Journal of Animal Law Vol 2.Pdf

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Journal of Animal Law Vol 2.Pdf VOL. II 2006 JOURNAL OF ANIMAL LAW Michigan State University College of Law J O U R N A L O F A N I M A L L A W VOL. II 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION MYTHIC NON-VIOLENCE …………………………………………………………………. 1 Taimie L. Bryant ARTICLES THE ANIMAL WELFARE ACT ……………………………………………………………... 13 Henry Cohen The Animal Welfare Act is a federal statute that directs the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture to "promulgate standards to govern the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of animals by dealers, research facilities, and exhibitors." This article summarizes the original 1966 act, all its amendments, and bills to amend it that are pending in the 109th Congress. WHO LET THE DANGEROUS DOGS OUT?……………………………….............................. 27 Claudia E. Haupt The article examines the legislative measures taken at the state and federal level in Germany to address the issue of dangerous dogs and the related decision of the Federal Constitutional Court which upheld an import ban on dangerous dogs while striking down a breeding ban and parts of a newly introduced section to the Criminal Code. ANTI-SPECIESISM………………………………………………………………………….. 49 Jeff Perz Joan Dunayer's Speciesism appropriates and misrepresents the animal rights theory of Gary L. Francione. Dunayer's objections to Francione's highly qualified suggestion that a prohibition against confining hens to battery cages could be consistent with animal rights theory are specious. If the exploitation of non- human animals is to be completely abolished, those who bring about this result will have necessary been informed by a consistent, well-supported theoretical framework. J O U R N A L O F A N I M A L L A W VOL. II 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS OPENING THE LABORATORY DOOR………………………………………………………... 67 By Katrina Sharman Despite the increased availability of alternatives to the animal test model, laws and policies continue to be used as shields to justify the scientific use of animals in jurisdictions across the world. This article examines the legislative framework for animal research in Australia with a specific focus on the state of New South Wales. It also examines emerging international principles for the use of animals in scientific research. AN ETHICIAL CRITIQUE OF THE CANADIAN SEAL HUNT……………………………...…… 87 By Andrew Linzey The Canadian seal hunt has been the subject of criticism since the middle of the ninteeth century, but it is only since the 1960s that it has become a focus of international controversy. This document examines the putative justifications for the hunt and provides an ethical assessment. NOTES & COMMENTS FREE EXERCISE DOES NOT PROTECT ANIMAL SACRIFICE………………………………… 121 Shannon L. Doheny (Florida State University College of Law) BEHIND A GLASS, DARKLY……….………………………………………………………. 143 Jennifer Tilden (Michigan State University College of Law) LEGAL PROTECTION ONLY FOR THOSE WHO ARE MOST LIKE “US”?................................. 159 Camden J. McDaris (Cardozo School of Law) 2005-2006 CASE LAW REVIEW…………………………………………………………. 179 Adam Cefai 2005-2006 FEATURED ANIMAL LAW CASE……………………………………………... 183 Trans. by Carlos de Paula J O U R N A L O F A N I M A L L A W VOL. II 2006 EDITORIAL BOARD 2005-2006 Editor-in-Chief MICHELLE D. HODKIN Managing Editor CHARLES F. HALL, IV Articles Editor TRACY E. VANDENBERGH Executive Editor JENNIFER LOGAN TILDEN Associate Editors BROOKE BEARUP ADAM CEFAI ASHLEY DUNCAN TANYA IRWIN CAMILLE KAM ELIZABETH KOSKI KIM KRAFT JORDAN PLENER Faculty Advisor DAVID FAVRE J O U R N A L O F A N I M A L L A W VOL. II 2006 PEER REVIEW COMMITTEE 2005-2006 FERNANDO ARAÚJO TAIMIE L. BRYANT DAVID CASSUTO DAVID FAVRE, CHAIR REBECCA J. HUSS PETER SANKOFF STEVEN M. WISE The Journal of Animal Law received generous support from the Animal Legal Defense Fund, The Michigan State University Council of Graduate Students, the Detroit & MSU College of Law Alumni Association, and the Student Bar Association of Michigan State University College of Law. Without their generous support, the Journal would not have been able to publish and host its inaugural speaker series. The Journal also is funded by subscription revenues. Subscription requests and article submissions may be sent to: Professor Favre, Journal of Animal Law, Michigan State University College of Law, 368 Law College Building, Lansing MI 48824. The Journal of Animal Law is published annually by law students at ABA accredited law schools. Membership is open to any law student attending an ABA accredited law college. Qualified candidates are encouraged to apply. Current yearly subscription rates are $25.00 in the U.S. and current yearly Internet subscription rates are $15.00. Subscriptions are renewed automatically unless a request for discontinuance is received. Back issues may be obtained from: William