Animal Rights after the Brexit Repeal Bill

Yes POGS that's what I meant in my last post on here.

I gather there’s a clause in the EU law which allows countries to follow their local customs. So the EU laws are just a suggestion, a guideline.

So the EU laws are just a suggestion, a guideline.

Oh, come off it, Nfk, the iron fisted EU doesn't suggest; it imposes and insists.

Well, that's the narrative I'm hearing from the anti-EU hysterics...

CountryFile this evening:

'Britain has some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world'

Long may it continue and let us lead the way, improve where improvements are needed and show others the way.

it imposes and insists.

Of course it does, Maisie, if you say so.

www.independent.co.uk/environment/animal-sentience-brexit-vote-caroline-lucas-michael-gove-truth-fact-argument-a8072071.html

"It is sophistry to claim that the Animal Welfare Act 2006 definition of sentience in animals is the same as that in the 2009 Lisbon Treaty.The Lisbon Treaty declares that animals are sentient beings without caveat - “since animals are sentient beings ”.There is no loophole which allows it to be argued that a particular animal within a particular context is not a sentient being.

Whereas the UK Animal Welfare Act 2006 deliberately introduces a loophole of “If an animal is capable of experiencing pain and suffering, it is sentient and therefore afforded protection under that Act”. This clever phrasing, then allows it to be argued with false argument i.e.sophistry, that a particular animal in a particular set of circumstances does not feel pain and suffering, and is therefore not sentient under the meaning of the act.

This is not a hypothetical point. In many actual circumstances those responsible for causing animal suffering, such as those who hunt Foxes, Deer and Hares have tried to argue that the animal does note xperience pain and suffering. These arguments are documented at length in say the Burns Report into Hunting (2000). What this false argument (sophistry) exploits is that it is impossible to prove what another mind experiences, especially when that other mind is a non-human animal, and has no way of explaining what it experiences. "

What a shame that many EU countries treat their animals so badly then hey?

In your haste to hate anything that has to do with leaving the EU durhamjen you are willing to believe anything.
Give it up!

I don’t understand your post lemongrove. How is durhamjen ‘willing to believe anything’? I think what she has posted is a very clear explanation of the reasons behind Caroline Lucas’s proposed amendment. Do you just want to make this personal instead of trying to understand the argument?

You know the answer to that nightowl ?

I don't think she's read it, nightowl. She certainly hasn't understood it.

Willing to believe that the government will not agree to the Lucas vote because ‘it doesn’t believe in animal sentience’ when we know that it is simply not that at all.
It has been explained exactly why it was turned down but durhamjen as usual wants to make a case out of it.

Read all the other posters comments durhamjen can you understand those ?

So do you understand the difference between the Lisbon treaty and the UK animal welfare act?

I don't believe anyone in this day and age would query whether or not an animal feels pain, or is just feeling restricted as used to be claimed by fishermen. Of course they are 'sentient beings'. Who claims they're not? Certainly not any farmer I know. Some believe creatures - such a chickens - are quite happy being factory farmed as they are well fed and watered in warm, well lit units, others of us believe they should be allowed more natural freedom, but none would say they are not sentient beings. On the other hand, in many parts of the EU, whether or not an animal feels pain is irrelevant (perhaps because they don't have souls?) so a law stating it is more necessary.

You will always get cruelty where the owner has led a cruel life themselves and know no better. World Horse Welfare works on this premise. Give the owner a reason to improve the conditions for his horse and his treatment of his wife and children improves also. We are fortunate in this country that this lesson was learnt (in the most part) a long time ago.

Bernard Matthews didn't think so. I know someone who had to inspect his turkey farms.

www.viva.org.uk/resources/video-library/turkey-investigation-footage

There is good reason for things we ‘take for granted’ to be enshrined in law. The EU has that particular clause for good reason, and it was thanks to the U.K. that it exists. It beggars belief that the U.K. should now wish to discard it.

We take for granted the fact that murder, rape, assaulting one’s spouse are wrong and could say that no one in their right mind could argue otherwise, but if they weren’t against the law we’d be in a right old mess. The inclusion of animal sentience in our laws sends a very clear message, and requires those dealing with animals to consider their treatment just a little more carefully. Although you wouldn’t think so judging by the terrible abuses in this country.

I think anyone who argues that a chicken might be happier in a factory farm because it is warm and fed has never visited a factory farm. It’s much easier to indulge in the fantasy of happy animals down on the farm rather than having to think about the reality while munching away on their chicken nuggets.

What makes you think Bernard Matthews thought his birds were not sentient beings? He thought they were warm, well ventilated, well fed and watered. Therefore happy. To his standards. He didn’t force feed them or leave them without shelter. He knew they were sentient beings and not cabbages. I have never eaten anything that came from Bernard Matthews because I don’t agree with factory farming, I think all animals should be given the best possible lives - and the best possible deaths.

Some pharmaceutical companies are planning to move to UK - great for jobs ...

and then you realise it is because they will be able to continue to torture animals, in a way no EU country would be allowed to shame

https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/201711/medium-352679-2753056e-c3b4-4671-b4de-13530a7eb2a8.png https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/201711/medium-462493-472ee91a-33f9-4127-a6ea-dbe7362f7ce4.png

EU Law permits sentient beings to be transported standing across Europe for 24 without a break, rabbits to be kept in battery cages with scarcely room to turn on wire floors, veal calves to be kept on slats. Perhaps the meaning of sentient beings should be re-examined.

Not seen the link, then to a Bernard Matthews barnful of turkeys, then?
Birds were supposedly not allowed to be kept in such conditions. That's why he was fined for it.
Sentient beings were allowed to sit in ammonia, and have their lega, feet and stomachs burnt by it, were they?
People who worked there were allowed to use turkeys to play football and baseball, were they?
That's okay in a turkey factory, is it, because you never buy from him?

It's now owned by two sisters, who have been fined for the way they treat lamb and chicken. But that's okay because they think they are sentient and you won't eat them.
What strange morality.

What you said is NOT true, Nfk. EU law says a maximum of 8 hours without a break, and they must have access to clean water.
Farmers break laws here and in the EU, which we are part of still. That's why groups such as CIWF, PETA and Viva! follow them about, taking film and prosecuting them.