A Whacked-Out World Where Animals Have Legal Standing

By Dan Murphy, editor, Meat Marketing & Technology, dedicated to the US and Canadian meat-processing industry.

Of all the often-bizarre theories espoused by the activists who think meatpackers are Satan's servants, for sheer idiocy few exceed a recent speech I came across arguing that animals are entitled to a host of legal "rights."

The proponent of this alternately hilarious, mostly ridiculous proposition is Joan Dunayer, author of the book Animal Equality.

From the title alone, you know you're going to be trudging into a philosophical quagmire from which there is no rational escape.

Here's what Dunayer said in a speech entitled, "Gleichberechtigung für Tiere" ("Equal Rights for Animals," if my German is zuverlässig), which was delivered in Vienna, Austria, this month at an animal rights conference:

"Did I really mean to say that all animals are equal? Yes, I did. Like human equality, animal equality doesn't mean equal abilities. It means that all animals have an equal right to moral consideration and legal protection. And by 'all animals' I mean all sentient beings, every creature who can feel.

"In his new book Drawing the Line: Science and the Case for Animal Rights, lawyer Steven Wise argues that an animal is entitled to basic rights if it can desire, can act with the aim of getting what it desires, and has some sense of self, however dim. In my view, all sentient beings probably satisfy these criteria.

"It's reasonable and right to treat any creature with a nervous system as sentient. Reasonable because creatures with a nervous system act as if they feel. Right [because] all beings who can feel need protection. All beings who can feel are entitled to rights. The sole criterion for rights should be sentience."

Already, we're up to our knees, intellectually speaking, in moral quicksand, with the most obvious question being, how do you define "sentience," and which animal species supposedly possess it? But before assuming that a species not possessing what is traditionally considered a nervous system might be excluded, read what Dunayer said:

"I know of much evidence that honeybees and other insects reason. When a honeybee colony requires a new hive site, honeybee scouts search for a cavity of suitable location, dryness, and size. Each scout evaluates potential sites and reports back, dancing about the site that she most recommends.

"She also examines sites proposed by others. If a sister's find proves more desirable than her own, the honeybee stops advocating her original choice and starts dancing in favor of the superior site. In other words, she's capable of changing her mind and her vote."

(Yeah, I had a "sister" bee "dancing" around a favorable site last weekend: My arm. I had to "convince" her that another site would be more desirable.)

Can that statement to be taken seriously? Insects? Having legal rights? So what, if you step on a couple ants at your Sunday picnic, then some lawyer "representing" the ant colony can sue you for damages?

What a joke.

If society were to determine that sentient animals actually did have legal protection, then could a cat sue a dog for harassment? Or the dog counter sue for "mental cruelty?" Or a mouse get a restraining order filed against the cat? (Which would undoubtedly turn into a class-action suit.)

Actually, I think I saw that once - on a Tom and Jerry cartoon.

Virtually none of Dunayer's rhetorical ramblings can even remotely be taken seriously. If animals were to acquire traditional legal rights, then every day, throughout all of Nature, there would be millions of deadly assaults and unprovoked homicides taking place among sentient animals that could conceivably be adjudicated, with legal culpability affixed, penalties applied and summary judgments rendered requiring monetary and material restitution - all applied with the force of law.

It boggles the mind to even consider taking this whole warped scenario to its logical conclusion: That all human conduct toward the animal kingdom would be "actionable," based on some lizard-like lawyer's ability to push the envelope. And as we've seen of late, virtually the only restraint on the legal profession's creativity in seeking out targets to be dragged through the judicial system is the depth of the potential defendants' pockets.

The real target in all such theorizing, ultimately, is livestock. With the possible exception of endangered wildlife with a National Geographic cover shot in their portfolios, such as tigers, elephants, pandas, baby seals - and they already have legions of people fighting for them - nobody's going to try serving a warrant on some bird of prey for powering down a meadow-full of mice.

Likewise, although household pets would represent a logical "plaintiff class," the reality is that most animals classified as pets are owned either by zoos struggling just to stay afloat financially or by individual citizens who aren't really worth the effort it takes to drag them into court and vacuum their assets of all tangible worth.

We leave that to the IRS.

No, the only area where you can guarantee that one of the slimier branches of jurisprudence would swoop down with tort settlements glistening in their eyes like a sharkskin suit would be agriculture - specifically livestock producers.

There is clear legal ownership, there are deep pockets to be tapped and there is a built-in ignorance about farming among virtually anyone who might make it onto a jury trying the case of Western Cattle Co. v. Animals Are People Too, Inc.

Of course, activists like Dunayer and her "sisters" don't have to bother with the practicalities of their whacked-out theories. That's not even the point. They spout off with their unrestrained rhetoric mainly to "make a point," to "create awareness," and eventually (they hope) to swing the law of the land ever closer to the day that farmers and ranchers can be sued for holding "sentient beings" in slavery.

Because that's how it will be positioned, trust me.

I can state that with all the certainty of a honeybee scout searching for a favorable cavity.

Just before she gets swatted out of sentience.

Back to Animal Rights / Home