Animal loving means something else in Wales

Shambo's finally been taken. Sadly I note that the formal diagnosis of bovine TB is made at the post mortem.
At the removal I noted a lack of animal rights activists. Perhaps they knew that the legal case turned not on animal rights but on the balance between the need to kill Shambo to protect public health and the right the monks had to respect for their religious views. At first instance Judge Gary Hickinbottom was unimpressed by the argument of the Welsh Ministers. But in the rematch the Court of Appeal [1] decided that even a large invasion of the monks right to respect for their religious views was justified on the facts. A contentious decision that deserved to go to further appeal. Yet the case did not make it to House of Lords let alone the European Court of Human Rights. A tragedy in itself.
All this came about by the exercise of a discretionary power vested in the the Welsh legislature and exercised by or on behalf of Jane Davidson as the Minister for Sustainability and Rural Development.This power permitted avenues other than slaughter of Shambo to be countenanced. A third way was open but not pursued.
If there is a difference between a farmer and a monk it must be that the farmer sees the cow as a means to an end whilst the monk regards the cow as an end in itself. It is this that creates the sense of injustice in the secular mind. The farmer can be recompensed by money for the loss of his cow for we can replace the means with the end. But this is not the case for the monks. The Welsh Assembly did not seem able to see this distinction.
In reaching the decision to slaughter Shambo and then in enforcing that decision the Welsh Assembly have demonstrated a callous disregard for the religious sensitivites of a small group of Hindu priests. These actions of the Welsh Assembly also expose a rigidity of thinking and lack of moral vision that must cause grave concern both within and beyond the Hindu community. [1] R (Swami Suryananda) v Welsh Ministers. Telegraph Law Reports 23 July 2007, CA
(c) R Mohindra 2007

Update:
01.09.2021 Geronimo the alpaca has met a similar fate recently on simlar grounds. Ths happened in England. Here the risk was bovine TB. There were no countervailing religious considerations, just a claim for animal interests to be weighted as some form of legal rights.  

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Unisex premiums for driving insurance? EU crazy?

The recent judgement of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) dealing with the problem of sex discrimination as it related to actuarial risk calculations in insurance contracts (1) was a Belgian case where the ECJ had to interpret Article 5 of Directive 2004/113 (2). The Dire ctive itself emanated from the Council of the European Union. Article 5 states that: "1. Member States shall ensure that in all new contracts concluded after 21 December 2007 at the latest, the use of sex as a factor in the calculation of premiums and benefits for the purposes of insurance and related financial services shall not result in differences in individuals’ premiums and benefits." but then goes on to say that: "2. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, Member States may decide before 21 December 2007 to permit proportionate differences in individuals' premiums and benefits where the use of sex is a determining factor in the assessment of risk based on relevant and accurate actuarial ...
Read more

Brexit, the UK Constitution and politics - do not confuse the rules with the game

The recent judgement of the High Court in R (Miller) vSecretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2016] EWHC 2768 (3 November 2016, Admin) seems clear enough. The issue is one of law. Is there, as a matter of law, power in the executive to trigger Article 50 of the Treaty on the European Union?   The consequences of this decision fall into the political domain. But the decision itself is not political. It is not about what is the right thing to do, it is about who has the power to that thing. The conclusion of the judges, after hearing full argument, is that there is no power in the Executive (which draws its power from the Crown) to trigger Article 50 of the Treaty on the European Union .  So, the Executive/ Crown cannot change the rights of UK citizens without the consent of Parliament. A deep and very important cornerstone of UK civil liberties.  The judges are right to guard it even in the face of miscomprehending public hysteria whipped up by cy...
Read more