Animals don't feel pain., a Brexit bonus to free us of EU red tape Options

[Andy Capp]

MPs (mainly Monster Raving Tories) vote that ‘animals can’t feel pain or emotion’ as part of Brexit bill/

[je suis Charlie]

That law protects all animals that are ‘generally domesticated’ vertebrates, except for wild animals - which are covered under a different law.

Invertebrate animals are also covered by the law if the scientific consensus agrees that they can feel ‘pain and suffering’.

And the basis of the law is an acceptance that all of the above animals are able to experience suffering - and are therefore sentient.

Also, contrary to the petition’s text, the decision wasn’t taken by the government - it was a vote in parliament. And it doesn’t actually remove anything that has any practical effect in law.

The best argument being put forward by the Green Party and others is that including the statement that animals are sentient beings in law is a symbolic gesture.

It sends a message that we as a country are resolved that animals have the capacity to feel, and we protect them as such.

But in law, that’s mostly meaningless. It wouldn’t have any impact on how animal cruelty is prosecuted. And it’s possible it could introduce complications and philosophical arguments into legal actions in the future, which are neatly avoided by the Animal Welfare Act’s broad acceptance that all animals can feel suffering.

And to clarify the situation the guardian reports thus;

“The prime minister has made clear that we will strengthen our animal welfare rules,” he said in in a written statement to MPs. “This government will ensure that any necessary changes required to UK law are made in a rigorous and comprehensive way to ensure animal sentience is recognised after we leave the EU.

“The withdrawal bill is not the right place to address this; however, we are considering the right legislative vehicle.”

Gove also hinted that the UK could pursue tougher animal welfare rules after Brexit, including a ban on live animal exports and crackdown on puppy smuggling. He claimed EU rules currently prevented the government from imposing such restrictions.

So it was a storm in a Libtard teacup anyway.

[Andy Capp]

That law protects all animals that are ‘generally domesticated’ vertebrates, except for wild animals - which are covered under a different law.

Invertebrate animals are also covered by the law if the scientific consensus agrees that they can feel ‘pain and suffering’.

And the basis of the law is an acceptance that all of the above animals are able to experience suffering - and are therefore sentient.

Also, contrary to the petition’s text, the decision wasn’t taken by the government - it was a vote in parliament. And it doesn’t actually remove anything that has any practical effect in law.

The best argument being put forward by the Green Party and others is that including the statement that animals are sentient beings in law is a symbolic gesture.

It sends a message that we as a country are resolved that animals have the capacity to feel, and we protect them as such.

But in law, that’s mostly meaningless. It wouldn’t have any impact on how animal cruelty is prosecuted. And it’s possible it could introduce complications and philosophical arguments into legal actions in the future, which are neatly avoided by the Animal Welfare Act’s broad acceptance that all animals can feel suffering.

And to clarify the situation the guardian reports thus;

“The prime minister has made clear that we will strengthen our animal welfare rules,” he said in in a written statement to MPs. “This government will ensure that any necessary changes required to UK law are made in a rigorous and comprehensive way to ensure animal sentience is recognised after we leave the EU.

“The withdrawal bill is not the right place to address this; however, we are considering the right legislative vehicle.”

Gove also hinted that the UK could pursue tougher animal welfare rules after Brexit, including a ban on live animal exports and crackdown on puppy smuggling. He claimed EU rules currently prevented the government from imposing such restrictions.

So it was a storm in a Libtard teacup anyway.

The headline is sensationalist, but not groundless. Stolen from the same 'left-wing' source as you:

"The Humane Society broadly welcomed Gove’s statement, but Director Claire Bass added: “Acknowledging that animals have the capacity to suffer and feel pain is absolutely fundamental to protecting them from harm, and we need a binding imperative enshrined in UK law that will hold government to account, ensuring that animal welfare is fully taken into account in all UK law and policy-making.

"We can’t afford for this guiding principle to be thrown out with the Brussels bathwater and so look forward to hearing the government’s legislative plans in the very near future.”

The RSPCA aren’t convinced at all, and insist the Animal Welfare Act only applies to ‘companion’ animals - pets. They’re issuing a statement later today.

And the Green Party are expected to move another amendment to the Brexit bill when it gets to the House of Lords.

Green Party leader Caroline Lucas said: "The Government's refusal to accept this amendment is simply absurd - and their continued insistence that sentience is covered in Animal Welfare legislation is wrong. Britain been forward thinking animal welfare over the years, which is why ditching this provision would be such a backwards step.

"The UK Government led on introducing this EU protocol in the first place, and it's only an obsession with refusing changes to the EU Withdrawal Bill that's stopping Ministers adopting this amendment now.

"The animal sentience protocol is important because it is an instruction to future governments when creating legislation - and it should be the basis of future lawmaking on animal welfare in Britain.""

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/no-m...s-vote-11572216