was designated a dangerous dog after it seriously injured a person in a public park. The Provincial Court judge who heard the matter assumed the availability of conditional orders falling short of destruction in dangerous dog proceedings under s. 324.1 of the Vancouver Charter, but held that the lack of reasonable alternatives for the dog’s rehabilitation meant that there was no choice but to order destruction. The judge’s decision was upheld by the Supreme Court of British Columbia on appeal. The appellant appeals from the order of the Supreme Court. Held: Appeal dismissed. On the evidence, it was open to the Provincial Court judge to conclude that the appellant’s dog posed an unacceptable risk to the public and ought to be destroyed. Furthermore, on an application by an animal control officer to the Provincial Court for a destruction order pursuant to s. 324.1(10) of the Vancouver Charter or s. 49(10) of the Community Charter, the Provincial Court, upon finding that the dog is dangerous in that it poses an unacceptable risk to the public, does not have the jurisdiction to make a conditional order falling short of the dangerous dog’s destruction; the dog must be ordered to be destroyed. The Provincial Court does, however, have the jurisdiction to conclude that the dog does not pose an unacceptable risk to the public, in that the dog is not likely to kill or seriously injure in the future, whereupon the dog is to be returned to its owner.

The Honourable Mr. Justice Abrioux states as follows, in the court record:
I: INTRODUCTION
[1] This appeal marks the first opportunity for this court to substantively address the dangerous dog provisions of the Vancouver Charter, S.B.C. 1953, c. 55, and identical provisions contained in the Community Charter, S.B.C. 2003, c. 26.

[2] In an order dated January 10, 2019, the Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed an appeal brought by the appellant, Ms. Susan Santics, from an order of the Provincial Court of British Columbia requiring the destruction of her dog. Ms. Santics appeals to this court from the order of the Supreme Court.

[3] This appeal concerns not only the fate of “Punky” — a four-year-old Australian cattle dog owned by Ms. Santics and which seriously injured a woman in a public park — but also raises questions as to the Provincial Court’s powers on an application for the destruction of a dangerous dog. In particular, it raises the question of whether s. 324.1(10) of the Vancouver Charter and s. 49(10) of the Community Charter confer jurisdiction on the Provincial Court to make conditional orders falling short of destruction.

[4] This appeal also raises the correctness of Capital Regional District v. Kuo, 2006 BCSC 1282 (“Kuo”). For 13 years, Kuo has been relied on by both the Provincial Court and the Supreme Court — the latter in its role as an appeal court — as the authority for the Provincial Court’s jurisdiction to make conditional orders falling short of destruction in dangerous dog proceedings: see, for example, Panton v. Central Okanagan (Regional District), 2016 BCSC 69.

[5] I would conclude as follows:

(a) in so far as Ms. Santics’ dog is concerned, the Supreme Court judge committed no reviewable error in dismissing the appeal from the Provincial Court’s order that the dog be destroyed;
(b) contrary to the reasoning in Kuo, once the Provincial Court has found that a dog is likely to kill or seriously injure within the meaning of the Vancouver Charter or the Community Charter, it does not have the jurisdiction to make orders — conditional or otherwise — save for that the dog in question be destroyed;
(c) notwithstanding (b), there may be circumstances in which a dog that satisfies the statutory definition of “dangerous dog” nonetheless does not pose an unacceptable risk to the public, in which event the Provincial Court must dismiss the destruction application and release the dog to its owner; and,
(d) while there may well be good policy reasons for recognizing conditional orders in certain situations, as legislation in some Canadian provinces has done, it is for the Legislature and not this court to determine the framework that ought to apply in British Columbia.
(e) I would accordingly dismiss the appeal.

There is more to the complete record, but let’s focus on the summary above, which demonstrates serious lack of due process and a serious lack of regard for the life of a dog. The Appellate decision on its face is violent and irrational because it won’t give the provincial court authority to weigh middle-ground options including rehabilitation, and transfer of custodianship out of the city. In the U.S. this could be viewed as a serious due process issue, especially because of the legal trend to recognize that domestic dogs have interests. Even the language of the vicious dog statute is suspect because one option is to “destroy” the dog. To destroy is something you do to things not living beings. Even death row human inmates are not destroyed, they are executed. Thus beyond the fact that this judge just overturned several years’ of common law, the actually vicious dog law would apparently be in conflict with the trend in the law to recognize interests if not some rights of domestic dogs.

