|
I have heard about the legislation changes in animal law going to parliament on raising the current maximum penalty for animal abuse cases. How do you feel this will affect animal abuse or is the legislation to remove animals from the property section a better choice?
Criminal law actually does 2 things; firstly, it describes offences and how they should be punished and this is the aspect that seems to get all the media play when the Criminal Code is reviewed. Personally I think this “punishment perspective” is a near trivial aspect compared to the second purpose of the Code. The primary purpose of a Criminal Code is that it describes the society to which it applies.
The term “outlaw” comes from archaic Norse and Germanic clan based social code. In-laws are protected by society despite their indiscretions, while outlaws have done something that places them outside of the common law or outside of society. Society will not protect outlaws from the people they have offended and who seek revenge.
In modern times the Criminal Law describes the “outlaw” sometimes referred to as a “criminal”. The Criminal Code is supposed to describe what it is to be within the society of Canadians. The 1998 consultation on the Animal Cruelty section of the Code clearly documented that torturing an animal was not an offence similar to stealing a television. Cruelty to animals is not about property it is about what it means to be Canadian. Cruelty to animals in the values of Canadians is more like child abuse than petty theft. I am greatly embarrassed by the Federal Government which has not yet articulated this deeply held Canadian value in the Criminal Code.
Terry Whiting, Manager Animal Health & Welfare, Office of the Chief Veterinarian, Manitoba Agriculture, Food & Rural Initiatives p (204) 945-6750
|
