Legal Rights for Animals: Will Switzerland Remain Neutral?
Next month, Swiss voters will decide whether domesticated animals should get lawyers. If a referendum passes, each district will appoint a public defender for animals. And not just companion animals; farm animals would have a right to legal representation, too.
Predictably, farmers and government officials are against the proposal, but animal activists collected enough signatures to get it on the ballot. The "No to the Useless Animal Lawyers' Initiative" (yes, that's actually the name of group) said, "Animal rights advocates are useless to animals. They can't prevent animal abuse because they only get involved after it has been perpetrated."
Is that how they feel about police officers? Child welfare and social services?
If they're opposed to the idea of consequences for animal abuse when outreach and education fail, that puts an entirely different spin on the debate. At that point, it's no longer about whether animals should have less, more, or the same legal standing as people; it's really about whether there should be any laws at all.
Yesterday, I wrote about the question of ownership vs. guardianship, and why it's not as simple as it may seem, or feel, to animal lovers. I don't have enough of the legal details to know whether the proposal in Switzerland provides any protections for good pet owners/guardians, if it takes a strong enough stance against the people who shouldn't be allowed near animals, and whether it distinguishes between the two. But if animals in Switzerland need their own lawyers to ensure that they get any justice at all, that they're not completely ignored by people like the No to the Useless Animal Lawyers' Initiative, then it would certainly get my vote.
Photo credit: robsettantasei







COMMENTS (0)