Second, whatever harm happened was due to the negligence of this dog’s custodian and yet the Canadian court system chooses to make the dog responsible. This dog should never have been in the city. He is a cattle dog and should be out in the country. Currently he is being held in impound, which is further harm to him. The dog is a victim here, not a perpetrator.

Third, because this dog’s very life is at stake, the Appellate Court justice and the Provincial court erred in allowing the dog’s custodian to represent herself and her dog’s interest. At a very minimum this custodian should have been represented by counsel. The court should have also required that the dog be represented by separate legal counsel when his very liv eis at stake. Obviously, the court recognizes the need for some due process requirements in vicious dog adjudications. It seems logical that it would recognize the interests of the dog, especially in a capital case like this.

Fourth, the provincial court erred in not allowing the development of evidence that this dog could be rehabilitated. Now, the Appellate Court makes the specious argument that the dog has not been rehabilitated in its two years’ imprisonment, but this very imprisonment was caused by the government. Thus, the government cannot make the unpersuasive argument that the dog’s custodian took no measures to rehabilitate the dog while it has been imprisoned. There has been little to no evidence adduced about sending the dog out of the city, and into the hands of a certified sanctuary in North America, where the dog could be rehabilitated, placed in a new and safer environment away from the congestion of people in a city park. The Appellate Court has clearly erred in its conclusion that there is no evidence that the dog is an acceptable risk to the public. The Provincial Court makes the same error.

In short, this is a tragic case of A) a dog being in the wrong environment for its breed and temperament and B) needing a different sort of human custodian. Perhaps if Punky’s owner transferred his ownership to a rehabilitation expert, a sanctuary, or some other kind of certified organization that was far out of the jurisdiction and far away from the city, the court would find that this would insure an “acceptable level of risk to the public.”

If the Supreme Court of Canada hears this case, it ought to send it back to the provincial court with instructions that insure due process and prevent the further harm of the canine victim, Punky.

by Dr. Kevin Boileau – Psychoanalyst and Lawyer-Mediator

There are at least three non-violent solutions that would better than the MCIRVIN RANCH returning again and again to kill members of the Profanity Wolf Pack in the northeastern part of the state. Yet, Washington State officials continue to side with the violent destruction of an endangered species while weak-minded Wolf Advisory members look on, watch, and agree. We find the actions of the state and the Wolf Advisory Committee to be both morally unjustified and intellectually specious.

The gray wolves are protected by the Endangered Species Act. The Profanity Pack lives in one of the most remote regions of the United States. These wolves don’t bother any humans except for one family. This is the MCIRVIN ranching family in Eastern Washington who rents OUR PUBLIC LAND for cattle grazing in order to increase its profits. Because the wolf pack has apparently attacked the cattle, and because the Wolf Advisory Committee has foolishly created a murder protocol, men from U.S. Wildlife Services obtain a license to exterminate this wolf pack instead of seeking rational and non-violent solutions.

There is much debate about how to prevent wolves from killing livestock. PhD-level researchers with non-violent solutions were hushed up by state officials. Others have suggested moving cattle from the public lands. Yet, because wolves do not enjoy ontological parity with humans, if humans’ interests are a factor, federal protections don’t defend the wolves from being killed. When the interests of humans and animals differ, humans will always win in the end — even though wolves are protected under the Endangered Species Act. Because every aspect of the planet is commodified under capitalism, the wolves are assigned a value less than that of a ranching family’s interests in money. Because the ranch has rented out PUBLIC LANDS, their interest is valued more than the wolves’ interest in remaining alive.

Conservation groups on the Wolf Advisory Board are so grateful to be allowed a voice at the table with the state authority and with ranching money that they are afraid to take a truly protective stance for wolves. There are many public Internet entries proclaiming how “tragic” this is and how sad the individuals are on behalf of the wolves, but there is but no real advocacy and solidarity. It is disappointing that such a weak group of people is in charge of making these important decisions. In contrast, the rancher is simply providing slaughtered meat to citizens with an addiction for it, even though climate science strongly warns against this polluting, immoral enterprise.

