The Government reject animal sentience

  • http://www.fecava.org/en/news/…mal-welfare-standards.htm


    Unbelievable.


    Quote

    It is extremely concerning that a marginal majority of MPs have voted-down this seminal clause. Enshrining animal sentience in UK law would have acknowledged that we consider animals as being capable of feelings such as pain and contentment and, so, deserving of consideration and respect. It is a founding principle of animal welfare science, and for the way that we should treat all animals.

  • Yes...most likely our food industry will follow the US example or go under..we cant compete with them on food production though with or without welfare laws.

    Its up to consumers to say we're not eating that stuff....like thats going to happen :(

  • Just goes to show how out of touch with reality most of our twunt MPs are. Getting to a position of power with promises of a better world and once ensconced don't have a fn clue or backbone enough to control commercial greed for the good of all beings.

    Most decisions are made long before the subjects are raised, always have been and always will.

  • I wish there was some karmic payback theyd all reap for their poisonous duplicity but like always theyll get away with it,live happily ever after and we'll carry on paying the price.

  • I wish there was some karmic payback theyd all reap for their poisonous duplicity but like always theyll get away with it,live happily ever after and we'll carry on paying the price.

    Not that I'm a believer but I could be wrong and occassionally like to think that when such assholes are done with this world they'll find themselves drowning in shit in another.

  • I remember when Bill, our last dog, ripped a claw off. He certainly didn't hop/run into the garden whining with his paw dripping blood because he was happy. :cursing:


    Mind you if you consider Nye Bevan's quote about Tories and vermin. That could cast doubt on the sentience of Tories, which would basically invalidate the vote.... if you follow my logic...:/

  • Not that I'm a believer but I could be wrong and occassionally like to think that when such assholes are done with this world they'll find themselves drowning in shit in another.

    Id like see them drowing in shit in this one though...at least id get some sense of justice,Id be quite happy helping to push them under with a long stick too.

  • Does it really matter when sentience isn't respected anyway?


    If someone recognises sentience, then it stands to reason they believe an animal has an interest in its own life.


    So if they still treat that animal as a commodity or a product (in human terms, a slave), then what difference will it really make to their lives what it says on paper?

  • Well the law as it stands specifically refers to farmed animals, and as such it's pretty much ignored anyway.

    Quote from Lisbon Treaty NC30

    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.

    More in this article here:


    https://www.plantbasednews.org…uk-animal-sentience-claus

  • I'm just wondering how much of a connection there is with the government action and the halal and other vile methods of slaughtering farmstock and imports of cruelly treated animal products for which there should be a total ban.

    I'm an omnivore but there has to be respect for all that you eat or use and the best possible living and treatment. I fell out with friends who were fans of fois gras and veal and they couldn't understand why. No longer friends.

  • I am omni too, but would never eat fois gras or veal.

    I was once given some fois gras and rather than put it in the bin I gave it to the dogs. Throwing it away would have been as bad as producing it in the first place.

    I know to a vegan, this sounds hypocritical but there's plenty of meat to eat.

  • So cruelly produced fois gras and veal isnt ok, but slightly less cruelly produced pork, beef, chicken etc is?


    As an omni, myself included, you have to accept the fact that some form of cruelty goes towards producing your meal.

    You can only accomplish your object in life by complete disregard of the opinions of other people.

  • I do accept there's a level of cruelty in all meat production. Most of the meat I eat is destined for the bin.

    My point was it's bad enough to torture something before killing it for the table, but just as bad to torture it then send it to landfill.

  • Apparantly, the report in Vannie's original post is borderline fake news by a European vested interest.

    I don't know anything about this subject so I can simply report it as it was given to me.

    The amendment as proposed by the Green MP was only ever a time waster intended to disrupt the bill.


    Article 13 of the Lisbon Treaty was a statement of intent which has never been taken seriously by most of the member countries and has never been translated into laws or practices in the majority of the member states (allegedly)


    Existing British law has always exceeded European law on animal welfare by a very long way, especially in farming where lots of European practices are not allowed here. Penning pigs and foi gras being two examples.


    Certainly, as a casual observer, the treatment of animals in some of the places I have been to doesn't seem that great but its not a subject that I am fully conversant with.

    I know they shoot songbirds in Italy and Greece that are protected here.


    Maybe somebody with more knowledge would like to chip in and fill in the gaps.

  • If more proof were needed that human society has lost the plot, then declaring a robot a citizen, ignoring the preventable deaths of millions of children, shipping food from hungry countries to western land-fill and treating creatures as if they are rocks must be included.


    The more I look at the problems in the world, the more I see that the love of money / wealth is indeed the root of nearly all evil.

  • If more proof were needed that human society has lost the plot, then declaring a robot a citizen, ignoring the preventable deaths of millions of children, shipping food from hungry countries to western land-fill and treating creatures as if they are rocks must be included.


    The more I look at the problems in the world, the more I see that the love of money / wealth is indeed the root of nearly all evil.

