[QUOTE]
In a ruling that references butter knives, euthanasia and cats named Slimey and Oinky, a Saskatoon judge made an impassioned defence of the notion that, when it comes to the law, dogs should not be treated as though they were children.
The Court of Queen's Bench judge made his case in a written decision about a dispute between a divorcing Saskatoon couple who disagreed about where their dogs Kenya and Willow (sometimes "Willy") should live.
"Dogs are wonderful creatures," wrote Justice Richard Danyliuk in the first sentence of his 15-page decision in August.
"Many dogs are treated as members of the family with whom they live. But after all is said and done, a dog is a dog. At law it is property, a domesticated animal that is owned. At law it enjoys no familial rights.
The wife wanted the case treated as a child custody dispute. She argued she should keep Kenya and Willow and offer visitation rights to her estranged husband.
Danyliuk rejected that request.
The judge ruled that dogs are property and should not be treated as children. He said that should be obvious to all based on a bit of logical, dispassionate thought:
"In Canada, we tend not to purchase our children from breeders.
"We tend not to breed our children with other humans to ensure good bloodlines, nor do we charge for such services.
"When our children are seriously ill, we generally do not engage in an economic cost/benefit analysis to see whether the children are to receive medical treatment, receive nothing or even have their lives ended to prevent suffering.
"When our children act improperly, even seriously and violently so, we generally do not muzzle them or even put them to death for repeated transgressions."
Source: [URL]http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/dog-custody-dispute-saskatoon-1.3889188[/URL]
[/QUOTE]
He's not wrong but
[quote]"In Canada, we tend not to purchase our children from breeders.[/quote]
Some people adopt kids, as some people adopt dogs.
[QUOTE=Araknid;51550732]He's not wrong but
Some people adopt kids, as some people adopt dogs.[/QUOTE]
Can't say adoption of children is the same. Maybe if the judge said "we don't tend to get our children from shelters", perhaps. But getting children from breeders would be like keeping a woman captive that you liked her genetics, and forcing her to get artificially inseminated to get ideal offspring. Perhaps the father was chosen out of a catalogue as per the people who are willing to pay.
That, and adoption is free in Canada.
[QUOTE=Maksie99;51550740]
That, and adoption is free in Canada.[/QUOTE]
Oh shoot, free workforce!
This judge is not only fucking retarded, but he's also a fucking asshole too.
People, If you get an animal, Treat it like part of your family.
It's a living fucking being, it deserves love and comfort more than some scummy people do.
No judge has the authority to rule over an emotional connection with another living being. Fuck this guy.
[QUOTE=DiBBs27;51551570]This judge is not only fucking retarded, but he's also a fucking asshole too.
People, If you get an animal, Treat it like part of your family.
It's a living fucking being, it deserves love and comfort more than some scummy people do.
No judge has the authority to rule over an emotional connection with another living being. Fuck this guy.[/QUOTE]
Don't cut yourself on your own edge, while you oversimplify what's going on here. It's likely the man I'm this case would've completely lost custody of the dogs without this decision, which is hardly fair along with being an example of a cultural/sexist issue
[QUOTE=DiBBs27;51551570]This judge is not only fucking retarded, but he's also a fucking asshole too.
People, If you get an animal, Treat it like part of your family.
It's a living fucking being, it deserves love and comfort more than some scummy people do.
No judge has the authority to rule over an emotional connection with another living being. Fuck this guy.[/QUOTE]
He's not talking about emotions, did you even read anything in the OP? He's just saying that legally, dogs are not people, they're not to be considered as a legal part of a family and is still something that is your property.
[QUOTE=simkas;51551607]He's not talking about emotions, did you even read anything in the OP? He's just saying that legally, dogs are not people, they're not to be considered as a legal part of a family and is still something that is your property.[/QUOTE]
Sadly, this is how it is almost everywhere. If your neighbor shoots your dog, it doesn't matter how much you cared about it. The only thing that matters is if the neighbor gets convicted for animal cruelty (read: almost never unless they strangled or poisoned it) and how much the judge will give you in a civil court. (also not very fucking much unless you had an expensive pedigree dog with proof of how valuable it was) It's cold and shitty, but there really isn't much we can do that's sensible.
