Forum menu
*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.