The Punjab and Haryana High Court in India has granted animals in the state of Haryana the status of “legal person or entity,” meaning they now have the same “rights, duties and liabilities of a living person.”
The order was signed off on 31 May by Justice Rajiv Sharma, who moved to Haryana High Court last year from Uttarakhand, where he passed a landmark ruling in 2018 “to protect and promote greater welfare of animals.”
“All the animals have honour and dignity,” said Sharma. “Every specie has an inherent right to live and is required to be protected by law. The rights and privacy of animals are to be respected and protected from unlawful attacks … in order to protect and promote greater welfare of animals including avian and aquatic, animals are required to be conferred with the status of legal entity/legal person.
“The animals should be healthy, comfortable, well nourished, safe, able to express innate behaviour without pain, fear and distress. They are entitled to justice. The animals cannot be treated as objects or property.”
Sharma added that all citizens of Haryana were to be declared persons in loco parentis and be the human face for the protection and welfare of animals.
He also stressed that the State of Haryana must strictly enforce the provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Rules “in letter and spirit.”
Sharna signed off the ruling simply by saying “live and let live.”
What’s New…
Need strong agency to enforce animal welfare laws
What kind of Rights? First of all India please Offer Human Rights to Women and Men Regardless of Religion and Cast…
Yes — there are many issues in the world that need addressing — this forum is about Animal Rights — animals were NOT put on this planet to be abused and murdered — they have the Right to live happy, healthy lives — pay a visit to the following NONHUMAN RIGHTS site — https://www.nonhumanrights.org/ — if you’d like for me to learn about human rights and religion in India, please direct me to a site, petition, Fb page, etc.
Justice Rajiv Sharma is an upright and noble man. Nonhuman animals deserve freedom and autonomy and to live as mature intended.
Much as I am opposed to needless cruelty towards animals (including fellow humans), I feel the following observation by a judge in the Punjab & Haryana High Court is extreme, and has not been thought through (to put this mildly)
“Every specie (sic) has an inherent right to live and is required to be protected by law.”
Assuming that by “specie” the learned judge is referring to “species” (and not physical form of money, which is what “specie” means in English), does he know that every species would include plants too — apart from mosquitoes, and tapeworms? Do these living creatures too have “an inherent right to live and is required to be protected by law”?
He is not referring to any existing law. So, is he talking about a future law that needs to to be enacted? Where? In a mindless monstrosity such as “Hindu Rashtra”?
Ironic that he is more bothered about protecting the lives of “all specie” in a country where human beings are being lynched to death by those who are angry about their non-vegetarian diet. Are beef-eating humans not part of the “all specie” that the honorable judge is so concerned about?
The worthy judge goes on:-
“The animals should be healthy, comfortable, well nourished, safe, able to express innate behaviour without pain, fear and distress. They are entitled to justice. The animals cannot be treated as objects or property.”
I have feeling this person has never given a thought on how a cow is being “treated as objects or property” — when purchased and sold in the market, tied up in dirty sheds and milked every morning! And what about temple elephants restrained with metal chains? Are they being allowed to “be healthy, comfortable, well nourished, safe, able to express innate behaviour without pain, fear and distress”?
Save the country from those with such horribly misplaced sense of ethical priority!
ANAND — You are incorrect on several counts — FIRST : Judge made a wonderful, RIGHT, moral, compassionate, rational, sane, merciful, wise Decision — you do not OFTEN hear of anyone protecting the interests and lives of non-human animals — I can go on and on but I will NOT — I will make some points and offer links for further information — (1) Plants do NOT feel pain — this is a scientific FACT — they do NOT suffer like other living, breathing, feeling living beings — thus, we get this argument OFF the table; (2) I want to believe that Judge meant “species” as opposed to “specie” — it could be that someone else made this typo; (3) you introduce other issues which can be addressed either in another chapter or another book BUT for purposes of THIS Law, your other issues do not pertain. CONCLUSION: This LAW protects animals from abuse and unnecessary premature death — there are many LAWS which protect Humans — those same LAWS must exist to protect Animals — -after all, they are vulnerable, innocent living beings who are always at our mercy — the mercy of humans — when animals are under the care of loving, caring people, animals THRIVE; when animals are under “care” of abusers, killers, depraved idiots, psychos, Animals suffer greatly only to horrifically perish AND this is WRONG; thus Animals MUST be protected from such brutal suffering and death — if you wish at your leisure, pay a visit to the following 2 sites — https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=41&v=_mXLJLLVdwQ ///// ALSO : pay a visit to — https://www.nonhumanrights.org/
Ms,
Thanks for your response. Now let me respond, point by point:-
(1) Plants do NOT feel pain — this is a scientific FACT — they do NOT suffer like other living, breathing, feeling living beings — thus, we get this argument OFF the table;
The judge had not set the criterion for the ” inherent right to live” on the basis of ability to feel pain. He mentioned all “specie” — and all species includes plants too. This is what I meant when I referred to the observation as “extreme”.
