PPBe topic : Animal rights

Could the "animal rights" page to be updated to "non-human living being rights"? (yes, agreed that a tag "animal rights" shall be necessary)
I am not vegetarian, and I feel deep respect for both animals and plants which give their lives so I can continue to live.
So I would appreciate if plants and fungi are not forgotten, please.

I would actually keep the name "Animal rights". I understand that you'd like to include plants, and I agree that there is some evidences showing that they could suffer too, although I don't feel there is a consensus on the need for "Plant rights". This seems to me to be another issues (more related to environmental issues), but maybe I'm wrong here.

In addition, your proposal is way too long :sweat_smile: and why "non-human" ? The distinction is not needed, imho.

As @michelbraibant wrote earlier : "And what about animal rights (that was the initial question)?". The discussion is not about how much meat humans should be eating, but what right they consider as fair for animals to have. It is about ethics. How far is an animal entitled to his own life? And can they be entitled a legal personality? (that of "patient moral" [in french], just as children or mentally handicaped people?). Are all animals entitled to the same rights, and if not according to which criteria? (speciesm is one of the big questions behind).

Bringing back what @josse's comment, there is a part of the program that we can possibly put forward as pirates: to ask for a wide social debate on animal rights - in the form of a G1000 for instance. Because our laws (various codes, the Constitution*, ...) definitely require to be updated, especially considering the fact that our "circles of empathy/compassion" have enlarged and many people disagree with animals being treated as a mere property or product. :chicken: :poultry_leg:

(*)GAIA is by the way requesting a change to the Constitution. Seems quite vague to me... not sure what the consequence of that would be. Would be interesting to have a legal person to enlighten us on Belgian laws.

J'ai signé la pétition Gaïa. Toutefois je partage les inquiétudes de Valérie D.
Que faut-il en penser? J'ai lu la page wiki avec la proposition d'ecolo, qui est
beaucoup plus complète que ce qui figure dans le texte de la pétition Gaïa.
Quel est le problème? Gaïa ne considère que la question des animaux en l'extrayant
de tout contexte global. Comme indiqué dans la proposition ecolo, il s'agit
de revoir la relation homme-animal en ce qui concerne le droit. Quant est-il de l'homme
chez Gaïa?
En fait, il faut que l'agriculture opère une transition. Cela coûte de l'argent et il
faut soutenir les agriculteurs financièrement pour qu'ils puissent se transformer.
Mais dès qu'il est question d'argent, cela devient vite impopulaire et je soupçonne Gaïa
de faire l'impasse sur le sujet.
En général, je n'aime pas la communication de Gaïa car elle joue sur les émotions faciles et ne traitent pas des problèmes globaux.
J'ai signé cette pétition car si elle aboutit elle donnera lieu à un débat d'idées sur la relation homme-animal.

English (DeepL Translatore)

I signed the Gaia petition. However, I share Valerie D's concerns.
What should we think? I read the wiki page with the ecolo proposal, which is
much more comprehensive than what appears in the text of the Gaia petition.
What's the problem? Gaïa considers only the question of animals by extracting it
of any global context. As stated in the green proposal, it is a matter of
to reconsider the human-animal relationship with regard to the law. When is he of the man
at Gaia's house?
In fact, agriculture needs to make a transition. It costs money and it's very expensive.
support farmers financially so that they can transform themselves.
But when it comes to money, it quickly becomes unpopular and I suspect Gaia.
to skip it.
In general, I don't like Gaïa's communication because it plays on easy emotions and doesn't deal with global problems.
I signed this petition because if it succeeds, it will give rise to a debate on the human-animal relationship.

Dutch (DeepL Translator)

Ik heb de petitie van Gaia ondertekend. Ik deel echter de zorgen van Valerie D.
Wat moeten we denken? Ik lees de wikipagina met het ecolo-voorstel, dat is
veel uitgebreider dan wat in de tekst van het Gaia verzoekschrift staat.
Wat is het probleem? Gaïa behandelt alleen de kwestie van de dieren door ze te extraheren
van elke mondiale context. Zoals in het groene voorstel staat, is het een kwestie van
de verhouding tussen mens en dier ten opzichte van de wet te heroverwegen. Wanneer is hij van de man?
bij Gaia's huis?
In feite moet de landbouw een transitie maken. Het kost geld en het is erg duur.
de landbouwers financieel te ondersteunen, zodat zij zichzelf kunnen transformeren.
Maar als het op geld aankomt, wordt het al snel impopulair en ik vermoed Gaia.
om het over te slaan.
Over het algemeen houd ik niet van Gaïa's communicatie, omdat het speelt op gemakkelijke emoties en niet omgaat met wereldwijde problemen.
Ik heb dit verzoekschrift ondertekend omdat het, als het slaagt, aanleiding zal geven tot een debat over de relatie tussen mens en dier.