Anyone who was involved in drafting this kill protocol, anyone who continues to order the wolf genocide, or carry these orders out, should be deeply ashamed of themselves. They demonstrate neither intelligence nor moral consciousness. Either directly or by complicit passivity they represent the violence in humanity, and the lack of regard for other sentient beings. It shows a lack creative problem-solving skills or worse yet, allowing ourselves to become inebriated by “bureau-speak.”

The three non-violent options are to collar the cows, move the cows and pay the rancher money, or rescue and transport these wolves. In addition, there are at least three truths of the matter. First, there is no other place for the wolves to go than where they are. Second, the pups are just as innocent as the puppy you brought home for your children. Third, it is still an option to re-locate the remaining wolves. We are betting that the Wolf Advisory Board remains passive and that the scurrilous demagogues in Olympia maintain their murderous, violent, vile campaign. Why? The public wants to know.

There is a lesson the public has learned from recent videos of cows being violently abused on Martin’s Farms, and it’s not what you think it might be. The videos of cows are an awful spectacle that has caused Martin’s Farms to fire employees in a show of remorse and responsibility. The real lesson however is that accountability for animals’ suffering is based on the martyrdom of animals rather than concern for them. The lesson is that animals have to be hurt and to suffer before action is taken. There’s a reason for this: many dairy farms throughout the US are inspected by milk co-ops, i.e. the dairy industry itself. Farms overseen by the Maryland and Virginia Milk Co-Op (including Martin’s Farm in Pennsylvania), don’t even make inspections public record. Is it any wonder that action is only taken when it’s too late, since the dairy industry has no incentive to prevent or stop abuse? Firing workers and apologizing is not the same as systematic change and it won’t take back the suffering of the animals.

Let’s return to what happened to the dairy cows at Martin’s Farms. Cows at Martin’s Farms were punched kicked, stomped on, blasted with scalding water to make them move. An operation was performed on a cow without anesthetic. Another cow was shot with a bullet in a botched, brutal killing and then shot a second time when it didn’t work. It’s easy for humans to rest comfortably in delusions that make us feel better, that this video showed unusual cruelty, and that justice has now been done. Unfortunately it’s very likely that cruelty like this is happening at other farms, right now, with no oversight. Accountability is one thing, but that can only happen with care, concern and oversight. For animal suffering to be prevented, humans need to stop indulging in outrage and “justice” and start protecting animals over industry. Please read, share and take action:

https://forcechange.com/530234/dairy-cows-reportedly-tortured-and-abused-deserve-justice/

https://wjla.com/features/7-on-your-side/inspecting-animal-welfare-on-dairy-farms

Let’s imagine that humans meet a superior species – stronger, smarter, and more vile than we are. They chain us, train us, experiment on us. They force us to entertain them, and they hold us captive for rape. They hunt us, trap us, and take pictures of us when we have been “harvested.” They cut us into pieces, tear our skin from us, throw us into boiling water, and make words about ecosystems, wildlife management, and the “natural” way of things. Then we will finally ponder ontological parity, virtue, empathy – making all sorts of “moral” claims about justice and fairness. In response, some won’t care, some will cut with greater precision, some will ignore us, and others will laugh, sadistically. Our bourgeois universities will “smoke” their books with more intensity until they, too, perish in the Great Annhilation – the New Holocaust. Then, there will be others who awake to the truth of things and realize that our dream of fertility, Western expansion, colonialisms, violence, and eugenics is truly what we have known all alone – a National Socialist nightmare that is coming to your door.

Ohio has joined a number of states who have made the shelter pet the state’s official animal. This is designed to raise awareness of how to do pet adoption in a way that is better for animals. The untold misery caused by puppy mills is something that is at odds with the image of a cute, new puppy. The animals packed into overcrowded shelters and euthanized before they can find a home are the hidden tragedies behind the choice to buy within the pet industry.

Many people don’t realize that the pet they buy from the store is the substitute for an animal in a shelter that loses their life. Many pets are euthanized at animal shelters as the shelters can’t cope with the numbers of abandoned pets. This is a move that shines a public light on the problem of shelter animals. After the publicity fades people need to remind friends and neighbors that there is only one responsible way to get a pet – adopt from an animal shelter.

