IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Animals don't feel pain., a Brexit bonus to free us of EU red tape
SirWilliam
post Nov 23 2017, 03:43 PM
Post #21


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 818
Joined: 6-March 14
From: West Berks
Member No.: 10,341



QUOTE (Jay Sands @ Nov 23 2017, 02:56 PM) *


When the "responsible" press is found wanting in it's reporting accuracy then we may as well give up . Maybe they concluded that the end justified the means or just guilty of a miss-placed syllable . Anyway the acid test will be when we have "finally" severed our umbilical cord with Brussels and can start to implement our own laws .


--------------------
Si non prius succederent.......... relinquere
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Nov 23 2017, 04:01 PM
Post #22


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,053
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



QUOTE (Jay Sands @ Nov 23 2017, 02:56 PM) *



err, no it isn't.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
je suis Charlie
post Nov 23 2017, 05:00 PM
Post #23


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,819
Joined: 10-January 15
Member No.: 10,530



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.


--------------------
Like a Boss!! 😎
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
newres
post Nov 23 2017, 05:45 PM
Post #24


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,741
Joined: 27-November 12
Member No.: 8,961



QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Nov 23 2017, 05:00 PM) *
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.

I think only an idiot would take something Gove hints at as a promise. This clearly demonstrates one of the strongest arguments for the EU. Protection from our own government.

The point is that by accepting in law that animal are sentient beings it means that all other laws have to be informed by that acceptance and no laws can be passed that ignore their suffering. It’s a governing principle therefore and not meaningless.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
je suis Charlie
post Nov 23 2017, 05:56 PM
Post #25


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,819
Joined: 10-January 15
Member No.: 10,530



QUOTE (newres @ Nov 23 2017, 05:45 PM) *
I think only an idiot would take something Gove hints at as a promise. This clearly demonstrates one of the strongest arguments for the EU. Protection from our own government.

The point is that by accepting in law that animal are sentient beings it means that all other laws have to be informed by that acceptance and no laws can be passed that ignore their suffering. It’s a governing principle therefore and not meaningless.

You either didn't read my post or, as seems more like, you didn't understand it.


--------------------
Like a Boss!! 😎
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Nov 23 2017, 06:43 PM
Post #26


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,835
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Nov 23 2017, 05:00 PM) *
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
je suis Charlie
post Nov 23 2017, 06:55 PM
Post #27


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,819
Joined: 10-January 15
Member No.: 10,530



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


--------------------
Like a Boss!! 😎
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Nov 23 2017, 07:36 PM
Post #28


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,835
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Nov 23 2017, 06:55 PM) *
And the basis of the law is an acceptance that all of the above animals are able to experience suffering - and are therefore sentient.

The concern isn’t that there is no existing provision for sentient beings, it’s that existing legislation lacks scope.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
je suis Charlie
post Nov 23 2017, 07:37 PM
Post #29


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,819
Joined: 10-January 15
Member No.: 10,530



In what way?


--------------------
Like a Boss!! 😎
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Nov 23 2017, 07:41 PM
Post #30


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,835
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Nov 23 2017, 07:37 PM) *
In what way?

A concern it doesn’t cover all creatures that are sentient.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
je suis Charlie
post Nov 23 2017, 07:43 PM
Post #31


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,819
Joined: 10-January 15
Member No.: 10,530



Which ones?


--------------------
Like a Boss!! 😎
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Nov 23 2017, 08:01 PM
Post #32


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,835
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Nov 23 2017, 07:43 PM) *
Which ones?

I’ve been trying to find out, but it ia not clear. There isn’t a yes or no list. The 2006 act is somewhat vague.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
je suis Charlie
post Nov 23 2017, 08:10 PM
Post #33


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,819
Joined: 10-January 15
Member No.: 10,530



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 23 2017, 08:01 PM) *
I’ve been trying to find out, but it ia not clear. There isn’t a yes or no list. The 2006 act is somewhat vague.

Well, when you are clear, let me know.


--------------------
Like a Boss!! 😎
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Nov 23 2017, 08:19 PM
Post #34


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,835
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Nov 23 2017, 08:10 PM) *
Well, when you are clear, let me know.