    Well said Boaty.

  • can we add caring about things more than sentient beings (animal or human). It doesn't take that much money to accumulate lots of junk related debt on HP.

  • Unfortunately, the ‘false news’ angle is not the most important issue. It's overshadowing and demeaning the real issue of how to best support animal rights within law. Now those who want to understand what is happening regarding the Lisbon Treaty or have a valid point first have to wade though the superficial ‘false news’ aspect.


    [Too much is being made of the monster False News, as though it is a new, conspiratorial phenomena (Trump, Russia, the communist countries) spreading like a virus, something we need to fear. I agree in some instances it is a real problem. However, in this case it wasn’t ‘false news’ in the deliberate sense of a concerted attempt to deceive people with a bombardment of fabricated stories. The falseness was an error and then quickly conflagrated into bickering and tarnishing - nothing new. That ‘false news’ was proclaimed is interesting in exposing that hysteria, by some of the media and public, seems to be a desired goal in itself; but it is only shallow and unconstructively divisive, a stumbling block to getting down to the nitty gritty tedia of the real issues.]


    What happened, if I can claim to see it, is mistakes were made on both sides. Oddly the Independent reported it in a clumsy (false) manner and very quickly acknowledged the mistake (surely the real phenomenon of 'false news' is defended with more false news?). However, the government, if they want to claim they do care to respect sentience in animals should have the gumption to back it up explicitly in law and demonstrate a real and comprehensive policy of care – here they were lacking (in defence, the Independent were picking up on this clumsy handling of the law). It does seem the easiest way is to simply carry the more explicit EU law of Article 13 into ours. It is not clear why they have avoided this (but it fits our current government’s emperor’s new clothes attitude towards expressing sovereignty thru separation in whatever way possible).


    The campaigners DO have a real concern about carrying over the ‘sentient being’ aspect of Article 13 explicitly into our law, which the British Animal Welfare Act does not address. From what I understand, many improvements have been accomplished due to Article 13, the RSPCA states this (Newsnight mentioned three advances, one was to ban lab testing on animals for cosmetics, I can’t remember the other two). Our Animal Welfare Act is more concerned with domestic animals (farm and pet), wild animals and lab animals are ‘expressly exempt’, so the issues of badgers, hunting and experimentation (I’m a bit confused by this – surely there is something to protect them? But maybe that is why the campaigners are so up in arms).


    This has wider Brexit implications. The UK invested a lot of time and money into deciding EU policies, to make the most of the labour accomplished the positive has to be correctly transferred to UK policy.


    The below is lifted from other sources:


    The amendment - clause 30 [NC30] - was submitted by Green MP Caroline Lucas. She wanted to transfer EU protocol set out in Article 13 of Title II of the Lisbon Treaty. But the move was rejected by a slim majority of 18 for the Government - only 295 were in favour, with 313 against.


    The clause Lucas wanted to transfer into UK law says: "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." [To my eyes I can’t see a problem with this, but also, I don’t think even this is explicit enough – where’s the mention of pets, wild animals . . . but you can clearly see inserting the ‘sentient being’ phrase is an advance? So: yes, getting rid of Article 13 weakens UK law.].


    Michael Gove said: “It has been suggested that the vote last week on New Clause 30 of the EU Withdrawal Bill somehow signalled a weakening in the protection of animals – that is wrong,” he wrote. “Voting against the amendment was not a vote against the idea that animals are sentient and feel pain – that is a misconception.”


    RSPCA Head of Public Affairs David Bowles said:

    "It’s shocking MPs have given the thumbs down to incorporating animal sentience into post-Brexit UK law. Animal sentience is never mentioned in the Animal Welfare Act and, crucially, only domestic animals are really covered by the provisions of the Act anyway and animals in the wild and laboratories are expressly exempt. It is simply wrong for the Government to claim that the Act protects animal sentience. In the EU, we know that the recognition of animals as sentient beings has been effective in improving animal welfare across the region. If the UK is to achieve the Environment Secretary’s objective of achieving the highest possible animal welfare post-Brexit, it must do the same.”

  • The only flaw in your argument is that article 13 of the Lisbon treaty was not a law, it carried no weight in law and could only be invoked (as a principle) if a new law should fly in the face of it to prevent that law going through.

    The real upshot is that it had laid completely dormant since the treaty was signed a decade ago. Nobody has even paid lip service to it


    The EU has a pretty rubbish record where animal welfare is concerned. Our standards are much higher already


    However, it was only proposed as a blocking amendment to the EU Withdrawl Bill by Caroline Lucas as a time waster, along with hundreds of other amendments. There was never any real belief that it was going to go through

  • Hello.


    Today, the UK government announced that British law WILL recognise the ability of animals to suffer, feel pain and feel joy!

    A new Bill, to become the Animal Welfare Act 2018, will require current and future governments to pay regard to animal sentience when formulating and implementing policy.