I really like Pirate's position. Selected extract:

"Les Pirates respectent toutes les formes de vie (...)Ils s’engagent aussi pour la protection de l’environnement et pour un traitement digne des animaux. Les Pirates sont pour la durabilité et pour le préservation de la nature et de ses richesses."

I would like to ask if we could add/modify the above sentence on animal rights, so that it is including all forms of life, as mentioned on the first sentence:

** "Ils s’engagent aussi pour la protection de l’environnement et pour un traitement digne des toutes les formes de vie élevés ou cultivés pour la consommation humaine (directe ou indirecte)." **

Gaia have their own contraditions, lets put a non-exhaustive list:

** Synthetics and Nature **

They seem to be oblivious to chemical impact on nature, because they defend synthetic material - which does enormous harm to all forms of life (including human) - instead of using leather which under a correct frame can actually have zero negative impact on the environment. Of course, one cannot expect to buy a new coat every season... I agree the debate is quite supperficial from their side. I suggest that we also ask them what is their position on the impact of synthetics on marine life.

** no fur... but what about respect for workers?? **

They promote brands which said they don't use fur, but we all know that these same brands do not prove that they provide fair working conditions nor a fair share of profit for its direct or indirect workers. Exploited workers are not important??

** Respect for non-animals, e.g. plants and insects. **

I could not identify much respect for plants and insects for instance. It has been proven that plants unders stress (e.g. being eaten) communicate with other plants via chemicals in order to alert them so they can produce elements that make them less tasteful. Which proves they have sensitivity even if we do not understand it well, as we assume only central nervous systems can allow pain to be felt. Spreading tons of chemicals is not at all respectful to plants or insects for instance, I don't see any campaigns tackling this huge problem.

** free movement of animals **

How about free movement of animals? it is not even mentioned...

** Silo campaign - focus on the slaughter and not on the full farming cycle **

They have all this campaign about how to slaughter an animal but I find their campaign not really respectful because it treats animals as sensitive only but not that they also have emotions. Proposal of constitutional ammendment: "La reconnaissance des animaux en tant qu’êtres sensibles" (please advise if sensible in French also includes the idea of psyche). I also agree with the comment that their suggestion is too vague - I'll be candid: for me, it looks more like a marketing campaign for fundraising that a serious constintutional amendment proposal.

We need solutions on what are the rules for treating animals and other forms of life fairly during the full farming cycle, so that e.g. farmers can live from their work, animals can have a good life till it ends, farming with zero carbon or negative carbon emissions, positive impact of farming on diversity (e.g. plants, insects, etc). In their website they don't comment much on changing the full cycle of animal rearing - ¿because it could prove unpopular as it will mean increasing the price of meat...?
Which takes me to mention that the campaign "sans eturdissement"/"slaughter without stunning" tends to target some religious traditions (in other words, groups) - as it does not clearly or easily mention the whole problem of industrial farming/slaughter. I tend to feel suspicious when campaigns targets groups... the nazis started off by forbidding jewish people from having pets and small silly rules to implant a certain state of mind into the general population and the jewish people themselves too. This is why I say I feel suspicious. As Pirates, one should keep alert. Not to speak that some of the religious traditions were created with the idea of respecting the animal - by acknowledging that they have emotions as well as a sensitive body - that is to give its life so we can live. Yes, they are outdated, but the spirit of these traditions might still be useful for changing the full life cycle of animal rearing.

** Pet rights vs wild animal rights **

There is a lot of emphasis on pet animals, but no comment on the huge negative impact pet food has on the environment, e.g. marine life. Not to mention, capture of wild animals. So wild animals deserve no respect? Again it just shows how this organisation tends to think in silos.

** Suggested action points: **

In a nutshell, my opinion is also that their approach has been a great opportunity for us to work the details of our position.