I doubt that will happen as the act is not clear, unless you know better of course?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
je suis Charlie
post Nov 23 2017, 09:31 PM
Post #35


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,819
Joined: 10-January 15
Member No.: 10,530



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 23 2017, 08:19 PM) *
I doubt that will happen as the act is not clear, unless you know better of course?

So, you raised the topic, you say you have concerns but are unclear as to what they are and you want me to do your research. Interesting. Personally, the legislation is adequate and in place, what is lacking is the willingness to adequately police the existing legislation. I find amusing that the usual suspects are up in arms about this but seem quite at ease to allow animals to be hung from their hind legs and have their throats sliced open without any effort made to stun them. Cultrool differences innit.


--------------------
Like a Boss!! 😎
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Nov 23 2017, 09:45 PM
Post #36


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,835
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Nov 23 2017, 09:31 PM) *
So, you raised the topic, you say you have concerns but are unclear as to what they are and you want me to do your research. Interesting.

I reported that a large percentage of MPs voted to remove a section of legislation, which is true and clear.

I am concerned about the vote, but I am not alone in there. That is true and clear.

The lack of clarity is the problem. A vagueness that wouldn’t exist if the legislation had been left intact, it seems.

I did not ask you to do any research, but your line of questioning implied you ‘knew better’. I therefore asked if you did.

QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Nov 23 2017, 09:31 PM) *
Personally, the legislation is adequate and in place, what is lacking is the willingness to adequately police the existing legislation. I find amusing that the usual suspects are up in arms about this but seem quite at ease to allow animals to be hung from their hind legs and have their throats sliced open without any effort made to stun them.

Who are are you referring to?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
je suis Charlie
post Nov 23 2017, 10:18 PM
Post #37


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,819
Joined: 10-January 15
Member No.: 10,530



The Government argued animals are already classed as sentient beings in existing legislation and that including the proposed clause in the EU Withdrawal Bill would lead to "legal uncertainty". Its a failure to recognise this fact for whatever reason that you are working on. I repeat, the legislation is in place and is strong enough. We have some of the most stringent animal protection law in the world while countries unlike countries like France who believe that drowning small songbirds in brandy somehow enhances the flavour, or Spain who throw donkeys off towers for 'religious' ceremonies or honk it great fun to put a bull against men armed with swords and Lance's or Italy where animals are raised in conditions that would horrify you. What about foie gras? I could go on, but the point is that the EU and it's members aren't leading lights in animal welfare.


--------------------
Like a Boss!! 😎
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Nov 23 2017, 11:28 PM
Post #38


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,835
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Nov 23 2017, 10:18 PM) *
The Government argued animals are already classed as sentient beings in existing legislation and that including the proposed clause in the EU Withdrawal Bill would lead to "legal uncertainty".

What is the uncertainty?

The Government said something, but other groups said otherwise.

QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Nov 23 2017, 10:18 PM) *
Its a failure to recognise this fact for whatever reason that you are working on.

I heard what the Government said, but I remain cynical of their motives.

QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Nov 23 2017, 10:18 PM) *
I repeat, the legislation is in place and is strong enough. We have some of the most stringent animal protection law in the world while countries unlike countries like France who believe that drowning small songbirds in brandy somehow enhances the flavour, or Spain who throw donkeys off towers for 'religious' ceremonies or honk it great fun to put a bull against men armed with swords and Lance's or Italy where animals are raised in conditions that would horrify you. What about foie gras? I could go on, but the point is that the EU and it's members aren't leading lights in animal welfare.

I would feel more pursuaded if animal welfare groups had agreed with the Government’s stance.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
je suis Charlie
post Nov 23 2017, 11:45 PM
Post #39


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,819
Joined: 10-January 15
Member No.: 10,530



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41281570


--------------------
Like a Boss!! 😎
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Nov 24 2017, 08:06 AM
Post #40


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,835
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (je suis Charlie @ Nov 23 2017, 11:45 PM) *

How is this relevant to the topic? This seems to be about the failure of the EU to police its laws, not whether we should adopt an EU law.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 14th December 2018 - 12:16 AM