Animals recognized as sentient beings in Australia!

silverfeather

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/animals-are-now-legally-recognised-as-sentient-beings-in-australia-10256006.html

YEAH Aussies!

It was also recognized in France in Jan. Personally i would welcome a universal declaration. France and oz recognized animals as sentient beings with feelings rather than furniture. New Zealand did a few days ago too.

When will Ireland follow? It's about time we did! Buddhism recognizes this.

How can we get our country to take notice???

This concept is central to the philosophy of animals rights. And we all know how badly this are protected here! It would be a big step in the right direction!

It's not "Austrailia", it's "Australia".

Oh, and it's not Australia, it's New Zealand.

Just saying.

Off now for some roast chicken for the dinner. Cheers. :P

silverfeather

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not "Austrailia", it's "Australia".

Oh, and it's not Australia, it's New Zealand.

Just saying.

Off now for some roast chicken for the dinner. Cheers. :P

No Australia just recognized it too!

Read the article.

New Zealand did it six days ago and now a few hrs ago Australia did it!:rolleyes:

silverfeather

France did it too in Jan!

silverfeather

COME ON IRELAND WE CAN DO IT!

silverfeather

silverfeather wrote: »

No Australia just recognized it too!

Read the article.

New Zealand did it six days ago and now a few hrs ago Australia did it!:rolleyes:

Roast chicken. Nom nom. :P

Amirani

Animal Welfare Act 1999 wrote:

animal—
(a)means any live member of the animal kingdom that is—
(i)a mammal; or
(ii)a bird; or
(iii)a reptile; or
(iv)an amphibian; or
(v)a fish (bony or cartilaginous); or
(vi)any octopus, squid, crab, lobster, or crayfish (including freshwater crayfish); or
(vii)any other member of the animal kingdom which is declared from time to time by the Governor-General, by Order in Council, to be an animal for the purposes of this Act; and
(b)includes any mammalian foetus, or any avian or reptilian pre-hatched young, that is in the last half of its period of gestation or development; and
(c)includes any marsupial pouch young;

Seems a bit incorrect to class some of the above as sentient.

Diego Simeone

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Seems a bit incorrect to class some of the above as sentient.

Especially in Austraiiiiiilia.

Yellowblackbird

There's also the animals that talk in cartoons.
They're very sentiental. If anyone is they are.

RaRaRasputin

I actually can't believe that animals would have been denied this status for so long. It's actually just embarrassing for mankind.

silverfeather

Deleted User wrote: »

Especially in Austraiiiiiilia.

It was a typo don't be an ass.:rolleyes:

Amirani

RaRaRasputin wrote: »

I actually can't believe that animals would have been denied this status for so long. It's actually just embarrassing for mankind.

Denied what status? The status that they're capable of subjective thought?

I agree that that is indeed the case for some animals, but not all that are classified in the bill I linked. This should not be a prerequisite for basic animal rights though.

timetogo

Well there's our next referendum sorted.

silverfeather

timetogo wrote: »

Well there's our next referendum sorted.

We don't need one they can just LEGISLATE ALREADY!

timetogo

silverfeather wrote: »

We don't need one they can just LEGISLATE ALREADY!

Does humour just fly over your head?

silverfeather

silverfeather wrote: »

It was a typo don't be an ass.:rolleyes:

No it wasn't, it was an error by the journalist, compounded by another error of yours. Don't be lazy and unthinking.

And don't be cruel to donkeys, either. You'll only hurt their feelings.

silverfeather

Deleted User wrote: »

No it wasn't, it was an error by the journalist, compounded by another error of yours. Don't be lazy and unthinking.

And don't be cruel to donkeys, either. You'll only hurt their feelings.

I hope you choke on that chicken! :mad:


Not modding ...but you don't have to post here if you don't want to. Hint hint...

silverfeather

Deleted User wrote: »

No it wasn't, it was an error by the journalist, compounded by another error of yours. Don't be lazy and unthinking.

And don't be cruel to donkeys, either. You'll only hurt their feelings.

I hate you!

silverfeather

By the way nice try but no one believes you have read Ulysses!

FluffyAngel

Don't think the farming/ slaughter community's would agree with the decree

We have a way of treating animals in Ireland that is beyond cruelty ..
I have a dog that could show a few humans about compassion to our fellow beings ..

Mind you the cat next door doesn't see it ..

Caught on film: pig bloodbath probed by PAC http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/caught-on-film-pig-bloodbath-probed-by-pac-31228638.html

Of course they are sentient.

It's what separates them from vegetables. They understand pain and deprivation, comfort and warmth etc.

silverfeather

FluffyAngel wrote: »

Don't think the farming/ slaughter community's would agree with the decree

We have a way of treating animals in Ireland that is beyond cruelty ..
I have a dog that could show a few humans about compassion to our fellow beings ..

