The dawn of the animal rights movement was over 30 years ago with the publication of Animal Liberation by Peter Singer. Whilst two different groups of animal rights supporters shared much the same objectives, they took very different paths to achieve their aims.
The animal rights extremists are best known for their philosophy of direct action and for their high profile campaigns of harassment and intimidation.
The other group sought to use moral, philosophical, intellectual and legal arguments to further the case for animal rights through the courts, constitutions and laws in a variety of countries.
One of those animal rights advocates was Stephen Wise, probably the most prominent legal activist in the United States promoting the concept of animal rights. Beginning in 2000, he received a great deal of attention in the media and in the legal community with the publication of the book Rattling the Cage: Towards Legal Rights for Animals. The book emphasises the ideals of liberty and equality as the basis for animal rights, and suggests gradual moves in that direction, in strong contrast to the direct action movement who seek immediate abolition of animal experiments and fundamental legal rights for animals.
A recent publication from the Southern Methodist University School of Law seeks to marshal opposing views to the philosophy that animals are deserving of human rights. The Winter issue of the SMU Law Review available as pdf analyses in detail the enormous implications and disruption that there would be for modern society if animals were to receive protection in the form of legal rights. Just the threat of class action suits taken by animal rights activists on behalf of millions of pets against their owners could bring the legal system to a standstill.
The report describes furthering the humane treatment of helpless animals as important, even heroic. But it concludes that ‘taking the path of incrementally humanising animals in our courts is misguided and dangerous for both humans and animals’. The report describes the legal system as intrinsically human, and asserts that ‘the protection and humane treatment of animals is a basic human responsibility, not a basic animal right’.
<Wrap up...>
