Forum menu
that is the worst justification i have read in a while
One has a cat that may or may not do something to other living things and the other is someone who breed dogs specifically to hunt foxes to their death which they will do with them for fun
I wish you the best of luck convincing folk....you are going to need it
So 275,000,000 prey items needlessly killed and maimed in the name of human companionship are morally irrelevant?
Yet 10-12,000 foxes are an ethically repugnant crime against sentience??
Stripping back the cultural prejudices, please tell me why one is morally acceptable in relation to the non-essential death/suffering of a sentient being and one not??
Are you saying if I kept a fox hound and let it out at night unattended you wouldn't care if it killed a fox or not??
It’s all an irrelevance
Fox hunting was banned, remember
crosshair - Member
So 275,000,000 prey items needlessly killed and maimed in the name of human companionship are morally irrelevant?...
Full marks for brilliant whataboutery.
I'm impressed by your concern for animal welfare, I presume you're a vegan.
It's not whataboutery though. It's moral equivalence. And that's crucial in a discussion about how we treat wildlife in the context of law.
Apparently the hateful Tories were hoping to drop sentience from the animal welfare discussion to enable their sick hunting fetishes but actually, they were just mindful that 8 million cat owners are in fact evil criminals if we follow the appliance of the sentience argument to its logical end point 😆
It's moral equivalence.
Uh oh.
One has a cat that may or may not do something to other living things and the other is someone who breed dogs specifically to hunt foxes to their death which they will do with them for fun
Which are still nothing to do with the meaningless legislation that is the topic of this thread?
💡
meaningless legislation that is the topic of this thread?
Agree:
[i]"In 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."[/i]
If we leave we won't be formulating EU policies so we don't need a law to tell us how to do so, which presumably is why the mainstream media didn't bother with the (non-)story.
I'd be very interested in what the case for leaving it in was? Or were they arguing for leaving it in but heavily amending it?
that is the worst justification i have read in a while
They are all pretty bad because there is no justification. You can justify why you need to control a population but you can't justify the method.
Crosshair is right, cat owners are collectively guilty of wanton ecological genocide. Cats kill wildlife like Nazis kill Jews. The Germans were collectively guilty as **** in regards to the Nazis, why shouldn't cat owners be?
We can clearly see that they are evil, as evidenced by the following picture.
[img] 
[/img]
Thus it stands to reason that the only solution to the cat question is
They are all pretty bad because there is no justification.
Article 13 specifically states the justification:
respecting the legislative or administrative provisions and customs of the Member States relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage
So yeah, we might think blood sports are bad, but if countries have hunting/sport fishing/falconry/bull fighting as part of their legislative /administrative provisions or customs or religious rites or cultural traditions or regional heritage then it's justified according to Article 13.
So relating all this back to the original article in the OP, it seems a total non-issue.
We have learned-
Article 13 already allowed all the things people are claiming the Tories are seeking to bring in with the pesky word 'sentience' out of the way.
By definition, Article 13 can't apply if we're not in the EU.
The RSPCA were being disingenuous with their descriptions of the impact Article 13 has had on forming animal welfare policy in Europe.
If you run over a mans ass you must report it.
Cat owners are worse than fox hunters.
/thread 🙂
So 275,000,000 prey items needlessly killed and maimed in the name of human companionship are morally irrelevant?
Funny how so many people deny it. The distinction of the moral argument lies in the acceptance: the fox ‘hunter’ is actively seeking the death of the animal; the cat owner accepts that the animal they home will kill an undetermined number of other animals. I’m not particularly interested in which is ‘worse’ - one could really argue either way with some substance.
The Germans were collectively guilty as **** in regards to the Nazis, why shouldn't cat owners be?
Well, yes, in a sense. The collective guilt (some prefer to call it responsibility) has remained strong in German socio-politics and informs many attitudes and decisions. As Edmund Burke said so long ago:
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
[quote=outofbreath ]Article 13 specifically states the justification:
Read back a bit in the thread if you haven't already oob, we've been round the loop already discussing the wording of Article 13 and the "get out clause".
[quote=outofbreath ]presumably is why the mainstream media didn't bother with the (non-)story.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/11/how-brexit-could-strip-your-pets-their-rights
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/animals-should-never-be-treated-as-our-equals-f5gbrsvdl
https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/uk/mps-voted-animals-cannot-feel-pain-emotions-brexit-debate/
[quote=outofbreath ]I'd be very interested in what the case for leaving it in was? Or were they arguing for leaving it in but heavily amending it?