That being said, I believe that dogs and cats exhibit personalities, little quirks of their behavior that hint to me that they are conscious beings. It's known that dogs can read emotions and even sympathize with sad people. [url=http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/08/30/491935800/their-masters-voices-dogs-understand-tone-and-meaning-of-words]Dogs can even attach meaning to, and understand human language[/url], and can discern between meaningless words, and commands. Cats, while they seem like assholes, are just more independent than dogs. A cat that trusts you can absolutely be a very loving friend. I share bed space with one of my cats because we tight as fuck.
[QUOTE=DiBBs27;51551570]This judge is not only fucking retarded, but he's also a fucking asshole too.[/QUOTE]
No, he isn't.
In the face of the law, a dog is not an person, not that you can't treat it like a part of your family.
[QUOTE=Araknid;51551733]No, he isn't.
In the face of the law, a dog is not an person, not that you can't treat it like a part of your family.[/QUOTE]
They're property and don't have the rights of people. This type of official sentiment only perpetuates allowance for mistreatment of animals.
I can't be the only one to see how shit that seems.
It's all relative whether some people acknowledge it or not. The fact is crimes against animals are hugely underrepresented in the face of the law and this does absolutely nothing to help.
What about some people who are unable to have children? A dog is for life, not just for Christmas after all.
[QUOTE=DiBBs27;51551771]They're property and don't have the rights of people. This type of official sentiment only perpetuates allowance for mistreatment of animals.
I can't be the only one to see how shit that seems.
It's all relative whether some people acknowledge it or not. The fact is crimes against animals are hugely underrepresented in the face of the law and this does absolutely nothing to help.[/QUOTE]
Those laws do not perpetuate animal abuse, laws don't abuse animals. People do.
[quote][B]The fact is crimes against animals are hugely underrepresented in the face of the law and this does absolutely nothing to help.[/B][/quote]
That's not a fact, at all, until you prove it to be true. Animal abuse tends to be prosecuted fairly severely and the BC SPCA (not sure what province you're in) lists the laws as such here:
[url]http://www.spca.bc.ca/cruelty/legislation/criminal-code-of-canada-animals.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/[/url]
Up to 5 years jail time for one of these accusations. That seems fairly severe to me.
The worst animal abuse cases are
1. Puppy mills. Not solved by laws against common animal abuse, as these exist as for-profit operations. In the US, they can actually pass USDA regulations since they're breeding dogs like cattle. Common in rural areas: the Amish actually run a ton of these in the US. Pennsylvania is a hub of puppy mill activity.
2. Hoarders. Usually down to mental issues, and a lack of familial support. Again, good luck fighting these with laws.
3. Dog fighting. Part of larger crime issues, and not solvable with laws targeted against the common citizen.
So, even if animal abuse by individuals or couples is under-recognized by the criminal justice system of any nation, it is unlikely that the magnitude of an individual's actions can at all match the magnitude of the actions that come from any of the above three cases.
[editline]edit[/editline]
While I can understand your personal outrage at seeing animals labeled as possessions, I believe it is misplaced and misdirected anger. Seek to better educate people on what dog ownership entails. Show them ways to better control and bond with their dog, through positive-reinforcement based training and other modern behavioral techniques.
After working at a wolfdog sanctuary, it would've been easy to become a pessimist. So many people adopted those incredible animals because of their beauty, without considering the work that went into owning one. There is no excuse nowadays, with the internet being so widespread and accessible, for failing to do something because of a lack of knowledge. Anyone who chose to own one of those animals could've learned more about what its like to own one, or what they could do to fix things and become better once they owned one, and so on. But they did not, and now the animal pays the price.
The best way to fight back against these sorts of issues really, [I]really[/I] is education. Teach people about the dangers of puppy mills. Teach people how to spot animal abuse cases, from the aforementioned puppy mills ot hoarders to just some bastard kicking a dog around. Teach people how to find a responsible breeder, how to sensibly choose a breed matching their lifestyle and energy level, how to train a dog in a way that's just as much fun as it is rewarding for everyone involved, and so on.
