crosshair

But if you read that quote properly, it says we already recognised animals as sentient in all but name

cite please?

I have to say that I find “virtue signalling” one of the least worrying things I come across on a daily basis.

Rather amused that it bothers Ninfan quite so!

Only from above^

A: Absolutely. Before we entered the European Union, we recognised in our own legislation that animals were sentient beings

So if we already recognised it, the EU law did nothing practical to improve on it other than add needless red tape with a handy

, while respecting the legislative or administrative provisions and customs of the Member States relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage.

get out clause for their own filthy habits.

So if we already recognised it, the EU law did nothing practical to improve on it other than add needless red tape with a handy

So why do you have a problem removing the word? It seems people are pissed off by something they claim does nothing. The only thing this did was waste parliaments time and tell everyone that when they promised to not change anything it was a crock of shit.

It will, but not in the way you think.

The removal of this law is to allow cheap imports of meat that’s been in humanly treated.

Because imported inhumane meat is cheaper.

I don’t think it’s about getting cheaper meat on the table, and more about the USA government trade people having made clear that we must not agree anything with the EU as regards standards, or tie our hands by embedding EU principles in UK law, that would block them getting what the US wants from a trade deal with us… non-transparent lower standards for their exports to the UK. And we will NEED that trade deal.

Which part of that doesn’t suit post-Brexit UK?

Which part of that doesn’t suit the USA is the question to ask at every turn of the unraveling EU involvement in food and agriculture standards as applicable to the post-Brexit UK.

I don’t have a problem with the word, just with the premise that a law from the EU that adds no practical benefit over those that preceded it should be blindly enshrined just because the EU is deemed superior by some.
Particularly as in the most important sense- the application of any law regardless of wording, we are way ahead of the mainland.

I don’t see what’s happening as a deception, merely a practical way of moving forward.

It is not about how the law is applied inside the UK. Or the rest to the EU. It’s about the USA. Wake up.

EU law did nothing practical to improve on it other than add needless red tape with a handy

From the Farming UK article:

“Eighty percent of current animal welfare legislation comes from the EU”

How is that “nothing practical”??

I don’t see what’s happening as a deception, merely a practical way of moving forward.

The relevant minister was asked a direct and explicit question. His actions have been different to the direct and explicit question he was asked. That is deception and that is breaking your word.

crosshair

What’s important is maintaining our status as world leaders in how we treat animals- what’s not is slavishly smothering ourselves with pompous and meaningless EU drivel that we are now free to shake off.

And yet around 80% of UK animal welfare laws originate from the EU. Please explain yourself? Even takng EU legislation as a minimum, how does ripping it all up and leaving the EU maintain our status?

If it makes it easy – which of the following (for instances) ‘pompous and meaningless drivel’ would you tear up and trust to a Government who only last year attempted to begin the process of deregulation/handing code guidelines for animal welfare over to the meat and dairy industry?

1974 The Council of Europe passed a directive requiring that animals be rendered unconscious before slaughter.

1976 The European Convention for the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes, which mandates that animals be kept in conditions meeting their “physiological and ethological needs”, is passed

1986 The Council of Europe issues the European Directive Regarding the Protection of Animals Used for Experimental and Other Scientific Purposes

1997 The European Union’s Protocol on Animal Protection is annexed to the treaty establishing the European Community. The Protocol recognizes animals as “sentient beings” (rather than mere property) and requires countries to pay “full regard to the welfare requirements of animals” when making laws regarding their use.

1998 The EU passes the Council Directive 98/58/EC Concerning the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes, which is based on a revised Five Freedoms: freedom from hunger and thirst; from discomfort; from pain, injury, and disease; from fear and distress; and to express normal behavior

1999 The EU passes a law phasing out the use of barren battery cages

2003 EU bans the construction of new gestation crates

2006 The European Commission passes minimum requirements on the collection of information during inspection of animal farms so that the European Community can evaluate the impact of its welfare policies.

2006 Veal crates become illegal in the EU

2012 The EU’s ban on battery cages goes into effect

2013 The EU ban on all gestation crates goes into effect.

I don’t understand why Leavers are so keen to ‘virtue signal’ when it’s patently obvious to most (including the BVA AND Farming UK) that there is a massive likelhood that things will likely get worse here for animals that we currently exploit as we would move to a more US-style trading platform (production/imports/exports).

Most anyone can agree that ivory trade (for instance) is now indefensible. Yet who tried to block the EU ban on ivory trade? Any guesses?

But then, you yourself seem to think that even minimum welfare protocol (ie recognition of sentience) is just more ‘drivel’ and ‘red tape’?

*Edit

there is a likelihood that things will likely 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
[/quote]

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:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2017-07-20/debates/3087E6DC-8EB6-4DFD-9B0E-AFE3C1968BB0/BrexitEnvironmentalAndAnimalWelfareStandards

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?

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.

Again

All 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 legal definition of the word, and confirm whether in your opinion it fits all 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 full 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 13

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.

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 slowly spearing cows for sport and chucking donkeys off rooves “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.

https://action.ciwf.org.uk/ea-action/action?ea.client.id=119&ea.campaign.id=74771&ea.tracking.id=05bb9ddb

More on sentience (Not just physical ‘pain’, which is also subjective/vague, ask any doctor!) here:

https://www.ciwf.org.uk/media/3816923/stop-look-listen.pdf

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.