• Work with partners to get some specifics on what is a minimal decent living space for the main animals in farming conditions: chicken, duck, goose, cattle, pigs, sheep, goat,(please add);
• Assess negative impact of pets on nature;
• Discuss IPCC (FR "GIEC") recommendations and impact on farmers [heard yesterday the recommended meat intake was around once every 10 days - I am assuming this is for adults, children should have a diff ratio I think];

Je trouve les propositions de Begonia Saavedra Ibarra très intéressantes. Je suis du même avis.
Par exemple, je modifierais légèrement la phrase proposée comme indiqué ci-dessous:

"Ils s’engagent aussi pour la protection de l’environnement et pour un traitement digne
de toutes les formes de vie notamment celles élevées ou cultivées pour la consommation humaine (directe ou indirecte)."

Etant donné que l'homme est lui aussi une forme de vie, un animal, il a droit aussi à des protections, ce qui de nos jours ne va pas de soi. Dès lors si l'agriculture venait à être modifiée, il nous faudrait tenir compte aussi du sort de l'agriculteur, il serait inclus dans le processus.

English (DeepL Translator)

I find Begonia Saavedra Ibarra's proposals very interesting. I agree with that.
For example, I would slightly modify the proposed sentence as indicated below:

"They are also committed to environmental protection and dignified treatment.
of all life forms including those raised or cultivated for human consumption (direct or indirect)."

Since man is also a form of life, an animal, he also has the right to protection, which is not self-evident nowadays. So if agriculture were to be changed, we would also have to take account of the farmer's fate, he would be included in the process.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator

Dutch (DeepL Translator)

Ik vind de voorstellen van Begonia Saavedra Ibarra zeer interessant. Daar ben ik het mee eens.
Ik zou bijvoorbeeld de voorgestelde zin enigszins willen wijzigen, zoals hieronder aangegeven:

"Zij zetten zich ook in voor milieubescherming en een waardige behandeling.
van alle levensvormen, met inbegrip van die welke voor menselijke consumptie worden opgefokt of gekweekt (direct of indirect).

Aangezien de mens ook een vorm van leven is, een dier, heeft hij ook recht op bescherming, wat tegenwoordig niet vanzelfsprekend is. Dus als de landbouw zou veranderen, zouden we ook rekening moeten houden met het lot van de boer, dan zou hij bij het proces worden betrokken.

Thanks @begoniasaavedraiba and @bobrappe. :heart:
I see your point and agree with the idea. However, as bob mentioned we should not restrict ourselves to farmed living beings. It's also about humans, but I add also about non-farmed plants and animals. Monopolization of natural resources, destruction of biotopes, and of course also fishing and hunting are also of concern. Maybe the basic text could mention "all living beings" and then give some focus examples, with farming in particular.

As for defining well-being criteria of farmed animals (such as the min. space one needs), that is trickier than it may look. Basically, we are normally already applying the so-called five freedoms, which include the freedom from discomfort and of expressing normal behavior. Great principle, but we see the result... People used to think that a chicken life was worth an A4 sheet as space. Today they got one post-it extra... how much more tomorrow? Another example comes from farmed salmons, that are often deaf because of their growth conditions in captivity. The question of "what is a normal salmon behaviour" will get an answer that is directly depending on the point of view we humans have on them. Will we care that salmons are deaf if they are just food for us? So talking about animal well-being first needs an ethical debate on the "position" of human beings with respect to other living beings (just as white people centuries ago reconsidered their position of superiority to black people).

PS : maybe we should try restraining ourselves from talking about GAIA, as its criticism could bring us far but not exactly to the point... maybe we can open another thread on that, or a wiki page ;-)

Defining what is a minimal space for a dignified life for an animal is a way of preventing having animals restricted of movement. It is a necessary starting point, and as starting point, not sufficient.
So, I invite everyone to add their contribution to the pad just created. https://pad.pirateparty.be/p/livingBeignRights

Je rejoins les idées de Valérie D.
Il s'agirait de créer une page intermédiaire spécifique pour affiner un modèle de base ?

La clef pour ce problème du bien-être animal et les autres problèmes est à trouver
dans une réflexion globale sur la société. Une fois que le diagnostique sera bien établi,
tout le reste en découlera.
Nous ne réagirons plus au coup par coup, ballotté au gré des symptômes aigus qui se manifestent en fonction de l'actualité du moment avec toujours un temps de retard.
Nous aurions alors une sorte de laboratoire, de modèle mathématique qui permettrait par la suite d'enrichir une fois validé le socle "nos valeurs".