But don't just assign blame vaguely, and bitch about laws. That does nothing, for anyone.
[QUOTE=Primigenes;51551581]Lol the Judge is 100 percent right[/QUOTE]
He's technically right about dogs not having as many legal rights as humans, but it's not like that being a legal thing is going to automatically make it morally sound.
Honestly even though I think we should have pet ownership licenses, I still wouldn't classify them as equal to humans if I was rewriting the law, because they just AREN'T. They're different animals from us, and we're superior to them (there'd be weird implications if it were otherwise,) and that's that.
[sp]though pet ownership licensing isn't likely to happen because you have to implement it carefully, and while longterm I think it'd do good, in the short-term it'd have disastrous effects, and no one will want to bite that bullet[/sp]
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51555136]Honestly even though I think we should have pet ownership licenses, I still wouldn't classify them as equal to humans if I was rewriting the law, because they just AREN'T. They're different animals from us, and we're superior to them ([b]there'd be weird implications if it were otherwise,[/b]) and that's that.
[sp]though pet ownership licensing isn't likely to happen because you have to implement it carefully, and while longterm I think it'd do good, in the short-term it'd have disastrous effects, and no one will want to bite that bullet[/sp][/QUOTE]
What do you mean by this?
Also, I don't really see that many people getting away with treating mentally/physically disabled people like shit since the "I'm superior to him" excuse isn't going to fly with a lot of people.
I had a neighbor who treated her dogs like sentient children. Wonderful woman and very friendly, but holy fuck is that an annoyance
[QUOTE=Skerion;51555150]What do you mean by this?[/QUOTE]
Euthanasia is one example I think. We're allowed to put down dogs who are decidedly incurably vicious or incredibly sick. But with humans we can't.
There's a few others regarding various crimes as well. And also, someone would have to properly explain concisely why it just applies to dogs. Otherwise we'd have a fairly open precedent of animals being = to humans and then we'd really have to question our meat-eating habits (and the ranching that necessitates it,) hunting, etc..
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51555167]Euthanasia is one example I think. We're allowed to put down dogs who are decidedly incurably vicious or incredibly sick. But with humans we can't.
There's a few others regarding various crimes as well. And also, someone would have to properly explain concisely why it just applies to dogs. Otherwise we'd have a fairly open precedent of other animals being = to humans and then we'd really have to question our meat-eating habits (and the ranching that necessitates it,) hunting, etc..[/QUOTE]
Well I mean, you'd also have to explain why rights only apply humans, who are, by the way, also animals.
If you're fine with an arbitrary limit like that, then surely it shouldn't be problematic to extend such rights to more beings to at least whatever extent.
Zoo-freaks should just chill out.
[QUOTE=Skerion;51555228]Well I mean, you'd also have to explain why rights only apply humans, who are, by the way, also animals.
If you're fine with an arbitrary limit like that, then surely it shouldn't be problematic to extend such rights to more beings to at least whatever extent.[/QUOTE]Well, I particularly mentioned "other animals."
We've got a fairly exclusive list of one, featuring us, as deserving of human rights right now, which is just how it's always been and has its ties in biology, and the most likely reason is just that we are ourselves, and we take care of ourselves. I mean you could try to draw the line with things like intelligence, but truthfully things are shakey even with that, with other animals using tools, language, etc..
And I actually do agree in strongly strengthening the rights of other animals. I just don't think I'll ever be saying they're equivalent to humans. I just think it's legally dangerous to assert that.
[QUOTE=Skerion;51555228]Well I mean, you'd also have to explain why rights only apply humans, who are, by the way, also animals.[/QUOTE]
Because we made those rights. Literally the concept exists because of us. We made those concepts from the position and perspective of, well, [I]us.[/I]
Call that an "arbitrary" limit if you'd like, but it makes perfect sense to me.
[QUOTE=J!NX;51555155]I had a neighbor who treated her dogs like sentient children. Wonderful woman and very friendly, but holy fuck is that an annoyance[/QUOTE]
I don't know if your neighbor that kids also, but I have seen [I]waaaaay too many couples or women[/I] do that when they don't have kids. Things like carrying a small dog in a stroller.