(2) I want to believe that Judge meant “species” as opposed to “specie” — it could be that someone else made this typo;
Not that it matters, but why would think it is unlikely that this was an error by this judge? In any case, whether or not the judged erred on a spelling is not germane to our argument!
“(3) you introduce other issues which can be addressed either in another chapter or another book BUT for purposes of THIS Law, your other issues do not pertain. ”
Such as what are the “other issues” introduced by me? Is your reference to “Hindu Rashtra”? If so, I am okay if you choose not to reveal your stand on this.
But then I would very much like your stand on some of activities by supporters of Hindu Rashtra — such as lynching humans because they are non-vegetarians or beef-eaters? Your own stand on THIS is pertinent to this discussion.
Incidentally, humans are not the only species who kill and eat other animals (capable of feeling pain). Lions, tigers do this. So can these meat-eating animals too be punished under law (or illegally lynched) for causing pain to other animals?
“CONCLUSION: This LAW protects animals from abuse and unnecessary premature death”
True in case of wild animals, pets etc. Not true for farm animals, nor for fish. That is not the law in India, or in any country as far as I know. Is it that you want such a law? Should it apply only for humans who are non-veg, or also for other animals?
” — there are many LAWS which protect Humans ”
Laws that are broken when beef eaters are attacked, lynched and killed. This aspect is thus pertinent, you see!
“— those same LAWS must exist to protect Animals ”
I have problems with this! You already said that for you (unlike for the judge), “pain” and not “life” is the criterion. But rats feel pain — may be even mosquitos and cockraohes too. Who knows. They try to fly/ run away when you try to kill them right?
You want laws that would award death penalty to humans (and animals) that kill cockroaches? Or for slaughtering cattle for beef?
(I am opposed to death penalty for humans, even if they kill (or rape) another human being. Let alone kill animals for food!
“— -after all, they are vulnerable, innocent living beings etc etc”
So you want a law that would sentence someone who “murders” a goat for its meat with death sentence? What other punishment under law that you approve of for eating vulnerable, innocent living beings like fish and chicken?
I want you to visit YouTube site where human suffering (due to poverty, exploitation, lynching etc) are shown. Are these human victims too “vulnerable, innocent living beings etc etc” — in every such case?
I have a problem when you LOWER human life in value to the same level as that of “vulnerable, innocent” animals.
You are most welcome to set your own ethical lines — such as not to cause the death of any animal that would feel pain. (Okay some else will kill the mosquitoes and rats and keep you from contracting diseases). But it would be MOST IMMORAL for you to impose your ethical lines on others.
I too have my ethical lines. I would eat beef (as also the meat of farm bred animals and fish), but I will not eat the meat of pet animals or wild animals. But there are communities (like Gypsies) who traditionally eat dog/ cat meat. The aborigine population in Andaman islands hunt and eat wild animals. I would not dream of IMPOSING my ethical lines on these people!
You are welcome to preach the virtues of Vegan diet. But it would be unethical if you would try and IMPOSE this on other humans with a different ethical standards — even if perchance you are in a position of power and you can inflict pain on fellow humans with a moral compass different from yours!
Anand — I do not want to LOWER – I want to RAISE animals to our Human level — i treat animals kindly, with care, love and respect — for sake of argument, they are comparable to human children and should be treated as you would a small child — with kindness, love, care and respect — SECOND — you make so many assumptions, I do not know where to begin — THIRD: Judge Sharma wants animals to be treated properly — with kindness, love, care and respect — they MUST NOT be abused, murdered JUST BECAUSE they are “animals,” who don’t know any better and cannot do anything about it due to their innocence and vulnerability (AND, lack of laws) — FOURTH — I am NOT angry with anyone as long as they DON’T STEP ON MY TOES — in a free country, free market society, where each individual is entitled to proper treatment and respect, there is no room for those who think because this is a free-market society it’s OK to abuse others — it is NOT Ok — in my book, such individuals are idiots and belong in prison.
“I do not want to LOWER – I want to RAISE animals to our Human level”
But that is impossible
— unless you will oppose domestication of animals for milk too. Because if done to humans that would be slavery. Right?
— unless you oppose the killing of disease causing pests like rats, mosquitoes etc
— unless you you oppose pet dogs being put on leash (imagine treating even a human child this way!)