Full debate is here:
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-11-15a.475.0
Basic argument is that without Article 13 we have no guiding principle in our legislation that animals should be regarded as sentient and that our laws and policies should thus take proper regard of animal welfare.
Caroline Lucas makes a good case for it. The counter-case from Dominic Raab seems to be: we agree, sounds good, but it's okay, it's covered by the Animal Welfare Act. Which is blatantly untrue as that act doesn't mention sentience and only covers domesticated animals.
[quote=crosshair]We have learned-
Article 13 already allowed all the things people are claiming the Tories are seeking to bring in with the pesky word 'sentience' out of the way.
Again, Article 13 doesn't allow or disallow anything. It is a guiding principle in a treaty. It exists to be discussed and debated while defining laws and policies.
[quote=crosshair]By definition, Article 13 can't apply if we're not in the EU.
Practically none of the EU legislation applies once we're not in the EU - the whole point of the "copy-paste bill" is to replicate it into UK domestic legislation, amending the wording as required.
[quote=crosshair]The RSPCA were being disingenuous with their descriptions of the impact Article 13 has had on forming animal welfare policy in Europe.
As were Farming UK, British Vets Assoc, Compassion in World Farming, the Green Party and Michael Gove?
And not forgetting that pesky "80% of current animal welfare legislation comes from the EU" stat.
Graham S:
Caroline Lucas makes a good case for it. The counter-case from Dominic Raab seems to be: we agree, sounds good, but it's okay, it's covered by the Animal Welfare Act.
There was more from Raab, and it sadly concluded the (very brief) debate. His stated contention was that the clause* would risk 'legal confusion'.
To tack on to the Bill the hon. Lady’s new clause, which simply refers to article 13, would add nothing, however, and she was fairly honest in her speech about the limited practical impact it would have. Given that it is ultimately fairly superfluous, it risks creating legal confusion. Obviously, if she wants to propose improvements to wider UK legislation—I am sure she will, knowing her tenacity—she is free to do so, but this new clause is unnecessary, and it is liable only to generate legal uncertainty
*As I'm not sure if or not Lucas' proposed Clause 30 embodied the whole of article 13 (including the regard for tradition and religion) or simply the regard for sentience - I'm now actually on the fence without that knowledge. It was discussed so summarily as to effectively not be discussed at all. At least we have STW!
The vote split (sorted by party): 😯
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2017-11-15&number=40&showall=yes#voters
A big PS - f anyone takes the time to read that whole session especially the bulk regarding (sic) envisioned (sic) policy on the environment on exit - 😐
It was discussed so summarily as to effectively not be discussed at all. At least we have STW!
Yep, we've literally discussed it in more depth here than they did in the parliamentary debate.
Which is a bit crap really, but that's the crux of the issue: they have a metric crapload of legislation to copy-paste and very little time to debate it properly.
^ agreed, if by 'very little time' you actually mean 'darkly comic, farcically f***all' time'.
The future is so bright I have to now wear blinkers. Having made the time to actually read the entire debate (at 5am this morning) - I'm now left with an overwhelming, increasing fondness for the late, great Terry Pratchett and his 'Disc World' series.
Read back a bit in the thread if you haven't already oob, we've been round the loop already discussing the wording of Article 13 and the "get out clause".
Whoops, missed all that. Wasted my time. 🙁
Basic argument is that without Article 13 we have no guiding principle in our legislation that animals should be regarded as sentient and that our laws and policies should thus take proper regard of animal welfare.
We never did, this applies to makers of EU Policy, not UK law.
Plus, as you say:
Article 13 doesn't allow or disallow anything.
We never did, this applies to makers of EU Policy, not UK law.
Indeed, but as noted, 80% of our animal welfare laws come from that EU policy.
So if that is no longer a driver then we could do with the equivalent in our legislation to influence our post-Brexit policies.
Indeed, but as noted, 80% of our animal welfare laws come from that EU policy. So if that is no longer a driver then we could do with the equivalent in our legislation to influence our post-Brexit policies.
Great, so we're agreed article 17 isn't appropriate for that because it doesn't apply when making UK law.
Very few EU laws or policies are wholly appropriate for post-Brexit UK without tweaking the wording a bit. That's the entire point of the copy-paste EU Withdrawal Bill being debated.
If we don't put in something, either a reference to the treaty clause or an agreed amendment to the Animal Welfare Act, then we lose that protection when we brexit.
But I thought we established that the 'cultural' bit of the article rendered it impotent anyway?
So we are worried that we no longer have an ambiguous guidance document to influence our laws that are already in place?
Today, we are subject to AWA2006. With the article on the scrap heap, we are still subject to AWA2006 no?