Mind you the cat next door doesn't see it ..

Caught on film: pig bloodbath probed by PAC http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/caught-on-film-pig-bloodbath-probed-by-pac-31228638.html

Dep of Ag has a LOT to answer for ! That is shocking the man should not be allowed to farm any more.

silverfeather

Deleted User wrote: »

Of course they are sentient.

It's what separates them from vegetables. They understand pain and deprivation, comfort and warmth etc.

You have changed your tune about time welcome aboard!:)

RaRaRasputin

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Denied what status? The status that they're capable of subjective thought?

I agree that that is indeed the case for some animals, but not all that are classified in the bill I linked. This should not be a prerequisite for basic animal rights though.

The acknowledgement that they can feel seems to be novum here, so yes, I think this is quite overdue.

silverfeather

RaRaRasputin wrote: »

The acknowledgement that they can feel seems to be novum here, so yes, I think this is quite overdue.

I think it would help in getting animal testing for cosmetics banned. It's frivolous to say the least that it goes on. I never buy products that have been tested this way I know many others don't either.

the_syco

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Seems a bit incorrect to class some of the above as sentient.

So... you're excluding some inner city Dubs as well?

silverfeather

the_syco wrote: »

So... you're excluding some inner city Dubs as well?

Now now we all veg out sometimes!

AndonHandon

Vote no.

silverfeather

AndonHandon wrote: »

Vote no.

How about I vote whoop yo ass then !!

JONJO THE MISER

Fecking tree huggers, nothing like shooting a buck in the head and having nice venison steaks and stew for dinner.

DareGod

It doesn't say that "testing on animals has been banned."

It simply refers to "a ban" on testing on animals.

So I'm just wondering..... can anyone confirm the terms and conditions of the ban in question?

silverfeather

DareGod wrote: »

It doesn't say that "testing on animals has been banned."

It simply refers to "a ban" on testing on animals.

So I'm just wondering..... can anyone confirm the terms and conditions of the ban in question?

It's a ban on cosmetic testing on Animals in oz.
The EU banned the sale of cosmetics tested on animals last year. I don't buy products that are online either I make sure. I hope everywhere else does too.

Oz has also banned the bringing of animal trophies into the country such as lion heads that have been mounted etc.

silverfeather

silverfeather wrote: »

I hate you!

Grand.

Now here's a deal. Post that again, only this time with a link to the text of the Australian legislation that you say was passed sometime between last Tuesday and today, and I'll withdraw my suggestion that you were lazy and unthinking in your OP.

(Just finished my Lidl chicken, by the way).

silverfeather

Deleted User wrote: »

Grand.

Now here's a deal. Post that again, only this time with a link to the text of the Australian legislation that you say was passed sometime between last Tuesday and today, and I'll withdraw my suggestion that you were lazy and unthinking in your OP.

(Just finished my Lidl chicken, by the way).

Honestly could not give a hoot what you think. I don't like your glib attitude towards animal rights. Bye

ScumLord

FluffyAngel wrote: »

We have a way of treating animals in Ireland that is beyond cruelty ..

Maybe if you use your own bizarre definition but for the most part domestic animals in Ireland live idyllic lives up until the moment they get surprised killed.

I think you can certainly say many animals are sentient, but many simply aren't. Human emotions are a human adaptation that other animals don't have. Animals have there own way of dealing with the world.

DareGod

silverfeather wrote: »

It's a ban on cosmetic testing on Animals in oz.
The EU banned the sale of cosmetics tested on animals last year. I don't buy products that are online either I make sure. I hope everywhere else does too.

Oz has also banned the bringing of animal trophies into the country such as lion heads that have been mounted etc.

I know that it's "a ban" on cosmetic testing, but is it a blanket ban or a conditional ban? The article doesn't specify, like, at all.

Also, did the EU apply a blanket ban on cosmetics tested on animals? I'm fairly certain most of the cosmetics on sale in Boots have still been tested on animals.

silverfeather

DareGod wrote: »

I know that it's "a ban" on cosmetic testing, but is it a blanket ban or a conditional ban? The article doesn't specify, like, at all.

Also, did the EU apply a blanket ban on cosmetics tested on animals? I'm fairly certain most of the cosmetics on sale in Boots have still been tested on animals.

It has a link in the article to the actual bill ??? :rolleyes:

Here is the ACTUAL BILL that is linked in the ACTUAL ARTICLE IN MY FIRST POST!!!

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2013/0107/latest/DLM5174807.html?path=bill%2fgovernment%2f2013%2f0107%2flatest&col=bill&fid=DLM5174807&search=sw_096be8ed81047b83_sentient_25_se&p=1

Seriously are you guys actually trying to annoy me?

silverfeather

DareGod wrote: »

Also, did the EU apply a blanket ban on cosmetics tested on animals? I'm fairly certain most of the cosmetics on sale in Boots have still been tested on animals.