S. Hein & Co., Inc., 1285 Main Street, Buffalo, New York 14209. The Journal welcomes the submission of articles, book reviews, and notes & comments. Each manuscript must be double spaced, in 12 point, Times New Roman; footnotes must be single spaced, 10 point, Times New Roman. Submissions should be sent to [email protected] using Microsoft Word (or saved as “rich text format”). Submissions should conform closely to the 18th edition of The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation. Authors should provide photocopies of the title pages of all sources used and photocopies of the phrases and sentences quoted from the original sources. All articles contain a 2006 author copyright unless otherwise noted at beginning of article. Copyright © 2006 by the Journal of Animal Law. J O U R N A L O F A N I M A L L A W VOL. II 2006 PEER REVIEW COMMITTEE Fernando Araújo is a professor of law at the University of Lisbon Faculty of Law, where he teaches Law and Economics, Philosophy of Law, and Bioethics. He is the author of the first Portuguese book on animal rights. Taimie L. Bryant teaches Property Law, Japanese Law, Comparative Japanese Family Law, Animals and the Law, and Nonprofit Organizations. Since 1995, she has turned her attention to animal rights, focusing both on the theoretical issues of conceptualizing such rights and on legislative and other legal regulations of human treatment of animals. Professor Bryant earned a Ph.D. in anthropology from UCLA, where she focused on the substantive fields of legal and psychological anthropology while pursuing various research topics in Japan. Her principal scholarly focus has been contemporary Japanese family law. David Cassuto is Associate Professor of Law at Pace University School of Law where he teaches Animal Law, Environmental Law, Property Law, and Professional Responsibility. Professor Cassuto has published and lectured widely on issues in legal and environmental studies, including animal law. He holds a B.A. from Wesleyan University, an M.A. & Ph.D. from Indiana University, and a J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law. David Favre is a professor of law at Michigan State University College of Law. He is Faculty Advisor to the Journal of Animal Law and Chair of the Peer Review Committee of the Journal. As Editor-in-Chief of the Animal Legal and Historical Web Center, he has published several books on animal issues. He teaches Animal Law, Wildlife Law, and International Environmental Law. J O U R N A L O F A N I M A L L A W VOL. II 2006 PEER REVIEW COMMITTEE Rebecca J. Huss is a professor of law at Valparaiso University School of Law in Valparaiso, Indiana. She has a LL.M. in international and comparative law from the University of Iowa School of Law and graduated magna cum laude from the University of Richmond School of Law. Recent law review publications include: No Pets Allowed: Housing Issues and Companion Animals; Valuation in Veterinary Malpractice; Separation, Custody, and Estate Planning Issues Relating to Companion Animals; and Valuing Man’s and Woman’s Best Friend: The Moral and Legal Status of Companion Animals. Her primary focus in research and writing is on the changing nature of the relationship between humans and their companion animals and whether the law adequately reflects the importance of that relationship. Peter Sankoff is Lecturer at the University of Auckland (New Zealand) Faculty of Law, teaching in the areas of criminal law and evidence. Peter graduated with a B.A. in broadcast journalism from Concordia University in 1992, a J.D. from the University of Toronto in 1996, and a LL.M. from Osgoode Hall Law School at York University in 2005. Upon completion of his J.D., he attained a clerkship under Madame Justice Claire L’Heureux-Dubé of the Supreme Court of Canada. He is the co-author of Witnesses, a Canadian text on evidence and procedure, and numerous articles on human rights, criminal procedure and evidence. Since May 2002, Peter has been the Co-Chair of the Executive Committee of the Animal Rights Legal Advocacy Network (ARLAN). He is also Editor of the ARLAN Report, which discusses topics relating to animals and the law, and he regularly gives seminars and writes articles on animal law issues. Steven M. Wise is President of the Center for the Expansion of Fundamental Rights, Inc. and author of Rattling the Cage - Toward Legal Rights for Animals (2000); Drawing the Line - Science and The Case for Animal Rights (2002), Though the Heavens May Fall - The Landmark Trial That Led to the End of Human Slavery (2005), as well as numerous law review articles. He has taught Animal Rights Law at the Vermont Law School since 1990, and at the Harvard Law School, John Marshall Law School, and will begin teaching at the St. Thomas Law School. He has practiced animal protection law for twenty-five years. MYTHIC NON-VIOLENCE TAIMIE L. BRYANT† All societies have myths by which they define and inspire themselves.