” — i treat animals kindly, with care, love and respect ”
I wholly support you in this! But not with the SAME love, care and respect for fellow humans. Two have to be of a different kind.
“— for sake of argument, they are comparable to human children and should be treated as you would a small child — with kindness, love, care and respect —”
But not tied up, purchased and sold, leashed, milked. We do NOT kill kids even if they behave like pests. But we may need to do this in case of some animals. When there is an epidemic among animals, we may need to selectively cull some of them. We will NEVER do this with humans — kids or grown-up.
“SECOND — you make so many assumptions, I do not know where to begin —”
My assumptions are about your possible attitudes. You can simply tell me that some (or all) of these are not true. That is what I expect.
” THIRD: Judge Sharma wants animals to be treated properly — with kindness, love, care and respect — they MUST NOT be abused, murdered JUST BECAUSE they are “animals,””
No one disagrees with him on this. But is he says animals are not to be killed for food, then he is being nasty towards humans whose food some animals are.
” who don’t know any better and cannot do anything about it due to their innocence and vulnerability (AND, lack of laws) ”
Animals routinely killed in nature. Not as punishment, but as food. Where does “innocence” come in, when the killing is not as punishment or revenge?
“— FOURTH — I am NOT angry with anyone as long as they DON’T STEP ON MY TOES —”
Thanks for clarifying one my assumptions. Glad about this.
“.. in a free country, free market society, where each individual is entitled to proper treatment and respect, there is no room for those who think because this is a free-market society it’s OK to abuse others — it is NOT Ok — in my book, such individuals are idiots and belong in prison.”
There is a problem here. You can complain to the police if some someone “steps on your toes” (in a way that this is a criminal act).
But I would consider it immoral (though not illegal) to even WANT to put a person in jail for eating non-vegetarian food!
That would be stepping on the foot of these others who are going about their lives in the normal way — much as YOU disapprove of this.
You have left unanswered a number of questions I raised. Such as about killing rats because they can spread disease — even when these animals clearly feel pain.
You did not answer my query about your attitude towards death penalty. Either for humans or for animals (that are NOT innocent, but found guilty for some offense, say a dog killing a cat).
I oppose death penalty for BOTH humans and animals — whatever the crime. For me punishing a human or animal (when not innocent) is reluctant and only minimally as needed to deter crime — and NEVER as retribution.
It is thus that your saying animals are “innocent” and so should not be killed for food, disturbs me. Because this suggest that you think it is okay to impose retributive punishment to those (humans and animals) who you regard as not innocent….
Ms,
” (1) Plants do NOT feel pain — this is a scientific FACT — they do NOT suffer like other living, breathing, feeling living beings — thus, we get this argument OFF the table; ”
The judge had NOT five “ability to feel pain” as the criterion for the “inherent right to live” that he observed, “is required to be protected by law.”
His expressed view is that “all specie” have that right — and this is what I had found particularly “extreme” about what the judge had said! But I take it that you want me to limit his observation to animals and birds and fishes that “feels pain”. Fair enough!
“(2) I want to believe that Judge meant “species” as opposed to “specie” — it could be that someone else made this typo; ”
Any particular reason why you feel that this is a typo — and that too by “someone else”? But this error by whoever is NOT germane to the issue we discuss. So, let is leave that aside!
“(3) you introduce other issues …..”
Could you be referring to “Hindu Rashtra”? While I would have liked to hear your stand on this, it is okay if you do not wish to talk about it here.
“BUT for purposes of THIS Law, your other issues do not pertain.”
The other issues I mentioned ALSO included lynching humans to death by those who are angry with their being non-veg, or because they eat beef. Your stand on THIS will need to be explicitly stated. This is pertinent because you seem to share at least one thing with the lynchers — anger towards those who eat slaughtered animals (capable of feeling pain). So what is your stand on OTHER humans who disagree with your concern? What kind of punishment to be awarded to those who break this law and eat, say chicken?
“CONCLUSION: This LAW protects animals from abuse and unnecessary premature death”
I agree with the laws that protects animals from abuse and unnecessary premature death! That is not at all the issue here.
The issue we are discussing is about slaughtering of farm animals/ birds and fish to serve the needs of human diet!
No such law exists in India, nor I would think in ANY country of the world — that prohibits slaughtering of farm animals/ birds and fish to serve the needs of human diet! (In India we have a stupid law regarding the slaughter of “milch and drought” cattle — but this is for the allegedly for the purpose of “promoting scientific methods in animal husbandry” — and not out of the “belief” that animals (who feel pain) have same rights as humans!
