Talk

Advanced search

To be shocked that Tories have voted animals can't feel pain?

(97 Posts)
brasty Tue 21-Nov-17 11:08:48

The Tory Government has outdone itself when it comes to neglecting animal rights this week – by voting that all animals (apart from humans, of course) have no emotions or feelings, including the ability to feel pain.

"Remember all that campaigning against the badger cull and May’s attempt to bring back fox-hunting? It was probably all a waste. As the Government begins to shape the EU (Withdrawal) Bill, it has taken a vote to scrap EU legislation that sees non-human animals as sentient beings. Once we leave the EU in 2019, it’s not only badgers and foxes that will be threatened by this change in law, but all animals that aren’t pets. So basically all animals that it will be profitable to exploit.

This vote comes in contrast to extensive scientific evidence that shows that other animals do have feelings and emotions, some even stronger than ours."

www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-government-vote-animal-sentience-cant-feel-pain-eu-withdrawal-bill-anti-science-tory-mps-a8065161.html

Cheeseandcucumber Tue 21-Nov-17 11:12:07

Did they not just vote to not amend the Animal Welfare Act to include the word 'sentience, as opposed to disagreeing that animals are sentient?

Splinterz Tue 21-Nov-17 11:14:09

This has lost me a little.

Correct me if Im wrong but as it stands, all EU laws will be imported, then on a law by law scenario, we will remove irrevent laws from our statute books - no no laws have been changed? it is emotive wording by the Independent, which is Russian owned by one of Putins henchmen, a former secret service man and spy in Britian and hell bent on bringing down the EU and as many western goernments as it can?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Lebedev

Always check your sources

brasty Tue 21-Nov-17 11:14:46

They have voted to remove any protection for wild animals.

Eltonjohnssyrup Tue 21-Nov-17 11:22:51

They haven't 'voted that animals can't feel pain'. They've voted not to include a vague and poorly written clause submitted by Caroline Lucas of the Greens because it could have unintended wider consequences for example stopping medical research or preventing people from poisoning rats or using mouse traps.

Animal rights activists pretending this is some sort of denial that those things happen are deliberately misrepresenting what has happened. They haven't denied animals feel those things, they've just refused to enshrine it in a badly written piece of legislation.

brasty Tue 21-Nov-17 11:24:08

So why did they not propose a better written legislation? That is how legislation happens after all.

NeedMoreSleepOrSugar Tue 21-Nov-17 11:34:55

The uk already has a fair amount of protective legislation for animals and livestock. The vote absolutely was not a suggestion that animals are not sentient it feel pain.

Sometimes changing the wording of proposed legislation is useful, sometimes it's simply not needed at all and the proposal should fall. I don't know enough about this area of law to have an opinion as to which would be the case here, but the reporting of the vote has been deliberately misleading, lazy and in my opinion does nothing to further the case of animal welfare and rights in this country.

Whatsoccuringlovely Tue 21-Nov-17 11:37:45

Yes all tories drown kittens and worse brexiteers kick
Puppies. See it all the time. yawn

PiffleandWiffle Tue 21-Nov-17 11:39:26

So why did they not propose a better written legislation? That is how legislation happens after all.

It's the job of the proposer to ensure it's fit for purpose, it's not the place of the reviewers to do their job for them.

brasty Tue 21-Nov-17 11:42:58

No the Tories have voted so that we have no protection for wild animals, only pets and livestock.

PiffleandWiffle Rubbish, amendments are made all the time.

Allthebestnamesareused Tue 21-Nov-17 11:44:59

I think you'll find it was all elected representatives not just the Tories that voted but you go ahead!

JonSnowsWife Tue 21-Nov-17 11:51:56

They have voted to remove any protection for wild animals.

Not suprised in the slightest that a party that wants to lift the ban on foxhunting votes in this way, No.

Eltonjohnssyrup Tue 21-Nov-17 11:52:10

Ask Caroline Lucas. And amendments are not made in the sense you mean, otherwise a government could just change any proposal to what it wanted it to say which would mean we wouldn't live in a democracy.

This was a bit of a sneaky underhand way for animal rights activists to get an obscure clause in a treaty which has had zero impact on how the EU does things enshrined in U.K. law in a way which would have a very big impact on how we do things.