Recommended publications
  • Nonhuman Rights to Personhood
    Pace Environmental Law Review Volume 30 Issue 3 Summer 2013 Article 10 July 2013 Nonhuman Rights to Personhood Steven M. Wise Nonhuman Rights Project Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pelr Part of the Animal Law Commons, and the Environmental Law Commons Recommended Citation Steven M. Wise, Nonhuman Rights to Personhood, 30 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 1278 (2013) Available at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pelr/vol30/iss3/10 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace Environmental Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DYSON LECTURE Nonhuman Rights to Personhood STEVEN M. WISE I. INTRODUCTION Thank you all for joining us for the second Dyson Lecture of 2012. We were very lucky to have a first Dyson Lecture, and we will have an even more successful lecture this time. We have a very distinguished person I will talk about in just a second. I’m David Cassuto, a Pace Law School professor. I teach among other things, Animal Law, and that is why I am very familiar with Professor Wise’s work. I want to say a few words about the Dyson Lecture. The Dyson Distinguished Lecture was endowed in 1982 by a gift from the Dyson Foundation, which was made possible through the generosity of the late Charles Dyson, a 1930 graduate, trustee, and long-time benefactor of Pace University. The principle aim of the Dyson Lecture is to encourage and make possible scholarly legal contributions of high quality in furtherance of Pace Law School’s educational mission and that is very much what we are going to have today.
    [Show full text]
  • MERENDA-DISSERTATION-2020.Pdf
    THE CANINE-HUMAN INTERRELATIONSHIP AS A MODEL OF POST-OPPOSITIONALITY A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF MULTICULTURAL WOMEN’S AND GENDER STUDIES IN THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE TEXAS WOMEN’S UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF MULTICULTURAL WOMEN’S AND GENDER STUDIES COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES BY KIMBERLY CHRISTINE MERENDA, BGS, MA, MA DENTON, TEXAS MAY 2020 Copyright © 2020 by Kimberly Christine Merenda DEDICATION For Pi ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project was supported and sustained by the wonderful mentorship, kindness, astonishing proofreading skills, and faith of my dissertation chair Dr. AnaLouise Keating. Dr. Keating believed in me before I knew how to believe in myself. Many, many thanks to my committee members, Dr. Agatha Beins and Dr. Stephen Souris. I appreciate Dr. Beins’ expertise and excellent eye for detail. As an undergraduate Dr. Souris encouraged me to go to graduate school and I will always be grateful for the confidence he had in me. Dr. Cheronda Steele’s calm empathy, her insights and strategies, were instrumental in the process and progress of this project. My sincere thanks to Maurice Alcorn who always read and responded kindly. My warm gratitude goes to Dr. Claire Sahlin for her enduring guidance and compassion and for always making time to listen. My children Sierra, Trinity, and Frankie came of age during the course of this project. I love, love, love my children, and their unwavering support strengthened and cheered me throughout the process of this project. Finally and fundamentally, there are my canine companions Fraction, Pi, Abacus, Lemma, Boolean, Julia, Mandelbrot, and Times.
    [Show full text]
  • Derogatory Discourses of Veganism and the Reproduction of Speciesism in UK 1 National Newspapers Bjos 1348 134..152
    The British Journal of Sociology 2011 Volume 62 Issue 1 Vegaphobia: derogatory discourses of veganism and the reproduction of speciesism in UK 1 national newspapers bjos_1348 134..152 Matthew Cole and Karen Morgan Abstract This paper critically examines discourses of veganism in UK national newspapers in 2007. In setting parameters for what can and cannot easily be discussed, domi- nant discourses also help frame understanding. Discourses relating to veganism are therefore presented as contravening commonsense, because they fall outside readily understood meat-eating discourses. Newspapers tend to discredit veganism through ridicule, or as being difficult or impossible to maintain in practice. Vegans are variously stereotyped as ascetics, faddists, sentimentalists, or in some cases, hostile extremists. The overall effect is of a derogatory portrayal of vegans and veganism that we interpret as ‘vegaphobia’. We interpret derogatory discourses of veganism in UK national newspapers as evidence of the cultural reproduction of speciesism, through which veganism is dissociated from its connection with debates concerning nonhuman animals’ rights or liberation. This is problematic in three, interrelated, respects. First, it empirically misrepresents the experience of veganism, and thereby marginalizes vegans. Second, it perpetuates a moral injury to omnivorous readers who are not presented with the opportunity to understand veganism and the challenge to speciesism that it contains. Third, and most seri- ously, it obscures and thereby reproduces
    [Show full text]
  • CELEBRATING 135 YEARS 1877-2012 MHS Detroit, 2012
    MHS Detroit, 1953 CELEBRATING 135 YEARS 1877-2012 MHS Detroit, 2012 ALSO IN THIS ISSUE: PUPPY PROTECTION ACT • PETS FOR PATRIOTS PROGRAM • CELEBRITY CHAT: JIM HARPER President’s Notes THOUGHTS FROM THE PRESIDENT & CEO he Michigan Humane Society is MICHIGAN HUMANE Tcelebrating a signifi- SOCIETY SERVICES cant milestone this year: our Adoption of Companion Animals 135th anniversary! While our focus and even our Animal Behavior Assistance name was different in the Animal Care/Protection Information late 1800s, we never have Cruelty Investigation wavered in our pursuit of what is best for animals and Education the community. I continue to Legislative Advocacy be very proud to lead such Rescue of Injured Animals a historic and respected ani- Wolka Jeff Photo by mal welfare organization. In February, MHS President and CEO Cal Morgan, pictured with Rusty, joined Reuniting Lost Animals In the early years, MHS legislators in Lansing for a press conference to introduce the Puppy Protection Act. With Their Owners almost was exclusively Shelter for Stray/ required to focus its limited spectrum of species, shapes interest of the animals or Abandoned/Unwanted Animals resources on alleviating and sizes, conditions and the community. Today, there immediate animal suffering. predicaments, MHS never are trends in animal welfare Spay/Neuter Program Today, while that remains a has wavered from taking on that are sometimes touted Veterinary Centers key focus of the organiza- the toughest cases, many of as “the” solution to quickly Volunteer Program tion, MHS also is proactive- which result in heartwarm- begin saving more lives. But ly targeting the root causes ing happy endings, but this what you won’t hear about Wildlife Care and Shelter of animal welfare issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Journal of Animal Law Received Generous Support from the Animal Legal Defense Fund and the Michigan State University College of Law
    JOURNAL OF ANIMAL LAW Michigan State University College of Law APRIL 2009 Volume V J O U R N A L O F A N I M A L L A W Vol. V 2009 EDITORIAL BOARD 2008-2009 Editor-in-Chief ANN A BA UMGR A S Managing Editor JENNIFER BUNKER Articles Editor RA CHEL KRISTOL Executive Editor BRITT A NY PEET Notes & Comments Editor JA NE LI Business Editor MEREDITH SH A R P Associate Editors Tabb Y MCLA IN AKISH A TOWNSEND KA TE KUNK A MA RI A GL A NCY ERIC A ARMSTRONG Faculty Advisor DA VID FA VRE J O U R N A L O F A N I M A L L A W Vol. V 2009 Pee R RE VI E W COMMITT ee 2008-2009 TA IMIE L. BRY A NT DA VID CA SSUTO DA VID FA VRE , CH A IR RE B ECC A J. HUSS PETER SA NKOFF STEVEN M. WISE The Journal of Animal Law received generous support from the Animal Legal Defense Fund and the Michigan State University College of Law. Without their generous support, the Journal would not have been able to publish and host its second speaker series. The Journal also is funded by subscription revenues. Subscription requests and article submissions may be sent to: Professor Favre, Journal of Animal Law, Michigan State University College of Law, 368 Law College Building, East Lansing MI 48824. The Journal of Animal Law is published annually by law students at ABA accredited law schools. Membership is open to any law student attending an ABA accredited law college.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Shelters List by County