“— there are many LAWS which protect Humans — those same LAWS must exist to protect Animals — -after all, they are vulnerable, innocent living beings etc etc”
Actually, I too have my ethical threshold as far as killing animals are concerned. I am opposed to killing of pet and wild animals even for food. But I am okay with killing farm animals/ birds and fish — even if they do feel pain.
But there are cultures (gypsies) for whom meat of dogs and cats are part of diet. The aborigines of Andaman hunt and eat wild animals. Thus my morals apply only for me and my cultural upbringing. I won’t dream of imposing these on others and other cultures!
I am not sure if you line is only on “ability to feel pain”. If so, it is okay — because *others* will do the killing of rats, cockroaches, mosquitoes etc (they desperately try to escape when we try to attack them, suggesting they too feel pain, and have no desire to die prematurely!), thus protecting your health too from the diseases these innocent creatures may pose!
There is one more thing. It is not only (most) humans who are non-vegetarians. Lions for example live almost exclusively by killing and eating other animals. Would your future law that stops premature death of animals that feel pain be applicable to other non-veg animals too? What is the punishment you propose for a cat that kills a mouse?
One more question — what is you stand on death penalty for humans? As for me, I am okay killing farm animals and fish for food, but I am opposed to death penalty awarded to humans even for the offense of murdering another humans being.
Note that over 130 countries in the world have abolished capital punishment — even as they PERMIT killing of farm animals and fish for food!
Lastly, I feel there is something morally amiss when some people LOWER the value of human life to that of animals (that feel pain). Such people usually tend to support death penalty, corporal punishments etc. I suppose this is natural to those who think the value of a human life is no different from that of an animal.
Do you also think all animals ought to have the freedom to roam free — and not be purchased and sold by humans, tied in dirty sheds, their sex lives controlled, their milk extracted and sold? Not to mention the torture of temple elephants who need to be put on metal chains to prevent them from escaping back to the wild…
June 19 — Anand : what exactly is it that you want? — what are you afraid of? — What is being taken away from you by this Decision? — what is wrong with Justice Sharma’s decision in protecting animals? — they hardly EVER get protections — it is time they are protected from abuse, cruelty, murder, depraved indifference — animals are living beings who breathe, feel, bleed, cry, think — they are NOT stuffed toys or a crate of T-shirts — to summarize AND to the point of Judge’s Sharma’s decision, take a look here — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjNGW1KXQD8
Ms,
“Anand : what exactly is it that you want?”
I want nothing! What I am trying to argue is that is a mindless and meaningless judgment!
What exactly you think you want from this judgment. Whatever it is, you will not get this — as the judge’s wording is so vague, that this can only one those ineffective judgments!
“— what are you afraid of? — What is being taken away from you by this Decision?”
Nothing! I am NOT at all looking at this from an angle of personal loss or gain!
“— what is wrong with Justice Sharma’s decision in protecting animals? ”
His wording conveys something stupid — that all species of animals have the same right to life as humans.
“— they hardly EVER get protections — it is time they are protected from abuse, cruelty, murder, depraved indifference”
If THIS was what the judge said, no would would have found anything wrong with it! In fact THIS is already part of the law. This judgment has NOT introduced anything new.
The problem is when this judge says that all species of animals have the same right to life as humans. This is absurd. (I gave many reason why — but you have chosen not to respond to these. (Of course, I respect your choice not to respond!)
” — animals are living beings who breathe, feel, bleed, cry, think — they are NOT stuffed toys or a crate of T-shirts —”
The point you miss is the the issue here is NOT one of killing animals under the misconception that they are “stuffed toys or a crate of T-shirts”! It is whether it is — in principle — ethically okay to kill animals for food. Why are repeating IRRELEVANT points while ignoring the pertinent point of animals being killed for food? (Not because they are “innocent”, “toys” of “crate of T-shirts”.
Can you please respond to MY arguments, rather than address IMAGINARY reasons why you may think animals are being killed?
Like I do, why don’t you quote me — and then respond to what I say? Instead what you do is to IGNORE whatever I have said and give your pet views based on your own IMAGINED reasons why animals are killed or abused!
JUNE 20 — You address a million issues — I have one starter-question for you — Do you believe animals were put on this earth to be abused? — the answer is either YES or NO — If your answer is YES, this is exactly why we NEED LAWS protecting animals — if your ANSWER is NO, then you should NOT be opposed to Judge Sharma’s decision — WHY, you ask? — Because there are many evil, psycho people in the world who DO in fact abuse animals because they believe animals are made to be abused — these people I want OFF the streets; these people I want OFF the face of the earth — Now, Anand, after reading this comment, clearly you can see where I stand — I want to know exactly wherein lies the problem you have with this point of view — More info — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BivYzfYBB_0
Okay, I will patiently answer all your questions! Even when you do not appear to want to do that about my questions!