And all this whinging about 'Oh they're saying animals don't feel pain' is a sneaky attempt to mislead the public about this clause, what it meant and what it's rejection means.

Eltonjohnssyrup Tue 21-Nov-17 11:54:15

And they haven't voted to remove protections for wild animals either.

Incidentally, you may not have noticed but the rest of the EU is much keener than we are on hunting and animal cruelty. These EU laws you're claiming supposedly protect animals so well aren't actually that much cop are they?

brasty Tue 21-Nov-17 12:16:49

So the article is lying then?

PiffleandWiffle Tue 21-Nov-17 12:34:48

Rubbish, amendments are made all the time.

By the person proposing it, in response to feedback - do you really not understand that?? hmm

So the article is lying then?

Very possibly, it reads like it was written by a 17 year old trainee.....

stupidityShouldBePainful Tue 21-Nov-17 12:38:41

So the article is lying then?

See, you got there!

brasty Tue 21-Nov-17 12:40:16

It is a genuine question? I read the newspaper which had that article in. I do not share articles from dubious sites, but from mainstream newspapers? Yes.

If they are lying, I look forward to seeing the Tories suing them.

mardymustelid Tue 21-Nov-17 12:41:17

The Independent headline is emotive, since the tories didn't deny the sentience of animals , they just voted for the clause recognising "sentience" to be removed. Elton, it's not really correct that Lucas tried to sneak anything in. She was trying to retain the recognition of sentience as EU law is transferred in the "Great repeal". Allthe best, yes all parties voted, but only the Conservatives and the DUP voted against leaving the sentience clause in. Every other voter from every other party voted to have it remain.
The British Veterinary Association find it a bit troubling. They are not usually reckoned to be "sneaky, underhand, animal rights activists. This is from their website:
Green MP Caroline Lucas submitted an amendment clause (NC30), which sought to transfer the EU Protocol on animal sentience set out in Article 13 of Title II of the Lisbon Treaty into UK law, so that animals continue to be recognised as sentient beings under domestic law.

The New Clause was rejected with an 18 majority for the Government. 313 against, 295 in favour.

Responding to the decision, British Veterinary Association Senior Vice President Gudrun Ravetz said:

“It is extremely concerning that a marginal majority of MPs have voted-down this seminal clause. Enshrining animal sentience in UK law would have acknowledged that we consider animals as being capable of feelings such as pain and contentment and, so, deserving of consideration and respect. It is a founding principle of animal welfare science, and for the way that we should treat all animals.

Cheeseandcucumber Tue 21-Nov-17 12:43:42

The article mixes fact with wild scaremongering, attention grabbing headlines - which is pretty much the definition of journalism.

If you're passionate about animal rights why not read more about it from reliable sources, the Wildlife Trust have many great articles on this matter. There's one article detailing how you can help, too.

mobile.wildlifetrusts.org/site/wildlifetrusts?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wildlifetrusts.org%2FWithdrawalBill&utm_referrer=#2603

And for a more accurate summary of the situation:

www.plantbasednews.org/post/mps-reject-efforts-eu-animal-sentience-clause-uk-law

GrouchyKiwi Tue 21-Nov-17 12:44:59

It's deliberately misleading to say that MPs voted to say that animals have sentience. What they voted on was an amendment that was vaguely worded. The vote was about changing legislation, not about what animals do or don't feel.

mardymustelid Tue 21-Nov-17 12:55:57

Yes, Grouchy, but the tories voted to have the clause referring to sentience removed. This was not an attempt to increase legislation. Lucas was arguing for having the legislation stand. Why don't the Tories or DUP, support the clause remaining, while all other MP's do?

GrouchyKiwi Tue 21-Nov-17 13:06:10

I imagine because the word sentience is not objective.

The question that should be asked is what protections for animals exist already in UK law (is this a devolved matter?) and does this vote make a difference to what can already be done.

mardymustelid Tue 21-Nov-17 13:09:55

Grouchy, science tends to view "sentience" as an objective, measurable fact. Descartes is a long time dead.

GrouchyKiwi Tue 21-Nov-17 13:23:24

A quick google suggests that's not true.

Either way, the second half of my reply there is what I consider more important. What change does this vote make to law in the UK regarding animal welfare? I don't know the answer to this, but it is, I think, the thing people should focus on.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now