    MICHIGAN REGISTERED ANIMAL SHELTERS BY COUNTY COUNTY FACILITY NAME FACILITY ADDRESS CITY ZIP CODE PHONE Alcona ALCONA HUMANE SOCIETY 457 W TRAVERSE BAY STATE RD LINCOLN 48742 (989) 736-7387 Alger ALGER COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER 510 E MUNISING AVE MUNISING 49862 (906) 387-4131 Allegan ALLEGAN COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER 2293 33RD STREET ALLEGAN 49010 (269) 673-0519 COUNTRY CAT LADY 3107 7TH STREET WAYLAND 49348 (616) 308-3752 Alpena ALPENA COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL 625 11th STREET ALPENA 49707 (989) 354-9841 HURON HUMANE SOCIETY, INC. 3510 WOODWARD AVE ALPENA 49707 (989) 356-4794 Antrim ANTRIM COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL 4660 M-88 HWY BELLAIRE 49615 (231) 533-6421 ANTRIM COUNTY PET AND ANIMAL WATCH 125 IDA ST MANCELONA 49659 (231) 587-0738 HELP FROM MY FRIENDS, INC. 3820 RITT ROAD BELLAIRE 49615 (231) 533-4070 Arenac ARENAC COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER 3750 FOCO ROAD STANDISH 48658 (989) 846-4421 Barry BARRY COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER 540 N INDUSTRIAL PARK DR HASTINGS 49058 (269) 948-4885 Bay BAY COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER 800 LIVINGSTON BAY CITY 48708 (989) 894-0679 HUMANE SOCIETY OF BAY COUNTY 1607 MARQUETTE AVE BAY CITY 48706 (989) 893-0451 Benzie BENZIE COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER 543 S MICHIGAN AVE BEULAH 49617 (231) 882-9505 TINA'S BED AND BISCUIT INC 13030 HONOR HWY BEULAH 49617 (231) 645-8944 Berrien BERRIEN COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER 1400 S EUCLID AVE BENTON HARBOR 49022 (269) 927-5648 HUMANE SOCIETY - SOUTHWESTERN MICHIGAN 5400 NILES AVE ST JOSEPH 49085 (269) 927-3303 Branch BRANCH COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER 375 KEITH WILHELM DR COLDWATER 49036 (517) 639-3210 HUMANE SOCIETY OF BRANCH COUNTY, INC.
    [Show full text]
  • Ealr, Volume 34, Number 3
    Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review Volume 34 Number 3 Smart Brownfields Redevelopment for the 21st Century Symposium Articles Converting Brownfield Environmental Negatives into Energy Positives Steven Ferrey [pages 417–478] Abstract: There is a new paradigm for evaluating landfills. While landfills are contaminated repositories of hazardous wastes, they also are brown- fields that can be redeveloped for renewable energy development. It is possible to view landfills through a new lens: As endowed areas of renew- able energy potential that can be magnets for a host of renewable devel- opment incentives. Landfills also are critical resource areas for the con- trol of greenhouse gases. Landfill materials decompose into methane, a greenhouse gas that is more than twenty times more potent—molecule for molecule—than carbon dioxide. This Article traces the molecular composition of waste in landfills, analyzing the chemical stew that brews in these repositories. Without doubt, landfills in America are brownfields. And many of these landfills leak and cause public health risks. This Arti- cle also analyzes the potential to utilize landfill gas for electricity produc- tion or as a thermal resource. It evaluates the energy potential at munici- pal sewage treatment plants and the ability to utilize the land at landfills to host wind turbines. The environmental regulatory envelope that sur- rounds landfill operation is explored. Also analyzed are the various incen- tives that foster renewable energy development and are applicable to landfill brownfields development. These include tax credits, tax-pref- erenced financing, renewable energy credits under state renewable port- folio standard (RPS) systems in twenty-two states, and direct renewable trust fund subsidies in sixteen states, as well as net metering available in forty states.