“Do you believe animals were put on this earth to be abused?”
The answer is that that animals were NOT “put on this earth” (by any sentient being with a “purpose”) to serve any purpose! Neither to be abused, nor to be not abused; not to be eaten up, nor not to be eaten up!
Life emerged on Earth between 3.7 billion to 4.5 billion years back — ONLY because material conditions for such spontaneously emergence of life then existed. The earliest life forms directly used chemicals for nutrition — as plants still do (other than some insectivorous plants). Around 1.2 billion years back evolved life forms that could get nutrition ONLY by eating other living organisms (like plants or other animals).
Let me assure you that even plants were not “put on earth” to be eaten up by others. If plants do not feel pain, this is only because not being unable to run away, the ability to feel pain would have served no survival advantage.
Yet plants too evolved defense mechanisms to reduce the chances of getting eaten up — such as thorns, toxins etc. Some plants also respond to touch — such as “touch me not” plant that fools herbivores by pretending to wilted on touch! (A technique evolved by some insects too!)
Animals evolved the ability to feel pain — because this gave them a huge survival advantage. Pain enables animals to avoid painful situations or to run away from situations that cause pain. Aversion to getting killed evolved for the same reason.
Herbivores evolved to eat plants (far more “helpless” and “innocent” than animals) without even the ability to feel pain, and hence without the ability to bite back or runaway! So some of them evolved thorns to injure animals who seek to eat them! Or toxins that would kill any animal venturing to chew their leaves!
Carnivores and Omnivores evolved to eat other animals, birds, insects, eggs, fish, nuts, fruits etc.
The traits we possess are those that helped our ancestors to survive longer in a world full of dangers. These traits include BOTH extreme selfishness and extreme selflessness (altruism). This true not only for humans but for all mammals and birds.
” — the answer is either YES or NO”
Short answer is “No” — longer explanation as above!
“if your ANSWER is NO, then you should NOT be opposed to Judge Sharma’s decision”
One does not follow the other! Rarely do animals (including humans) kill animals/ plants mere to “abuse” them. Almost always, the killing is for food. So don’t flippantly use the word “abuse”!
It is not abuse to kill for eating the killed. This is among the most ubiquitous kind of behaviour of life on earth. Just as herbivores do NOT abuse plants by eating them, carnivores do NOT abuse the animals they kill and eat!
“Because there are many evil, psycho people in the world who DO in fact abuse animals because they believe animals are made to be abused”
Very very few, if any! I would say less than 0.0001% of all animals that are killed by other animals victims of “psycho people”. The overwhelming majority are killed by good people as food!
Indeed, we already have laws that protect animals and birds from psychopathic abuse! If Rajeev Sharma had ONLY “psychopathic abuse” in mind, then he said nothing new! And all of us non-vegetarians agree with him, if he meant THAT!
” — these people I want OFF the streets;”
I do not think your wanting is of any significance. It is okay when we don’t get things we want. Especially when such “wanting” is from a sense of anger or outrage when others do something we don’t like.
It is not illegal to to want the people who abuse animals OFF the face of the earth. But it is illegal if you use force to get what you want! Reluctantly, the existing laws will need to put you away in jail to deter you from playing out your cruel fantasies.
“after reading this comment, clearly you can see where I stand — I want to know exactly wherein lies the problem you have with this point of view”
I feel that your wanting to see some people (say, psychopaths) OFF the face of the earth is deeply immoral. If you go on to act out your want, you will fall foul with the law!
And if someone with your kind of wanting to put some other humans “OFF the face of the earth” attain power and go on to enact laws that would award death penalty to humans who “abuse” animals, then that is what we would call a fascist state.
Perhaps, it is no coincidence that Hitler was a vegetarian…
June 21 — Anand — with you, I do not know where to begin — FIRST — you’re probably an animal-eater, use animal products, etc. — there is nothing I can do about this fact — I cannot stop you from consuming and purchasing animal products — you’re not the only one — what can we do? — life goes on. /// what troubles me is when presented with evidence how animals are treated brutally, sadistically prior to their torturous suffering and death, YOU continue to BUY from said Vendors, supporting them and their lifestyles.
Let me — as always — respond point by point (taking care not miss out anything important in your stand:-
“with you, I do not know where to begin”
What I do with you is to copy your whole comment, and then give my response below each important question. issue that you raised. Why don’t to try the same while responding to you?
“you’re probably an animal-eater, use animal products, etc.”
Yes I am! And I feel that is a very ethical choice, as ethical as my stand that opposes death penalty to humans (or even animals!), whatever the crime or misdeed.