Petite contribution (il faut bien commencer quelque part).

Si on prend un cas qui nous occupe, celui des animaux d'élevage...
Il n'est pas possible de définir à priori quelles seraient les conditions optimales d'élevage pour les animaux. Il faut partir de la situation existante, celle des agriculteurs englués dans la spirale de l'endettement et qui n'ont plus la maîtrise de leur secteur, celui-ci étant au main du marché qui est dominé par la finance et les industriels de l'agroalimentaire. Ce sont eux qui fixent les prix. Ces derniers considèrent la production du vivant comme une matière première (comme le pétrole) et ils font tout pour que celle-ci soit la moins chère possible. Dans le modèle dominant prôné par l’Europe, les agriculteurs doivent s'endetter pour s'équiper de matériels sophistiqués pour produire toujours plus avec moins de personnel. Le but recherché qui se dessine est la captation des terres agricoles par des financiers qui sont les seuls à pouvoir investir lourdement dans cette agriculture intensive.
La chaine de tv Arte a bien décrit le phénomène.

English (DeepL Translator)

I agree with Valerie D's ideas.
It would be a question of creating a specific intermediate page to refine a basic model?

The key to this problem of animal welfare and other problems is to be found
in a global reflection on society. Once the diagnosis is well established,
everything else will come out of it.
We will not react any more to the piece by piece, bounced around according to the acute symptoms which manifest themselves according to the actuality of the moment with always a time of delay.
We would then have a kind of laboratory, a mathematical model that would then make it possible to enrich the base "our values"once validated.

Small contribution (you have to start somewhere).

If we take a case that concerns us, the livestock case...
It is not possible to define a priori what the optimal breeding conditions for animals would be. It is necessary to start from the existing situation, that of farmers trapped in the spiral of indebtedness and who no longer have the control of their sector, this one being in the hand of the market which is dominated by finance and agri-food industries. They set the prices. The latter consider the production of living organisms as a raw material (like oil) and do everything to make it as cheap as possible. In the dominant model advocated by Europe, farmers have to go into debt to equip themselves with sophisticated equipment to produce more and more with fewer people. The goal that is emerging is the capture of agricultural land by financiers who are the only ones able to invest heavily in this intensive agriculture.
The tv channel Arte described the phenomenon well.

Dutch (DeepL Translator)

Ik ben het eens met de ideeën van Valerie D.
Zou het een kwestie zijn van het creëren van een specifieke tussenpagina om een basismodel te verfijnen?

De sleutel tot dit probleem van dierenwelzijn en andere problemen is het volgende
in een mondiale bezinning op de samenleving. Zodra de diagnose goed is vastgesteld,
Al het andere zal eruit komen.
We zullen niet meer stuk voor stuk reageren op de acute symptomen die zich volgens de actualiteit van het moment manifesteren met altijd een tijd van vertraging.
We zouden dan een soort laboratorium hebben, een wiskundig model dat het dan mogelijk zou maken om de basis "onze waarden"te verrijken zodra ze gevalideerd zijn.

Kleine bijdrage (u moet ergens beginnen).

Als we een geval nemen dat ons bezighoudt, de zaak van de veestapel....
Het is niet mogelijk om a priori vast te stellen wat de optimale fokomstandigheden voor dieren zouden zijn. We moeten uitgaan van de huidige situatie, die van de boeren die in de schuldenspiraal zitten en die niet langer de controle hebben over hun sector, namelijk die van de markt die wordt gedomineerd door de financiële sector en de agrovoedingsindustrie. Zij bepalen de prijzen. De laatste beschouwen de productie van levende organismen als grondstof (zoals olie) en doen er alles aan om het zo goedkoop mogelijk te maken. In het dominante model dat door Europa wordt bepleit, moeten boeren schulden aangaan om zich te voorzien van geavanceerde apparatuur om steeds meer met minder mensen te produceren. Het doel dat zich aandient is het veroveren van landbouwgrond door financiers die als enige in staat zijn om fors te investeren in deze intensieve landbouw.
Het tv-kanaal Arte heeft het fenomeen goed beschreven.

I suggest we open a pad.

So the starting point being:

"Pourriez-vous me dire précisément où se situe le Parti Pirate en ce qui concerne les droits des animaux ?"

Here it is: https://pad.pirateparty.be/p/livingBeignRights