    [Show full text]
  • The Federal of Republic of Germany Is a Democratic and Social Federal
    The Federal Republic of Germany Jutta Kramer The Federal Republic of Germany “is a democratic and social federal state” (Basic Law, Art. 20I). It was founded in 1949, after the Western Allies gave the prime ministers of the Länder (i.e., the constituent states), which were reestablished after the Second World War, the task of drafting a new constitution with a federal character in order to prevent a strong central state from arising in Germany again. However, the federal order in Germany does not follow the example of the United States Constitution, which emphasizes a division of powers between governments, but rather the German tradition, which is characterized by mutual connections, interconnections, and overlapping of the centralized and decentralized state units.1 When it was founded, the Federal Republic of Germany consisted of 11 Länder (without Berlin, which was a city-state under Allied control) that did not conform to the boundaries of the former Weimar Republic. Since reunification in 1990, Germany has consisted of 16 Länder, including three city-states: Hamburg, Bremen, and Berlin. Germany’s population is spread across 357,000 square kilometres. The highest population density is in Berlin, which has 3,800 inhabitants per square kilometre; the lowest is in the Land Brandenburg, which has only 88 inhabitants per square kilometre. Länder sizes differ considerably as well. The smallest Land, Bremen, consisting of two cities (Bremen and Bremerhaven), has 680,000 inhabitants; the largest Land, North Rhine-Westphalia, has more than 17.9 million inhabitants. The ethnicity of Germany’s population of 82.1 million people is largely homogeneous.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal People News
    European Commission votes to ban dog &cat fur B R U S S E L S ––The European Commis- sion on November 20 adopted a proposal to ban the import, export, and sale of cat and dog fur throughout the European Union. “The draft regulation will now be considered by the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers for adoption by the co- decision procedure,” explained the EC Asian dog. (Kim Bartlett) announcement. “There is evidence that cat and dog fur been found not just on clothing, but also on a is being placed on the European market, usually number of personal accessories, as well as chil- dren’s soft toys.” Asian rabbits. (Kim Bartlett) undeclared as such or disguised as synthetic and other types of fur,” the EC announcement sum- “Just the idea of young children playing marized. “The vast majority of the cat and dog with toys which have been made with dog and Olympics to showcase growing fur is believed to be imported from third coun- cat fur is really something we cannot accept,” tries, notably China.” European Consumer Protection Commissioner Fifteen of the 25 EU member nations Markos Kyprianou said. Chinese animal testing industry have already individually introduced legislation “Kyprianou stopped short of calling B E I J I N G ––The 2008 Olympic Glenn Rice, chief executive of Bridge against cat and dog fur. “The proposed regula- for every product containing fur to have a label Games in Beijing will showcase the fast- Pharmaceuticals Inc., is outsourcing the tion adopted today addresses EU citizens con- detailing its exact origin,” wrote London Times growing Chinese animal testing industry, work to China, where scientists are cheap cerns, and creates a harmonized approach,” the European correspondent David Charter, the official Xinhua news agency disclosed and plentiful and animal-rights activists are EC announcement stipulated.
    [Show full text]
  • Linzey - Xx-4-Index R2:Roces - 01.Qxd 23/06/2009 12:33 Page 1
    linzey - xx-4-index r2:Roces - 01.qxd 23/06/2009 12:33 Page 1 INTRODUCTION Does Animal Abuse Really Benefit Us? andrew linzey It is quite clear that in abusing animals we abuse our relationship with animals, and that we abuse ourselves. We become less human to the extent that we treat any living beings as things. R. D. LAING I Philosophers and thinkers have long accepted that there is a connection between the abuse of animals and the abuse of weaker human beings. A roster of illustrious names can be garnered in this regard, including Pythagoras, St Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, Alexander Pope, Arthur Schopenhauer, and Jeremy Bentham, as well as modern ones like Albert Schweitzer and Mohandas K. Gandhi. Immanuel Kant, regarded as one of the most influential thinkers of Europe and the late Enlightenment, was typical in that regard. In his lectures on ethics, given between 1775 and 1780, he expostulated: ‘If he is not to stifle his human feelings, he must practice kindness towards animals, for he who is cruel to animals becomes hard in his dealings with men’.1 Although Kant did not believe that we had direct duties to animals, he clearly held that human interests were sufficient in seeking to limit cruel behaviour to animals. Historically, this view manifested itself in the passing of a range of animal protection measures in the nineteenth century. Cruel behaviour to animals, it was thought, needed to be legally curbed in order to prevent cruelty to human subjects. It found its classic expression in the preamble to Lord Erskine’s Cruelty to Animals Bill in 1809: ‘The abuse of that [human] dominion by cruel and oppressive treatment of such animals, is not only highly unjust and immoral, but most pernicious in its example, having an evident tendency to harden the heart against the natural feelings of humanity’.2 Notice how cruelty is deemed not only unjust but also injurious to ourselves.