” — there is nothing I can do about this fact — ”
I am glad to hear this. Though I am a bit disturbed that you would perhaps LIKE to do anything about it!
“I cannot stop you from consuming and purchasing animal products — you’re not the only one — what can we do? ”
To repeat, I feel it is unethical for people to even fantasize doing “anything” about the natural choices (of diet etc) of others. For that very reason I do not even dream of doing anything about fantasies of others that I feel is unethical.
Of course, you can propagate your views on ethics to others. You can persuade others (through videos etc) to abandon meat/ milk diet and so on. No issues at all about a debate on the ethical merit of various life choices made by different people!
“what troubles me is ….”
I appreciate that you are troubled by this — as I am about death penalty! I am ready to discuss the ethical merits in logical flaws on such stand by you and by me. It is thus that I will to show the flaw in your sentence above!
“when presented with evidence how animals are treated brutally, sadistically prior to their torturous suffering and death, ”
I am all for painless killing of animals for food! But it seems for you, the alleged pain caused while killing is only stick to beat non-veg diet choices (Correct me, if that is the case. But do not tell me I am “making assumptions” — without revealing whether the assumptions are right or wrong!).
“YOU continue to BUY from said Vendors, supporting them and their lifestyles”
Is that not an assumption by you about from where I buy my meat? I do not even know which vendors you are talking about — about whom you have evidence that they “treated brutally, sadistically prior to their torturous suffering and death”!
I do buy fish, chicken, beef etc from agencies who I do know do NOT inflict *needless* pain to the animals while slaughtering. Yes, minimal main at the moment of slaughter. Except in the case of fish, the meat I purchase are from licensed abattoirs, frequently inspected by the authorities. Let me quote from an article on the subject:-
//
Efforts are increasingly being made, therefore, to avoid unnecessarily causing pain or other unpleasant feelings to animals. For example, there have been great advances in veterinary anaesthesia and analgesia that enable the amelioration of pain in animals associated with surgical treatments or due to injury or disease.
Likewise, methods have been researched and developed during the last century to stun food animals – to make them unconscious so as to preclude the possibility of pain or other unpleasant feelings – prior to the cutting of major blood vessels to cause death by blood loss.
//
June 22, 2019 — Sorry for my NOT being clear –I am NOT talking about the pain the animal feels at the point of death, whether that be knife in the neck, bolt in the head — I REPEAT : I am NOT talking about pain suffered by animal at the time of the act of killing.
“I am NOT talking about the pain the animal feels at the point of death, whether that be knife in the neck, bolt in the head — I REPEAT : I am NOT talking about pain suffered by animal at the time of the act of killing.”
Okay! Now I know what you are NOT talking about!!
By the way, what are you talking about? What is your point?
JUNE 22, 2019 (B) — I sent videos along with previous comments — taking a look — ONE look — at these videos you will KNOW what the issue is — from the moment baby animal is born — this is WAY PRIOR to death — living on farm, day-in, day-out, exposed to abuse from Humans; whether animal is beaten, flung, not fed, exposed to elements no matter what the weather, cramped, not cleaned — NEED I GO ON? — if in need of medical attention, animal is ignored … take a quick look at footage I attached to comments — several seconds FOR ME is enough to tell me what the problem is.
“…what the issue is — from the moment baby animal is born — this is WAY PRIOR to death — living on farm, day-in, day-out, exposed to abuse from Humans; whether animal is beaten, flung, not fed, exposed to elements no matter what the weather, cramped, not cleaned”
Oh! So You are opposed to cruelty towards domesticated animals. I agree that farm animals are usually bought and sold, tied up is sheds and so on. So far I agree!
Bur when you talk of abuse by humans – “beaten, flung, not fed, exposed to elements no matter what the weather, cramped, not cleaned”, you may as well be talking of the kind of treatment some human parents give to their own kids!
I suppose if we look hard enough, we can find videos where parents abuse their children. There was a disturbing video where a woman around 35 years of age is shown thrashing and abusing her old mother….
My point is that I am as much oppose to abuse — whether of humans or of animals!
But just as many of us raise kids WITHOUT abusing them, many humans are capable of — and do — rear farm animals with love and affection!
I can confidently say that those would who abuse farm are also those who abuse their own kids and fellow humans.
These are not integral parts of either child or animal rearing. And just in case of kids, it makes no sense to abuse animals.
What commercial purpose is served when animals (to be nurtured for good quality meat/ milk) are “beaten, flung, not fed, exposed to elements no matter what the weather, cramped, not cleaned”and denied “medical attention”?
Does it not make better sense that animals reared for milk or meat are well fed, protected from weather/ disease, cleaned and provided medical care as required? Of it it does!