But I thought we established that the 'cultural' bit of the article rendered it impotent anyway?
No we didn't establish that. You suggested it. I explained why I thought it was there: to help frame the competing factors in the debate.
I'd suggest that, unless the UK is suddenly going to become waaaaaay more radical about animal rights, any equivalent principle adopted in domestic legislation would use very similar weasel words.
we are still subject to AWA2006 no?
Which gives protection for [i]domesticated[/i] animals and pets, but says nothing about sentience or a general principle of considering animal welfare when making policy and law.
Article 13 doesn't allow or disallow anything. It is a guiding principle in a treaty. It exists to be discussed and debated while defining laws and policies.
then we lose that protection when we brexit.
Please reconcile these two things for me. Why do we need a treaty to debate something and how can a document that doesn't expressly allow or prohibit something provide protection?
Surely this is the exact sort of bureaucratic nonsense we are aiming to improve on by Brexiting.
We don't need to be told to include sentience in a debate on animal welfare- we were the very people who fought for its inclusion in the first place!!
Please reconcile these two things for me. Why do we need a treaty to debate something and how can a document that doesn't expressly allow or prohibit something provide protection?
We don't need a treaty. No one is suggesting keeping the entire Lisbon Treaty just so we retain a mention of animal sentience.
What we do need is either a reference to that very specific principle in the Lisbon Treaty or a copy-paste-edit of that principle into UK domestic legislation.
(As Michael Gove expressly promised we would before voting against it)
Why do we need it? Because having it part of legislation means that proposed policies or laws that negatively impact animal welfare can be more robustly challenged on the basis that they violate that principle.
We don't need to be told to include sentience in a debate- we were the very people who fought for its inclusion in the first place!!
Please reconcile these two things for me. We thought it so important that we fought for it to be included, but we don't need it?
We need it in principle in law (which by dint of the fact it was not amended after it's inclusion in Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty- AWA2006 must provide 😉 ) but we don't need it somewhere else to tell us how to think!
Without the lowest common denominators of Europe to worry about, we can create laws with proper debate around whatever subjects our democratically elected representatives see fit.
What animal is being protected by Article 13 today that won't be if we Brexit without it in place?
We need it in principle in law
We agree.
(which by dint of the fact it was created under the guidance of Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty- AWA2006 must provide
It doesn't.
Without the lowest common denominators of Europe to worry about, we can create laws with proper debate around whatever subjects our democratically elected representatives see fit.
Aaaah gotcha. So we only needed it because of those filthy foreigners and their vile ways?
But the fine upstanding British don't need such ridiculous laws, as we'd never allow things like battery farmed chickens, badger baiting, cock fighting, fox hunting..
What animal is being protected by Article 13 today that won't be if we Brexit without it in place?
*sigh*
Article 13 doesn't provide direct protection. It is a PRINCIPLE. It guides debate on other laws and policies.
For comparison, [url= http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-the-functioning-of-the-european-union-and-comments/part-1-principles/title-ii-provisions-having-general-application/150-article-8.html ]Article 8[/url] in the same section says [i]"In all its activities, the Union shall aim to eliminate inequalities, and to promote equality, between men and women."[/i]
What equality is actually protected there? None. It is a statement of Principle. New laws and policies can be challenged on the basis that they violate that principle. Debate ensues. Democracy happens.
So as current members, how are we able to function legally and trade freely if our law isn't robust enough to meet the criteria laid out in Article 13?
Why hasn't AWA2006 been amended if adherence to the treaty is so important?
Because it doesn't say [i]"you must write laws to protect all animals from everything"[/i], it says [i]"you must consider animal welfare when writing laws and policy"[/i].
it says "you must consider animal welfare when writing laws and policy".
No it doesn't.
Stop making things up.
If it did, then it might not be so meaningless.
Because it doesn't say "you must write laws to protect all animals from everything", it says "you must consider animal welfare when writing [b]EU[/b] policy[b] unless for pretty much any reason you don't want to[/b]".
Corrected the sentence for you. 😀
In spite of all the words I think we're all in agreement here. Article 17 means very little to EU nations. It means literally nothing to a non-EU nation. However, there's no real harm in putting some similar platitude in Uk legislation to apply to future UK legislation.
That's how I read it sbob.
[i]"In 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, "[/i]
= "when writing laws and policy"
[i]"since animals are sentient beings, pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals, "[/i]
= "consider animal welfare"
No? Where do we differ on that?
However, there's no real harm in putting some similar platitude in Uk legislation to apply to future UK legislation.
Good. Then yes we are in agreement.