Like come on, that's not where a dog belongs, get that thing in a yard.
[QUOTE=Maksie99;51555301]I don't know if your neighbor that kids also, but I have seen [I]waaaaay too many couples or women[/I] do that when they don't have kids. Things like carrying a small dog in a stroller.
Like come on, that's not where a dog belongs, get that thing in a yard.[/QUOTE]
not only that but they're pampered to the point where they literally cannot shit without her congratulating them
dog strollers
lets them bark whenever
it's fucking depressing
[QUOTE=WillerinV1.02;51555252]Because we made those rights. Literally the concept exists because of us. We made those concepts from the position and perspective of, well, [I]us.[/I]
Call that an "arbitrary" limit if you'd like, but it makes perfect sense to me.[/QUOTE]
So what, that means they can't have it?
That'd kinda be like saying you can't own a Sony product because you're not Japanese.
Also, for curiosities sake, if neanderthals were still around to this day, how would you think they should be treated? They weren't homo sapiens, but from the sounds of it, they were relatively similar to us. Wouldn't their similarities be enough to allow rights to them, and don't dogs also have some similarities including certain behavioral traits and their ability to sympathize? Maybe not as many, but they're there.
[QUOTE=maniacykt;51555247]Zoo-freaks should just chill out.[/QUOTE]
Amazing post, you suuuuuure showed them.
[QUOTE=Steam-Pixie;51551996]What about some people who are unable to have children? A dog is for life, not just for Christmas after all.[/QUOTE]
More like 15 years, and that is stretching it.
Honestly, I think animals should be treated the same as humans in any situation. Obviously they aren't children (and it would just be dumb to put a dog in something designed for a baby), but I don't think they should be considered property in this day and age.
We should treat everything with respect, regardless of how many eyes we have, how many legs we can walk on, or whether we can talk or not. This whole "humans are superior to animals" thing needs to end as soon as possible, because it's really dragging us down as a species, and one day we'll realise it when it's too late to go back.
[QUOTE=DiBBs27;51551570]This judge is not only fucking retarded, but he's also a fucking asshole too.
People, If you get an animal, Treat it like part of your family.
It's a living fucking being, it deserves love and comfort more than some scummy people do.
No judge has the authority to rule over an emotional connection with another living being. Fuck this guy.[/QUOTE]
Human>Animal
Very simple
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51555251]Well, I particularly mentioned "other animals."
We've got a fairly exclusive list of one, featuring us, as deserving of human rights right now, which is just how it's always been and has its ties in biology, and the most likely reason is just that we are ourselves, and we take care of ourselves. I mean you could try to draw the line with things like intelligence, but truthfully things are shakey even with that, with other animals using tools, language, etc..
And I actually do agree in strongly strengthening the rights of other animals. I just don't think I'll ever be saying they're equivalent to humans. I just think it's legally dangerous to assert that.[/QUOTE]
I'm having kind of a hard time understanding the first sentence due to how it's worded, but if I understand you correctly, you're saying we exclusively hold these rights because we're individuals with the capabilities to take care of ourselves. Aren't most animals (except pandas) capable of taking care of themselves? If that's not what you meant, then apologies.
(Also, as a side note, I don't particularly think we should even really draw the line with intelligence, so I don't think we need to argue about that since you acknowledged that other animals can use tools and shit)
You have a point about it being legally dangerous to assert, but to be fair, there are a lot of concepts that we take for granted that were likely just as dangerous to assert into the law, like the idea that slavery's awful.
[editline]20th December 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Primigenes;51555403]What do you mean by morally sound?
As if your personal morals is any more agreeable or important than the judge's decision.[/QUOTE]
Do you think your morals are more important than those of someone who holds some reprehensible morals (in your perspective, of course) regardless of what kind of authority they're in? I wouldn't doubt it, and you're well within your right to do so.
Also, I was just saying that the legality of it isn't going to change its moral position, for better or for worse.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