Yes ...if they are then they are illegal.

FluffyAngel

ScumLord wrote: »

Maybe if you use your own bizarre definition but for the most part domestic animals in Ireland live idyllic lives up until the moment they get surprised killed.
td.

Shucks scum Lord , you made me blush with your kindness ..

Some figures below for you
Doubt they just get surprised, that journey and meat mart approach means something

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/health/280000-animals-used-for-testing-in-2010-184465.html

DareGod

silverfeather wrote: »

It has a link in the article to the actual bill ??? :rolleyes:

Here is the ACTUAL BILL that is linked in the ACTUAL ARTICLE IN MY FIRST POST!!!

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2013/0107/latest/DLM5174807.html?path=bill%2fgovernment%2f2013%2f0107%2flatest&col=bill&fid=DLM5174807&search=sw_096be8ed81047b83_sentient_25_se&p=1

Seriously are you guys actually trying to annoy me?

I'm just trying to ensure the wool isn't being pulled over our eyes by fancy-sounding words and articles. The bill is likely to contain allowances for certain circumstances in which animals may be tested-on.

silverfeather

silverfeather wrote: »

Honestly could not give a hoot what you think. I don't like your glib attitude towards animal rights. Bye

Yes, but at least I'm thinking. :rolleyes:

If you cared about animal rights as much as you claim, you'd put in a bit of an effort to get your facts right.

Now, where's that link? You said the Australians have passed a law in the last couple of days giving recognition to animals as sentient beings. Where's the text of the legislation?

ScumLord

FluffyAngel wrote: »

Shucks scum Lord , you made me blush with your kindness ..

Some figures below for you
Doubt they just get surprised, that journey and meat mart approach means something

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/health/280000-animals-used-for-testing-in-2010-184465.html

That's a bit surprising, I didn't realize so much testing was done here. Although, the article doesn't really state what testing entails. It says in the article that it also covers medicines for animals, you do kind of have to end up testing medicine on the creature that it's intended for. "testing" could mean anything from trying different feeds to seeing which bullet is more effective. It doesn't really tell us a lot.

I have no problems with animal testing, every effort should be made to make the whole process as painless as possible but I see no reason why I should get upset that a cow died making my medicine if I can live with the fact a cow died to put food on my plate.

Mint Aero

Don't care as long as we can still slaughter them for yummy food

RaRaRasputin

ScumLord wrote: »

Maybe if you use your own bizarre definition but for the most part domestic animals in Ireland live idyllic lives up until the moment they get surprised killed.

I think you can certainly say many animals are sentient, but many simply aren't. Human emotions are a human adaptation that other animals don't have. Animals have there own way of dealing with the world.

Please help me out here, but what type of animal are you referring to as a domestic one? I was just wondering if you were capturing there group?
Dogs running around in estates, turkeys running wild and pecking people to death or even butterflies pooping in your flower pots?

ScumLord

Mint Aero wrote: »

Don't care as long as we can still slaughter them for yummy food

We can. Now though we have to tell them a joke before we kill them. Up until now the joke hasn't been required by law because we didn't think they'd get the joke. All that's change now.

catbear

Well Australia once dealt with Aboriginal affairs through the department of the Flora and Fauna.

silverfeather

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, but at least I'm thinking. :rolleyes:

If you cared about animal rights as much as you claim, you'd put in a bit of an effort to get your facts right.

Now, where's that link? You said the Australians have passed a law in the last couple of days giving recognition to animals as sentient beings. Where's the text of the legislation?

The link to the legislation is in the article. I also posted it again above.


I really dislike you ...remember that. I will.:)

silverfeather

catbear wrote: »

Well Australia once dealt with Aboriginal affairs through the department of the Flora and Fauna.

I didn't know that.

Reiver

Nice! So now they can intern them in camps just like humans!

Great to see tensions have died down since the Emu War though.

silverfeather

Reiver wrote: »

Nice! So now they can intern them in camps just like humans!

Great to see tensions have died down since the Emu War though.

They do tend to take sweeping actions against wildlife they consider to be a 'nuisance'.

If we had a military division with the bullet-carrying capacity of these birds it would face any army in the world... They can face machine guns with the invulnerability of tanks. They are like Zulus whom even dum-dum bullets could not stop.” - The Sun Herald, 5 July 1953.

Apparently they almost outwitted the Australian Army.

catbear

silverfeather wrote: »

I didn't know that.

Section 25 of their constitution says any state can ban people from voting based on their race. Yes that article stills stands in their constitution and it's teh 21st century.