ejustice July 2009
Time for establishing animal rights
It was not long ago that court declared natural resources are owned by the public. The Government is only the trustee. Famous Eppawela judgement ruled by the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka is clear on the Public Trusteeship of the natural resources.
“Oh! Great King, the birds of the air & the beasts have an equal right to live & move about in any part of this land as thou. The land belongs to the peoples & all other beings & thou art only the guardian of it” said Arahat Mahinda to King Devanam Piya Tissa, in 307 BC.
Should we consider animals as natural resources? Do we have right to animals or do they have their own rights. The recent controversy on the two baby elephants said to be stolen by “Diyawadana Nilame” led the people to rethink who is the guardian of the nature and the natural resources.
Humans have conceptualized their rights to nature and natural resources. The International Standard Setting Instruments have clearly recognized the principle of inter-generational equity too. It has been stated that humankind bears a solemn responsibility to protect and improve the environment for present and future generations. Principle 1 of the Stockholm Declaration states that “The natural resources of the earth including the air, water, land, flora and fauna must be safeguarded for the benefit of present and futur
e generations.”
To my little legal knowledge animals neither have constitutional rights nor legal rights. The laws, regulations and policies produced by the humans give protection to those animals (and trees) but with no acceptance of the legal right to those animals and trees. They exist only because of the human sympathy. If the human does not need them they all have to go. Baby elephants have been subjected to abduction and torture because they have no own rights. These mothers also do not have rights to keep babies with them.
It was clear that public opinion was against this act. But neither the laws nor the religion (Buddhism) were able to protect them. I am reluctant to believe that once given to the temple no fundamental rights exist. I have seen that many temple properties have been subjected to court cases. But the case on baby elephants was lost because there were no grounds.
Neither the domesticated elephants nor the wild elephants have protection. Annual elephant death toll is around 250 to 300. Current elephant’s policy is a white elephant. Department of Wildlife Conservation alone cannot protect the elephants. The organized gangs are much more powerful to kill or snatch them. While some concerned people are vociferous they are not in the majority.
I have noticed that “Gaja Mithuro”, an organization established in some areas, was considered to be an attempt to protect elephants and humans. But some people complain that they do not even get elephant crackers. The story of wild elephants is very pathetic.
Many domesticated elephants, who serve some elites and temples to protect their arrogance and to serve temple pageants, suffer too. They are not safer because they are in human hands.
Some animal activists suggest that “Human over population is the number one threat to wild and domestic animals worldwide. Whatever human beings do to use, abuse, kill or displace animals, the effect is magnified by the number of people on the planet, which is now approaching seven billion”.
People in Sri Lanka talk vastly on elephants but not about many other animals, perhaps, because, they are giants and visible. But in general we have no animal rights movement unlike in many other countries.
Animal rights, is the idea that the most basic interests of animals should be afforded the same consideration as the similar interests of human beings. Animal rights advocate to approach the issue from different philosophical positions but agree that animals should be viewed as legal persons and members of the moral community, not property, and that they should not be used as food, clothing, research subjects, or entertainment. Although we are majority Buddhist that kind of thinking only exists in the religious books.
It was not long ago that court declared natural resources are owned by the public. The Government is only the trustee. Famous Eppawela judgement ruled by the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka is clear on the Public Trusteeship of the natural resources.
“Oh! Great King, the birds of the air & the beasts have an equal right to live & move about in any part of this land as thou. The land belongs to the peoples & all other beings & thou art only the guardian of it” said Arahat Mahinda to King Devanam Piya Tissa, in 307 BC.
Should we consider animals as natural resources? Do we have right to animals or do they have their own rights. The recent controversy on the two baby elephants said to be stolen by “Diyawadana Nilame” led the people to rethink who is the guardian of the nature and the natural resources.
Humans have conceptualized their rights to nature and natural resources. The International Standard Setting Instruments have clearly recognized the principle of inter-generational equity too. It has been stated that humankind bears a solemn responsibility to protect and improve the environment for present and future generations. Principle 1 of the Stockholm Declaration states that “The natural resources of the earth including the air, water, land, flora and fauna must be safeguarded for the benefit of present and futur
e generations.”To my little legal knowledge animals neither have constitutional rights nor legal rights. The laws, regulations and policies produced by the humans give protection to those animals (and trees) but with no acceptance of the legal right to those animals and trees. They exist only because of the human sympathy. If the human does not need them they all have to go. Baby elephants have been subjected to abduction and torture because they have no own rights. These mothers also do not have rights to keep babies with them.
It was clear that public opinion was against this act. But neither the laws nor the religion (Buddhism) were able to protect them. I am reluctant to believe that once given to the temple no fundamental rights exist. I have seen that many temple properties have been subjected to court cases. But the case on baby elephants was lost because there were no grounds.
Neither the domesticated elephants nor the wild elephants have protection. Annual elephant death toll is around 250 to 300. Current elephant’s policy is a white elephant. Department of Wildlife Conservation alone cannot protect the elephants. The organized gangs are much more powerful to kill or snatch them. While some concerned people are vociferous they are not in the majority.
I have noticed that “Gaja Mithuro”, an organization established in some areas, was considered to be an attempt to protect elephants and humans. But some people complain that they do not even get elephant crackers. The story of wild elephants is very pathetic.
Many domesticated elephants, who serve some elites and temples to protect their arrogance and to serve temple pageants, suffer too. They are not safer because they are in human hands.
Some animal activists suggest that “Human over population is the number one threat to wild and domestic animals worldwide. Whatever human beings do to use, abuse, kill or displace animals, the effect is magnified by the number of people on the planet, which is now approaching seven billion”.
People in Sri Lanka talk vastly on elephants but not about many other animals, perhaps, because, they are giants and visible. But in general we have no animal rights movement unlike in many other countries.
Animal rights, is the idea that the most basic interests of animals should be afforded the same consideration as the similar interests of human beings. Animal rights advocate to approach the issue from different philosophical positions but agree that animals should be viewed as legal persons and members of the moral community, not property, and that they should not be used as food, clothing, research subjects, or entertainment. Although we are majority Buddhist that kind of thinking only exists in the religious books.
The recent constitutional provision in Ecuador provides constitutional rights to rivers, tropical forests, islands and air. This bill of rights would change the legal status of natural resources from property to a “right-bearing entity.” Perhaps the government of Sri Lanka has to revisit at least animal rights principles and bring regulations to stop animal cruelty and unacceptable treatment to these life partners. May all the beings have the right to be free tomorrow!
No comments:
Post a Comment