I wholly agree that there are humans who abuse others and also animals. I am all for strictly implemented laws that would deter abuse of and cruelty towards children, old people — and farm animals (reared for milk, meat, or simply as pets).
The solution is not to ban people from rearing kids or farm animals!
june 23, 2019 – Humans are protected by many laws —- offspring of humans are protected by their parents and communities — if I made attempts to protect my friend’s child, my friend would NOT appreciate it because I am not the parent — if parents drop the ball, there are laws protecting those children abused by their own parents — THIS FORUM is about protecting our ANIMALS — WHY are you interpolating human children in this argument? — let’s take care of one issue at a time — again, this Forum is about protecting animals — if you feel human children need protections, you’re in the wrong place — remember, there are 24 hours in a day — I devote 1-2 hours per day as frequently as possible to the plight and RIGHTS of animals — as I mentioned earlier, animals are the most abused members in our society with NO ONE LOOKING OUT FOR THEM — I feel so, so sorry for them — for this reason I am compelled to do all I can to save them — the rest of the day I am busy working protecting my own life, which is not so easy.
//Humans are protected by many laws —-//
Good thing too! More effective is the implementation of these laws, the more civilized the society.
//.. offspring of humans are protected by their parents and communities//
These laws exist to protect kids primarily from parental abuse; and also from community abuse by way of child labour etc.
//— if I made attempts to protect my friend’s child, my friend would NOT appreciate… //
Why would you attempt to take law into your hands? That would be vigilante justice of the kind meted out by assorted lynch mobs.
What you are expected to do is to report to the police if you see abuse — whether by parents or by community. Or to protect the animal if you can, without you attacking or causing harm to the human abusers. (They should be left to the law to handle).
//… it because I am not the parent//
Wrong reason for not appreciating! The right reason to object to our taking upon ourselves the role of the law is that this would amount to vigilante justice.
//— if parents drop the ball, there are laws protecting those children abused by their own parents//
Law applies not JUST to abuse by parents, but also by the community and even by the elected government! Who does the abusing is irrelevant to our laws on child abuse!
//— THIS FORUM is about protecting our ANIMALS —//
My point is that any forum that is ONLY about protecting animals regarding this as MORE IMPORTANT than protecting human beings from abuse has the wrong moral priorities.
// WHY are you interpolating human children in this argument? //
How else can I convey to you that your moral priority (greater concern for animals than for humans) is a warped moral positioning?
//— let’s take care of one issue at a time —//
Nothing wrong in this — except that this “forum” may have picked the wrong issue to prioritize. That is my point — whether you like it or not.
// again, this Forum is about protecting animals//
This would be fine, if you recognize (unlike Judge Sharma) that human rights must ALWAYS have a higher priority than kindness towards animals.
//— if you feel human children need protections, //
Not only human children, human adults too are routinely abused — and need to be protected.
//you’re in the wrong place//
I came here because I saw this forum *appreciating* the preposterous remark by a judge that “all species of animals” have the same right as humans. This is an immoral position, as this degrades humans to the level of “all species”. Much as you have denied it, there is no way “animal rights” can EVER be elevated to the same level as human rights.
It is good to treat animals with kindness and empathy by humans. It is a unique ability possessed by humans that we do feel empathy for other species in a degree that no other animal in nature is capable of. (Except domesticated pet dogs, cats etc. that humans have “artificially selected” for human traits like empathy towards other species)
” I devote 1-2 hours per day as frequently as possible to the plight and RIGHTS of animals”
Very laudable. But do not misdirect your concern for animals into a LESSER CONCERN for human rights. Or into taking morally absurd positions such as that animals have the SAME rights as humans!
//— as I mentioned earlier, animals are the most abused members in our society with NO ONE LOOKING OUT FOR THEM//
You just said you spend about 2 hours doing this. I know may (mostly non-vegetarians) in Blue Cross etc who spend more time in looking after abandoned and injured animals. (Actually, I am also one among them, not that this is important in this argument).
There is a LOT we can do to mitigate animal abuse, WITHOUT claiming that all species have the “same rights” as humans.
// — I feel so, so sorry for them — //
Good thing. This feeling of sorrow towards the pain of other species is a uniquely human trait. No other animal is capable of this as we humans are.
//..for this reason I am compelled to do all I can to save them //
Excellent! I sincerely laud your efforts to save animals that are abused. It is even quite okay to make this your personal priority of looking after humans. There is nothing wrong in this.
Vets treat animals, and not humans. This is perfectly okay. Animal lives can be saved and pain mitigated. A noble task that you have undertaken.
