A case of animal rights taken too far?
March 8th 2010 19:47
Most of the clients of Antoine Goetschel, a lawyer in Zurich, Switzerland, are animals. Goetschel represents mostly dogs, cats and cows, although in a high-profile case last month he represented a dead fish.
Goetschel is at the forefront of Switzerland's animal rights movement, and Switzerland is at the forefront of the global animal rights movement.
Well, it was until Sunday, when voters rejected a plan to allow all abused animals the right to legal representation.
Sunday's referendum needs some historical perspective.
Two years ago, Switzerland put into practice animal protection laws which, according to some, led the world and, according to others, took animal rights to untenable lengths. According to the Swiss law, for example, it is an offence to keep just one pig or one goldfish — you must have at least two so they can keep each other company. And dog owners have to attend an accredited training course to learn how to care correctly for pets.
Despite these elaborate provisions, animal rights advocates said the Swiss laws did not go far enough. They said the laws in place were not being sufficiently strictly applied, and they wanted to expand nationally a law existing in Zurich since 1992 which allows the appointment of special lawyers to represent the animals in animal abuse cases.
The Swiss government decided that was a step too far, but instead of vetoing the idea, agreed to conduct a referendum. The result: 70.5 per cent of voters cast their ballot against stricter implementation of the code and addition of the special animal lawyers.
Public opinion may have been significantly influenced by Antoine Goetschel's dead fish case. A Zurich court heard the case of a fisherman accused of cruelty for taking 10 minutes to land a pike. Goetschel was in court representing the dead pike.
The court found the angler not guilty. The nation found the case for more such prosecutions unproven.
| 56 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog