Koos van Zomeren (author) interviewed Dirk Boon, professor of Animal Rights at the University of Utrecht (he is a former candidate for the Party for the Animals) about his frustration that article 36, first subsection of the Health and Welfare act for Animals, is never enforced. |
Koos van Zomeren in the Dutch newspaper NRC, August, 25, 2002. See also Dirk Boon in: "everyone will be vegetarian in 25 years time”. |
"If I said that cows have a right to being put out to graze in grassland, what would your reaction be?” "Hm", said Koos van Zomeren. |
He, the legal man, gives the impression of using the concept of "rights” more loosely than I, the writer. After all, In both questions the rights of cows to this or that were quite simply put. Rights , metaphorically speaking. A somewhat faded figure of speech that I would hesitate to use myself And as soon as you want to elevate the term `rights´ to a legal status, you find yourself confronted with enormous problems. To start with, you would need to have proof that the welfare of cows would be enhanced by roaming grasslands and having access to shade. Furthermore, the question still remains as to how the rights of cows to welfare (coupled with the rights of the Dutch people to a pleasantly decorated landscape) relate to the rights of the farmers to profitable businesses. |
At this stage, one thing is clear: legislation has afforded animals rights in the formal sense of the word. When asked about his favourite legal article, he cited immediately and with great enthusiasm the first subsection of article 36 of the Health and Welfare Act for Animals of 1992. "It is forbidden without reasonable purpose, or by overstepping that which is acceptable for attaining that purpose, to cause pain or injury to an animal or to endanger the health or welfare of an animal.” