That sounds great, if you don't understand the legal side of this, or if you're just opposed to the legal system altogether. If there were a great deal of funds and energy going into it which would otherwise benefit the animals directly, I would agree with you.
This idea originated with the move to change the legal standings of companion animals. That movement has helped law enforcement as well as victims of abuse.
From what I understand (as one of those annoying animal rights activists) this is just one very small part of the pursuit of a higher level of legal rights for non-human animals.
For the legal side of animal defense, this "semantic" difference does (believe it or not) make a difference when it comes to animal abuse. It is within a person's rights to destroy an object that one owns, provided no harm comes to another person or another person's property. In the eyes of the law, a "guardian" is not legally allowed to destroy or do harm to the animal in question. That's what it's really about, not just semantics but something greater.
You may be surprised at how these legal differences help human animals too. For example, in many instances a perpetrator of domestic violence will do harm (sometimes great harm) to a companion animal living in the home. If that crime can be prosecuted with real consequences, then the humans in the family can be spared before one of them meets with the same fate.
Overall, the legal side of animal advocacy is not worthless and while the animals in question may have no idea what impact the distinction has for them, judges do.
This idea originated with the move to change the legal standings of companion animals. That movement has helped law enforcement as well as victims of abuse.
From what I understand (as one of those annoying animal rights activists) this is just one very small part of the pursuit of a higher level of legal rights for non-human animals.
For the legal side of animal defense, this "semantic" difference does (believe it or not) make a difference when it comes to animal abuse. It is within a person's rights to destroy an object that one owns, provided no harm comes to another person or another person's property. In the eyes of the law, a "guardian" is not legally allowed to destroy or do harm to the animal in question. That's what it's really about, not just semantics but something greater.
You may be surprised at how these legal differences help human animals too. For example, in many instances a perpetrator of domestic violence will do harm (sometimes great harm) to a companion animal living in the home. If that crime can be prosecuted with real consequences, then the humans in the family can be spared before one of them meets with the same fate.
Overall, the legal side of animal advocacy is not worthless and while the animals in question may have no idea what impact the distinction has for them, judges do.
Reply
Leave a comment