Petition for UN to declare Animal Wlefare rights...

[The_TailGunner]

if nobody listens to the UN on humanitarian grounds and they are not taken seriously....why would anybody take note of any UN animal cruelty legislation??

unfortunately, you do have something of a point there.

 

[cleanbluesky]

if nobody listens to the UN on humanitarian grounds and they are not taken seriously....why would anybody take note of any UN animal cruelty legislation??

Because human rights legislation has changed the way in which many countries view the way they can treat people, I'd hope animal welfare would do similar for animals

 

[Borris]

I can't see it working - there's too much political power in the hands of the lobbies for producers that benefit from the treatment of livestock as a commodity.

And where does the classification end?

Ethical shrimp farms in Malaysia?

Dogs in Korea need to be groomed regularly before consumption?

 

[Efour]

It would give the US ANOTHER good reason to invade Iran.

"Sir intel. reports that a small heard of goats dosn't have somewhere dry, out of the rain to sleep at night"

/sound of a squadron of B52s taking off



Livestock, thats the word i was looking for earlier, is only a part of what this petition covers.

 

[PikeyPriest]

Not signed as there are more important events in the world right now. And the UK is pretty good on the animal welfare front.

Agreed. Animals are less important than humans. Doesnt mean we should treat them badly because we can, but i dont think they need anything more than the current protection offered. In richer countries animal cruelty is investigated and people are charged. In poor countries this doenst happen as its not important compared to their other problems. This act would change nothing because the police (or the body that investigates animal cruelty) wouldn`t have the funding or the time to investigate matters like this in poor countries.

We havent even achieved universal human rights around the globe yet, why should we even start trying to help animals if we cant even do this??

 

[cleanbluesky]

We havent even achieved universal human rights around the globe yet, why should we even start trying to help animals if we cant even do this??

Because it isn't a situation of EITHER/OR...

The idea is simple. If you want to do a small thing today that may help improve the lives of animals around the globe someday, sign the petition

 

[MiGSY]

Signed.

Agreed. Animals are less important than humans.

Please explain why you feel this way.

 

[Borris]

Please explain why you feel this way.

One of the inalienable human rights is that of life.

I would have real problems taking a human life, even for food / survival, whereas I have killed plenty of animals for food.

 

[cleanbluesky]

One of the inalienable human rights is that of life.

Actually its not, it is possible to legally kill someone. Admittedly the threshold for killling animals is much lower and changes, but either way no-one has an absolute right to live.

I would have real problems taking a human life, even for food / survival, whereas I have killed plenty of animals for food.

This is a moral qualm rather than a constructed and legislated 'right'

 

[willd58]

Actually its not, it is possible to legally kill someone. Admittedly the threshold for killling animals is much lower and changes, but either way no-one has an absolute right to live.



This is a moral qualm rather than a constructed and legislated 'right'

You talk a lot, but you dont actually say anything.

 

[porkrind]

knowing this PC country it will end up with a dog taking its owner to court over not being taken for long enough walks as it breaks the
UN Animal Wlefare rights bill

 

[Borris]

Actually its not, it is possible to legally kill someone. Admittedly the threshold for killling animals is much lower and changes, but either way no-one has an absolute right to live.

Legal killing depends on some degree of action on behalf of the individual concerned - I was not aware of animals being required to commit any act, or make any consentual decisions for them to be deemed fit for slaughter.

In fact, animals, to that end, are not treated as individuals at all - The whole decision as to which dies is based on age, weight and suitability for consumption.

This is a moral qualm rather than a constructed and legislated 'right'

You can look at it either way - Morally, it's more difficult to kil a human, and, quasi-legally, humans have a right not to be killed.

I can just as easily have said that I would finding it harder to kill a human for legal reasons.

 

[Glaucus]

not signing that. Animals already have far to many rights.
Although I don't wont to see animals suffer.

We kill animals to eat,
they already have to many rights on transporting and living.
I also agree with hunting, be it firearms, bow and arrows ect ect and fox hunting.

 

[benjo plz.]

Foxes are vermin and should be culled tbh, banning fox hunting was the townies watching too many disney films and voting on something they knew **** all about.

 

[Beren]

Havn't got time to read exactly what is being put forward as a structure of law for the UN so unsure if this is worthwhile.

A structure around making best effort to preserve endangered species worldwide I would be for.

Some broad statement about causing intentional cruelty or negligent treatment for profit I would be for.

What I am thinking of is the thousands of animals that die in transportation each year. What I am trying to discount is a farmer in a third world country who can't feed his animals properly because he can't afford to eat himself. Likewise the method of slaughter I would find difficult to legislate against unless we are looking at corporate cruelty issues.

 

[PikeyPriest]

Please explain why you feel this way.

If any of us could save someones life by killing an animal (or several), most people would take that opportunity without even hesitating. We have a duty to ourselves to do everything we can to protect our species, that is why our lives are worth more than animals.

What really sickens me in the animal rights debate is that unless something is fluffy or cute no one cares about what happens to it. People complain about cruely to dogs in third world countries as if they are the cute dog that lives down the street and not the disease infected wild dog that would happily maul you or the face of your children if it got in to your house.

 

[cleanbluesky]

If any of us could save someones life by killing an animal (or several), most people would take that opportunity without even hesitating. We have a duty to ourselves to do everything we can to protect our species, that is why our lives are worth more than animals.

Great. You realise that we are also animals, and that you are allowed to kill humans to save the lives of others?

What makes you think that signing this petition would change anything?

 

[MiGSY]

If any of us could save someones life by killing an animal (or several), most people would take that opportunity without even hesitating. We have a duty to ourselves to do everything we can to protect our species, that is why our lives are worth more than animals.

Well obviously, from our perspective of course. It's within our nature to ensure the continuation of our species.

But if you look at it from a neutral perspective, neither human nor animal are in any way more or less important than each other.

I accept that killing animals for food is necessary. It is most definitely necessary.
What isn't necessary is these animals experiencing needless, senseless suffering and pain, and having a poor quality of life. That's totally unnecessary.

 

[Bear]

I accept that killing animals for food is necessary. It is most definitely necessary.
What isn't necessary is these animals experiencing needless, senseless suffering and pain, and having a poor quality of life. That's totally unnecessary.

Sorry but it isnt neccessary at all

 

[Bear]

You talk a lot, but you dont actually say anything.

That made me laugh out loud