Switzerland referendum on providing lawyers for animals

[dipsydoodle]

Source: BBC News

A nationwide referendum is taking place in Switzerland on a proposal to give animals the constitutional right to be represented in court.

Animal rights groups say appointing state-funded animal lawyers would ensure animal welfare laws are upheld, and help prevent cases of cruelty.

Opponents say Switzerland does not need more legislation regarding animal protection.

The Swiss government has recommended that voters reject the idea.

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8554012.stm

---

You've already got a similar thing for animals in the USA but they're called corporations.

[Historic NY]

1. That steak you were planning to grill has rights...

:wtf:

[Heidi]

2. Before it's killed, it's an animal and in Switzerland has rights.

Do you believe animals should be unjustifiably exposed to pain, suffering, physical injury or fear? That's what the Swiss Animal Protection Act of 1978 regulates. Today's referendum, if passed, would simply provide for legal representation for animals that have been abused by humans. It is my opinion that the Swiss Animal Protection Act is sufficient, but we'll see what the voters say.

Here's a link to the Swiss Animal Protection Act:
http://www.animallaw.info/nonus/statutes/stchapa1978.htm

[nyc 4 Biden]

3. a fellow du'er has this great quote in their sig, but i can't remember who.

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."
--Ghandi

[pattmarty]

4. Hell, why not? Here they allow (w/o any vote either) corporations.............

..............that have no heart, can't breath, or don't have a brain (sounds like Wizard of Oz shit) all sorts of "legal rights".:sarcasm:

[panzerfaust]

5. Now if Switzerland will just allow Muslims to build mosques,

oh, and to return to the descendants of those from whom the Nazis stole gold, art and money: That originally stolen, and also the profits made on it by the Swiss Banks in the past more than half century.

Then I might begin to see where they need to start being so deeply committed to (other) animal's rights.

[Christa]

6. I wish I could rec' your post. nt

[Orrex]

7. Fantastic post!

:applause:

[onehandle]

8. I like how they pretend that they wouldn't do it all over again. nt

[mopinko]

14. +1

[Heidi]

18. Mosques can be built. The ban is on minarets.

Nonetheless, bigotry is clearly behind the ban on minarets.

[Skip Intro]

30. I guess I'll be a dissenting voice on this tangent.

Of course we are talking about minarets, not mosques.

From what I understand, the lawyers would represent animals who'd been abused at the hands of the accused. That doesn't equate to the ban on minarets. Muslims aren't being abused in that situation. And I'd argue that recognized human rights aren't being abused there either.

As for the Nazi spoils, sure it should go back to the decedents of the original owners, but it just isn't a situation equatable to trying to give abused animals a voice at a trial against their abuser. Those two situations just don't compare.

Sadly, I get to this discussion late, with the knowledge that the vote was against giving such voice to abused animals. And while I see that as a shame, I'm heartened that the idea is so strong there that a vote was held.

[stray cat]

9. So who is volunteering to pay the legal bills and court costs?

and decide when to bring a case to court - can we have lawyers chasing horses and cats and not just ambulances, Also - does the horse get to decide how to spend its damages paid?

[LiberalFighter]

10. Why do they need this? Don't they have animal cruelty laws?

[liberal N proud]

11. Animals need protection more than corporations do.

[GOPNotForMe]

12. LOVE this!

Most people don't understand that most of the time when a country creates anti-animal cruelty laws, they are usually fairly hollow and toothless, just a PR gimmick to please the masses so that when something like this comes up, people can say, "Gosh, don't we already have the Animal Welfare Act? Why do we need this TOO?" Well the AWA is the most useless POS law out there and it completely killed legislative momentum to get real regulations for animals in labs passed. Same for the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. BS law, self-regulating.

Switzerland has got the right idea - and just because they might have done some things wrong in the past is a BULLSHIT reason to pick apart THIS law. I'm pretty sure people could do the same when looking at the U.S. ("Yeah, great that they passed ____, but they have the Patriot Act so f*** 'em!" - nonsensical.)

[Unvanguard]

15. THIS. n/t

[Imajika]

21. 70% of the Swiss..

..think this idea is terrible and voted it down.

It is pretty hard for a proposed law to be crushed at the ballot box any more soundly than this.

So no, no lawyers representing animals.

[GOPNotForMe]

22. That was the popular opinion, but that doesn't mean it was right.

[Heidi]

26. It's still up to the individual cantons. Zurich canton has such an attorney,

and he made an interesting point in a recent interview: why is it acceptable to put a fish through 10 minutes of torture reeling it in, but not okay to capture a puppy or kitten in the same way? I understand that no one wants to confront his/her own hypocrisy, but I do think this matter is worthy of debate. But the agricultural community has a very powerful lobbying presence, and not just in Switzerland.