Motion carried.
Next item please speaker. 😆
And we can consider animal welfare without a law directly referencing 'sentience' right? So it's direct inclusion in a document somewhere is irrelevant right?
Otherwise- why don't we already have the word 'sentient included in UK law??
why don't we already have the word 'sentient included in UK law??
I don't know.
Perhaps since the UK Gov insisted it was in the Lisbon Treaty they felt that covered it?
The AWA seems more focused on whether the animal is a member of the Sub-phylum Vertebrata of the Phylum Chordata.
Though it does say that an appropriate national authority may "extend the definition of animal so as to include invertebrates" but only [i]"on the basis of scientific evidence, that animals of the kind concerned are capable of experiencing pain or suffering"[/i], which I think some people would describe as 'sentient'.
In an interesting turn of events, 100% of warm-blooded mammals polled rejected the notion that Conservative politicians are in any way sentient and capable of empathy.
*size of sample, three mammals in my house.
capable of experiencing pain or suffering", which I think some people would describe as 'sentient'.
Not at all. It's nothing to do with pain. Dictionary definition of sentient is: "able to perceive or feel things".
Tulip heads follow the sun throughout the day. They must be able to perceive/feel the sun. I doubt tulips feel pain. (But I don't know, does anyone?)
Good. Then yes we are in agreement.
Too many facts spoil the wrath. 😀
So has the treaty encouraged any member state to enhance animal welfare?
Do any EU members include the word sentient in their legislation?
If our laws won't change because of this- why is this perceived as being a backwards step? NOTHING WILL HAVE CHANGED!!
Ludicrous! Pointless layers of meaningless drivel.
Ludicrous! Pointless layers of meaningless drivel.
Agree, maybe it's brexiteers doing a false flag operation spreading this on FB to draw attention to Article 17.
I certainly wouldn't have been aware of Article if this fuss hadn't been whipped up and it certainly doesn't show the EU in a positive light.
Dictionary definition of sentient is: "able to perceive or feel things".
Tulip heads follow the sun throughout the day. They must be able to perceive/feel the sun
Are you arguing that plants are sentient?
Do you think we need plant welfare laws? 😯
So has the treaty encouraged any member state to enhance animal welfare?
Yes other member states [i]have[/i] enhanced their animal welfare because they have been subject to EU policies and directives that were created with reference to the principle in Article 13.
If our laws won't change because of this- why is this perceived as being a backwards step? NOTHING WILL HAVE CHANGED!!
YES IT WILL!!eleven
Prior to leaving the EU we are subject to EU policies, directives and standards on things like agriculture, trade and the environment which can all impact animal welfare. The principle in Article 13 is used when creating and debating those policies.
After leaving the EU and 'taking back control', we'll be making up our own policies, directives and standards, but we won't have that principle enshrined in our legislation to guide and challenge them.
You've already agreed that we [i]should[/i] have an equivalent in our legislation - which was literally the point of the debate. So I'm not sure what your current argument is?
Pointless layers of meaningless drivel.
Meaningless drivel that has been recognised across the world and has been the foundation for creeping improvements in animal welfare across the EU and its trading partners.
the foundation for creeping improvements in animal welfare across the EU and its trading partners
Cite.
My point is, we have debated our laws and set our standards. Full stop.
If we suddenly decided to stay in the EU, would AWA2006 stop being the law? No. Will it stop being the law when we leave? No.
Nothing will change.
Can we debate sentience in parliament? Yes.
Will any future changes to law be held to account and voted on over it's recognition of the word sentient? Yes.
Are we free to vote for people who support the views that best represent our own opinions on the word sentient? Yes!
WTF is the point of this treaty other than (and I wince a little bit here) Virtue Signalling??!!??
"Aren't we great! We fought for the word Sentient to be included in the treaty!"
"Ah well done! I guess the law will have to change now then?"
"Nah, we've done our bit and enshrined the sentience of animals in a treaty, aren't we awesome!!"
"So has anything practical changed?"
"No but look- it's in the treaty!! Animals can rejoice!!!"
"Yeah but Bull fighting?"
"Sorry, I'm busy Tory bashing right now, what did you say?"
Etc etc.
Farcical!!!!
Cite.
https://ec.europa.eu/food/animals/welfare_en
(particularly the section "INTERNATIONAL EFFECTS OF EU ANIMAL WELFARE POLICIES AND LEGISLATION")
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/lab_animals/index_en.htm
https://www.ciwf.org.uk/media/3818623/eu-law-on-the-welfare-of-farm-animals.pdf
https://www.globalanimallaw.org/database/europe.html