|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FUR COMMISSION USA PRESS RELEASE, JULY 11, 2002
Has Germany Adopted Animal Rights?
IF THE MAJORITY of political analysts and media pundits are to be believed, on June 21 the German parliament voted to incorporate animal rights in its constitution, with Article 20a of the country's Basic Law now reading: "The state takes responsibility for protecting the natural foundations of life and animals in the interest of future generations."
The addition to the existing law of the words "and animals" is being widely hailed by animal rights groups as a victory for their cause. Germany, they claim, has become the first European Union country to recognize the rights of animals.
In support of their claim, no one is in any doubt that the people who lobbied for the inclusion of the words intended them to be interpreted as recognizing basic animal rights. The issue of animal rights, in particular in relation to other entrenched rights such as the rights to use animals for research and in certain religious ceremonies, has been keenly debated in Germany for almost 10 years, and the revision of the Basic Law is being seen as a product of this debate.
Consumer Affairs and Agriculture Minister Renate Kuenast of the environmentalist Green Party that has lobbied for years to incorporate animal rights in the constitution, welcomed the constitutional amendment as "ground-breaking", according to Deutsche Presse-Agentur (July 10). She vowed it would lead to new legislation limiting the testing on animals of products like cosmetics and mild pain relievers, but also emphasized it would not diminish human rights.
"People remain the most important," Kuenast said. "But animals will also have rights."
If the animal rights lobby is correct in its understanding, the federal constitutional court will now be required to weigh the rights of animals against the entrenched rights of animal users. At the very least, this could be expected to translate into tighter restrictions governing the use of animals. Animal rightists have already begun seeking to use the constitutional change to bring an end to long-distance shipments of livestock, and Germany's research sector is also bracing itself for challenges ahead.
That said, it is now up to the courts to determine what the new, and indisputably vague, wording actually means, and the impact it will have in the real world. The same wording that some argue recognizes animal rights could also be interpreted as an endorsement of sustainable use and the precautionary principle, for example.
For further information contact: Teresa Platt, Executive Director, Fur Commission USA, PMB 506, 826 Orange Avenue, Coronado, CA 92118-2698 USA, (619) 575-0139, (619) 575-5578/fax, furfarmers@aol.com, www.furcommission.com.
To take a cyber-tour of a fur farm, visit Fur Commission USA's Fur on Film at http://www.furcommission.com/video/index.htm
© 1998-2008 Fur Commission USA