Animals recognized as sentient beings in Australia!

What will this mean for Dave the Ox lover or Alf the llama shagger? (if you can think of better common Australian names post them)

silverfeather wrote: »

Law disagrees.

Yeah but the laws an ass, it's clearly wanting to have salient feelings.

Ass as in Asal as in Donkey.

silverfeather wrote: »

Anyone who harms animals is more likely to become a serial killer. Animal abusers are the asses.

I think you're watching a bit too much CSI/NCIS.

silverfeather wrote: »

Anyone who harms animals is more likely to become a serial killer. Animal abusers are the asses.

I was joking most normal people no it's wrong to hurt any other living thing.

We may not go as far as vegetarians or vegans.

silverfeather wrote: »

It's true animal abusers go on to become serial killers and rapists

That is without a doubt the stupidest thing i have ever read on the internet.

Firstly, the link is to new zealand legislation.

Secondly, we already have this legislation. The animal welfare act.

Australia passed an animal welfare act in 2002.

Thirdly, the act promotes / authorising killing animals. You obviously didnt read it beyond the journalists click bait headline which is misleading.

“Hunting or killing
“(1)Nothing in this Act makes it unlawful to hunt or kill—
“(a)any animal in a wild state; or
“(b)any wild animal or pest in accordance with the provisions of—
“(i)the Wildlife Act 1953; or
“(ii)the Wild Animal Control Act 1977; or
“(iii)the Conservation Act 1987; or
“(iv)the Biosecurity Act 1993; or
“(v)any other Act; or
“(c)any other wild animal or pest; or
“(ca)any game animal in accordance with the provisions of the Game Animal Council Act 2013; or
“(d)any fish caught from a constructed pond.

Fourthly, responding with every brain fart you get trying to keep it active is actually doing your agenda damage.

The reason most people dont support peta and the other animal right groups is the utterly stupid nonsense that they come out with like people who abuse animals are rapists.

All I care about is will this affect my ability to eat steak?

silverfeather wrote: »

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!

Does this mean they will treat the aborigine people better? The aussies fascists treat them like animals.

Shouldn't this thread be in the Animal Rights forum where it will get the attention it deserves and if there is no such forum then put it in Aardvark forum Instead.

wakka12 wrote: »

So..are we treating cows well when we make them into burgers.. rights for some animals ,right? Some more equal than others and all that..

I don't want to be that self righteous guy,maybe I am being him right now but I just don't get why everyone blows up if a puppy owner uses a leash thats too tight or gives them food that upsets their tummy but they'll tuck into a beef steak the same night or have an exterminator gas the mice in their basement

Eating a burger isn't cruel. The cow can live a very happy life up until it's killed and the death is as quick as deaths can get. There's nothing cruel about that. Vermin spread disease, you can love animals all you want but the hard reality of life is, it's you or the mouse, it dies or you get sick. We're not above nature.

Hi OP, it was New Zealand, I'm pretty sure some article just messed up online. Not to take away from your enthusiasm or anything, it is a great step The law seems a bit of a minefield when it comes to this stuff and I certainly don't pretend to fully understand it. But EU law referred to animals as sentient beings for the first time in 1997 in the Amsterdam treaty, the lisbon treaty in 2009 further strengthened that position so that all EU member states must make provisions for the welfare of animals when formulating/implementing policies. But that's not nearly as meaningful as it sounds, too many exceptions for one....

"in formulating and implementing the Union's agriculture, fisheries, transport, internal market, research and technological development and space policies, the Union and the Member States shall, since animals are sentient beings, pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals, while respecting the legislative or administrative provisions and customs of the Member States relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage”

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.

That's not what sentience means, sentience refers to the ability to feel, perceive, to have interests and to have the desire to meet those interests, at the most basic level to be capable of suffering and feeling pain and to have an interest in avoiding pain and suffering. It distinguishes between a living being and an object, a someone and a something, so that a living being is worthy of moral considerations in their own right and not just as the property of humans. All animals are sentient beings.

It is not to be confused with anthropomorphism, it's not about equating humans with non-human animals, but to deny animals any moral consideration and subject them to unnecessary suffering just because they are a different species is just human ego.


Btw OP you were asking about EU testing on cosmetics, I was actually just trying to understand it properly myself the other day.

The EU ban on cosmetic testing for animals has been a long time process, the first stage coming into effect since 2004 with further loopholes shut down since and a complete ban implemented in 2013 to include a market advertising ban. But it's still not so clear-cut...

What it means now (afaik).....

-There's a ban on animal tested cosmetics (final product) and ingredients in the EU regardless of where testing was carried out, applies to new products and ingredients since 2013.

-Includes a marketing ban so cosmetics tested on animals anywhere may not be marketed in the EU

-Companies may still animal test cosmetics outside the EU for non-EU markets, so you may still be supporting companies which animal test cosmetics (over 80% of the world still animal tests cosmetics according to cruelty free international)

-Possible loophole with conflicting requirements for testing of chemical ingredients under the REACH programme.

-To avoid misleading animal testing claims and to ensure you're not supporting companies that do cosmetic testing on animals outside the EU, the "leaping bunny" logo is the only guarantee.... http://www.buav.org/our-campaigns/no-cruel-cosmetics/leaping-bunny-and-eu-ban (note that companies often use similar logos to mislead)

-Of course the cruelty free logo does not imply free from animal ingredients and cosmetics are only one aspect of animal testing!

This stuff is always really complicated

It is also worth remembering that this ban has only come about after 20 years of campaigning from animal rights activists, boycott is an important part of that too. As is the case with most welfare reforms, so some of you may not want to be so quick to judge. Even small steps to cut down on animal products are important and save lives. In fact I think gradual changes are the way to go, I didn't give up this stuff overnight either.