But while at it, if you say animals have the SAME rights as humans, I will need to disagree with THIS.
That is what I have done in all my comments in this forum. This forum is the right place for me to stress that while working to save animals, do NOT go to the extreme and say all animals have the same “right to live”.
(If there is a God, then “same rights” was clearly not his or her intention! Even if there is no God, the concept of “rights” is a uniquely human innovation in all of nature!)
JUNE 23, 2019 — 2:30 p — FEAR NOT — NO ONE IS SAYING THAT ANIMALS ARE BETTER THAN HUMANS — Do you care about humans? — what are you presenting here? — Do you need my help? — I’ll be more than happy to help you in any endeavor to help others — what’s the issue?– Is there a petition you need signatures for? — Do you need monetary Donations? — do you need to contact people in Govt, Corps, the Media, etc.? — I will do all I can to help!
This Judge speaks directly to my mind and heart — this is BEAUTIFUL — this is as it SHOULD BE — this is RIGHT — WHY this concept is so difficult to grasp by any reasonable person is beyond me — this Law is moral, loving, merciful, compassionate, sane, rational, caring — I LOVE IT — THANK YOU Justice Sharma — you are one of the Best – may this decision regarding animals reverberate throughout the world.
Great news.all of us should come forward to look after the animals.
This is great news. I would love be to see this applied to all states in India, and the world. Then enforced. People prosecuted for cruelty Way to go Justice Rajiv Sharma.
OMG finally a politician with a heart. Thank you so much Justice Rajiv Sharma for having the compassion of these animals in your best interests. You are a wonderful example to how the rest of the world needs to be in the treatment of all animals of this planet. May Karma bring you many wonderful things in your life – you are definitely deserving. Again thank you for all of those that have no voice to be heard on their own.
THANK YOU JUSTICE RAJIV SHARMA for bringing the new “legal person or entity” for the animals who are voiceless.You have shown the world that not every Indian person is uncaring or unjust for the concern of the most vulnerable species in India.You have not only made the ” land mark ruling but also I am sure you will have a SPECIAL PLACE IN HEAVEN one day for this remarkable stance that you have taken to Protect our distant relatives & they are the Animals…
“A LEADER IS, ONE WHO KNOWS THE WAY, GOES THE WAY & SHOWS THE WAY”–John Maxwell–
*****STANDING OVATION******* For once animals are to be treated as equal beings. I’m not a religious person, but if there is a God out there, he’s grinning from ear to ear. Well done Justice Rajiv Sharma. You will be rewarded.
So glad that a kindly Justice Rajiv Sharma has done the most wonderful thing for animals,I applaud him..
NAMASTE💞
the Galarneau family
I hope the whole of India follows suit Soon
I total agree that animal should be treated with the same respect as humans. Hooray for the state of India for recognizing that. 🦁🐯🐒
IT IS ABOUT TIME, AND GOD BLESS THEM FOR THEIR COMPASSION!!
Yay wonderful news!
Excellent news.
This is inspiring and sets a standard for the rest of the world to follow. First world countries like Canada and the US should be making note of this especially!!
People.ned.to.stop.being.crueil.to.they.animals.people.ilke.that.need.to.be.in.jail.for.lifer
This should be rolled out world wide!
Thank you very happy.
The order was signed off on 31 May by Justice Rajiv Sharma : Thank you Sri Justice Rajiv Sharma – thank you on behalf of the suffering aimals. Your human act shows rare qualities of decency and a wholesome attitude towards those that have no voice for themselves. You lead the way – Your life shines with good karma. Wish America and the world would follow suit –
thank you for making a stand that Gandhi would know enlightenment has become we are all equal.
the Galarneau family
A huge thank you from the UK Justice Sharma. Amongst all the terrible heartbreaking news regarding animal welfare we have become used to seeing you are a shining light and I just hope other countries will follow your example. Bless you.
Great news! Positive change is what we need in this world. May other places do the same…heads up, USA!
Wow, what a great man!!! America please follow suit!!
Thank you Justice Sharma I do hope people take heed when this law comes into place. Animals are very special.
Good for the State of Punjab and Haryana!
Thank God we have a wonderful higher court out there who has done something spectacular for animals. Now all we need is to get a bill everywhere throughout the world to STOP any animal abuse!
Great news!!! Now this needs to go global!!!
America should follow suit!
I never thought I would live to see the day when animals would finally have the right to live in peace without fear, pain, or injury. I congratulate Justice Sharma- I hope the laws are enforced, and people who are charged with animal cruelty receive a harsh and swift judgment. I’m particularly concerned about elephants- will people who own elephants and mistreat them have to relinquish them? We’ll see how it plays out.