Puppy mills are a particularly cruel alternative to shelter adoption. Adult dogs are kept purely for breeding at puppy mills and often killed when they are no longer viable. Puppies are treated as “farmed” animals and are kept in poor conditions. You can read more about puppy mills on The Humane Society’s website, and also about how to support the WOOF Act, a law that would defend against cruel puppy mills renewing their USDA license. https://www.humanesociety.org/all-our-fights/stopping-puppy-mills

One of the saddest things about animal captivity is how it leaves animals alone and isolated. An elephant named Flavia who was called “the saddest elephant in the world” has just died at age 47, after collapsing in her enclosure. Flavia was suffering from depression before her death and spent most of her life alone. What the public sees as merely a viewing enclosure where humans passively watch animals, the media have rightly called “solitary confinement.” Elephants are social animals who form strong bonds within their families, just as humans do. This kind of living situation for a human would rightly be branded as a form of torture. Why is it OK for animals to be abandoned in isolation? Laws that prevent harm to animals don’t yet accommodate for the kind of harm we assume is only relevant for humans – that is psychological harm. Animals are not merely automatons, they are social creatures. Read more about Flavia the elephant and sign the petition to ask Cordoba zoo not to place an elephant in the same situation as Flavia:

https://ladyfreethinker.org/sign-justice-for-saddest-elephant-in-the-world-who-died-in-solitary-confinement/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/elephant-worlds-saddest-dead-zoo-spain-a8809071.html

“Those who will exclude any of God’s creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity will deal likewise with their fellow man.”

St. Francis of Assisi – Quote from The Animal Clock homepage

By the time I’d left the animal clock website, after just a few minutes browsing the page for the first time, 891,990 animals in the US had been killed. It’s an important lesson about how animals are condemned to death and violence in the idle moments we take for granted. The “animal clock” was launched to highlight the awful and tragic reality of animal deaths. When you visit the animal clock website you cannot escape the reality that animals are being violently killed now — in realtime and space.

At time of writing, around 6 million animals have already been killed this year in the US. Not only are animals killed but they experience confinement and suffering before death. 8 by 10 inches (20 × 25 cm) is the amount of space in which battery caged egg-laying hens spend their entire lives, not even able to spread their wings. And chickens are the most killed of animals. The website has other numbers: the deaths of animals by type of animal, and the horrifying figure of 825,000, which is the number of chickens accidentally boiled and drowned alive during slaughter every year in the U.S. The animal clock has only been launched in a few countries.

A number is perhaps one of the most dehumanizing ways to refer to a being, and yet with the animal clock, it is the only thing commemorating these animal deaths. Hopefully the animal clock can do more than shock – it can be used to educate about the loss of animal lives, the suffering animals experience and the environmental damage industrialized farming causes.

Please visit the animal clock and share its message: https://animalclock.org/

Last summer, PETA’s videos of Australian sheep-shearing revealed the true colors of the wool industry. The rustic image of sheep shearing couldn’t be further from the terrible truth. The videos show sheep being flayed of their skin as they’re sheared – and not only accidentally hurt – sheep are also shown being kicked, beaten and stomped on. It’s a no brainer that the industry would encourage abuse: the wool industry, driven by profit, pays sheep shearers by the number of sheep that are sheared. Sheep are roughly handled, treated as objects by these workers. Their bodies are lined up for the abuse, hurried through a production line. Sheep aren’t anesthetized or treated with any kind of care and as well as excessive pain and abuse, the whole experience is traumatic by its rough nature.

Forever 21 have been targeted as supporters of this industry, though they claim they don’t source wool from Australia. In the past Forever 21 have been pioneers of cruelty-free campaigns, like their no-fur campaign, but since they have made no effort to respond to the cruelty of wool, perhaps this is just marketing. The good news is that a couple of fashion retailers, like Alternative Apparel and Boohoo, have banned wool. Every time one of these retailers caves to pressure, public awareness is raised and a choice is made not to harm animals.

What you can do: You can support Vegan fashion brands, and keep boycotting brands like Forever 21 and asking retailers to do better.

See More Info:

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/fashion/boohoo-wool-ban-peta-animal-cruelty-fashion-a8780801.html

https://www.plantbasednews.org/post/vegan-forever-21gruesome-wool-exposehttps://www.peta.org/blog/alternative-apparel-wool/

https://investigations.peta.org/lambs-wool-australia-mulesing/#action?utm_source=PETA::E-Mail&utm_medium=Alert&utm_campaign=0219::skn::PETA::E-Mail::PE%20We%20are%20SO%20done%20with%20Forever%2021::::aa%20em