[Heidi]

25. Wrong. That was a federal referendum. Cantons can still appoint their own legal advocates

for animals as Canton Zurich has. I'm about 1,000 percent okay with that.

[Skip Intro]

31. +1 nt

[roguevalley]

35. anyone who doesn't think animals need help should watch

rescue, ink.

[WriteDown]

13. Lawyer: So how has this ordeal been on you?

Dog: Ruff!
Lawyer: Can you tell us where the real killers were?
Dog: Roof!

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. Swiss voters reject giving abused animals a lawyer

Swiss voters on Sunday soundly rejected a plan to appoint special lawyers for animals that are abused by humans, dealing a blow to advocates who say Switzerland's elaborate animal rights laws aren't being enforced.

Official results showed that 70.5 percent of voters cast their ballot against the proposal to extend nationwide a system that has been in place in Zurich since 1992. Some 29.5 percent of voters backed the proposal, with officials putting the turnout at just over 45 percent.

"The Swiss people have clearly said our animal protection laws are so good we don't need animal lawyers," Jakob Buechler, a lawmaker for the centrist Christian People's Party, told Swiss television SF1.

Switzerland tightened its animal protection laws two years ago and now has among the strictest rules anywhere when it comes to caring for pets and farm animals.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hVH6I6jWPHpiqPaF-v1T-P80HrCAD9E9T4M80

[AlbertCat]

19. Swiss voters reject giving abused animals a lawyer

Because they are not complete fools. :eyes:

[GOPNotForMe]

24. I don't understand why you all are so threatened by this law.

And apparently the entire population of Zurich are "fools" as you would call them because they have had a program like this implemented for a while now. This was just to extend it nationwide.

[naaman fletcher]

27. Why do you think anyone is "Threatened" by it instead of just against it as a policy matter?

It seems bizarre to me. How does the lawyer know what it's client really wants?

[GOPNotForMe]

28. I think there's a safe assumption that an animal does not want to suffer.

How does a guardian ad litem know what his 2-year-old client wants?

[Imajika]

29. No one is threatened by it...

..many people just think it sounds silly and has the potential to be bad policy. It just seems like the kind of law that could be quickly abused, with lawyers running around suing people on behalf of household pets, vermin, pests, etc. Don't put it past lawyers, if there is a buck to be made they would show up to court with a bag of roadkill claiming to represent possums rights. Additionally, animal rights activists tend to want to elevate animals status to that of humans in the court of law. That has always been a goal of some of the more fanatical animal rights groups. Most people flatly reject this entire notion and don't want to even begin going down that road.

We just don't need lawyers representing animals. Admittedly, I am sure the proposed law was not nearly as absurd as the examples I gave, but most people are leery of adding more dopey laws to the books that have the potential for abuse. The Swiss, at least on a national level, seemed to agree completely - overwhelmingly so apparently.

[OnyxCollie]

36. I have heard the same argument made to prohibit gay marriage.

Guess that shouldn't be allowed either.

Caution: Slippery slope.

[Heidi]

17. Local news (based on results from the largest cantons) says the referendum failed. (nt)

[Imajika]

20. This is pretty stupid...

Good to see the Swiss soundly rejected it.

I do have some shrubbery a snow plow buried under a giant pile of ice and slush. The foliage in question has been damaged and may not fully recover, maybe in the future my beloved plants can retain a lawyer and sue the state, the plow company, the plow driver, etc.

[GOPNotForMe]

23. Actually, the area of Environmental Standing is pretty big in the legal world.

Just one example: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-199461015.html

Animal standing is a closely related issue.

Please don't make a fool of yourself.

[Happy Hippy]

32. Where does one begin?

This is the epitome of lunacy.

Ok, let's see - animals are not humans. In fact, it's rather common for humans to eat animals. Could you swat flies? What if you run over a squirrel on your way to work - who is liable , you or the squirrel? If I shoot a deer and it doesn't die instantly, am I negligent for making it suffer for an hour or so while I track it? If I'm fishing and I "gut hook" a fish, will I have to worry about its spawn filing suit? Can I spray the wasps nest? What if not all the wasps die and some are only blinded? Will I be responsible for their loss in wages? What if the dog is old and senile and needs to be put down? Will he get to appeal in court?

Corporate personhood as referenced throughout this thread cuts both ways too. If you're seriously injured at the hands of a negligent company, would you rather sue the CEO who is worth millions or the company who is worth billions? I thought so. But that is beside the point.

This thread is a DUzy.

[baldguy]

33. As lunch, maybe?

[Synicus Maximus]

34. Animals are not human. Most lawyers are not human. Therefore it

only seems right that animals should have lawyers.