    [Show full text]
  • Germany (1950-2018)
    Germany Self-rule INSTITUTIONAL DEPTH AND POLICY SCOPE Germany has two-tiered regional governance consisting of sixteen Länder and (Land)Kreise. Several Länder have a third tier between these two, Regierungsbezirke (administrative districts). Two Länder have a fourth tier of regional governance, Landschaftsverbände in North-Rhine Westphalia and Bezirksverband Pfalz in Rhineland-Palatinate.1 The 1949 Basic Law of the German Federal Republic granted eleven Länder extensive competences, which include legislative powers for culture, education, universities, broadcasting/television, local government, and the police (C 1949, Art. 74; Council of Europe: Germany 1999; Hrbek 2002; Swenden 2006; Watts 1999a, 2008). Länder also exercise residual competences (C 1949, Art. 70). In addition, the Basic Law states that Länder are responsible for the implementation of most federal laws (C 1949, Arts. 83–85). The federal government may legislate to preserve legal and economic unity with respect to justice, social welfare, civil law, criminal law, labor law, and economic law (C 1949, Art 72.2), and it has authority to establish the legislative framework in higher education, the press, environmental protection, and spatial planning (C 1949, Art. 72.3; Reutter 2006). The federal government exercises sole legislative authority over foreign policy, defense, currency, and public services (C 1949, Art. 73; Council of Europe: Germany 1999; Hrbek 2002; Swenden 2006; Watts 1999a, 2008). It also has exclusive authority over immigration and citizenship (C 1949, Arts. 73.2 and 73.3), though Länder administer inter-Land immigration and have concurrent competence on residence (Bendel and Sturm 2010: 186-187; C 1949, Arts. 74.4 and 74.6).2 However, this is not enough to qualify for the maximum score on policy scope.β The constitutional division of authority was extended to the five new Länder after unification in 1990.
    [Show full text]
  • Animals Liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal Volume 5, Issue 1
    AAnniimmaallss LLiibbeerraattiioonn PPhhiilloossoopphhyy aanndd PPoolliiccyy JJoouurrnnaall VVoolluummee 55,, IIssssuuee 11 -- 22000077 Animal Liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal Volume 5, Issue 1 2007 Edited By: Steven Best, Chief Editor ____________________________________________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Steven Best, Chief Editor Pg. 2-3 Introducing Critical Animal Studies Steven Best, Anthony J. Nocella II, Richard Kahn, Carol Gigliotti, and Lisa Kemmerer Pg. 4-5 Extrinsic and Intrinsic Arguments: Strategies for Promoting Animal Rights Katherine Perlo Pg. 6-19 Animal Rights Law: Fundamentalism versus Pragmatism David Sztybel Pg. 20-54 Unmasking the Animal Liberation Front Using Critical Pedagogy: Seeing the ALF for Who They Really Are Anthony J. Nocella II Pg. 55-64 The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act: New, Improved, and ACLU-Approved Steven Best Pg. 65-81 BOOK REVIEWS _________________ In Defense of Animals: The Second Wave, by Peter Singer ed. (2005) Reviewed by Matthew Calarco Pg. 82-87 Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy, by Matthew Scully (2003) Reviewed by Lisa Kemmerer Pg. 88-91 Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?: Reflections on the Liberation of Animals, by Steven Best and Anthony J. Nocella, II, eds. (2004) Reviewed by Lauren E. Eastwood Pg. 92 Introduction Welcome to the sixth issue of our journal. You’ll first notice that our journal and site has undergone a name change. The Center on Animal Liberation Affairs is now the Institute for Critical Animal Studies, and the Animal Liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal is now the Journal for Critical Animal Studies. The name changes, decided through discussion among our board members, were prompted by both philosophical and pragmatic motivations.
    [Show full text]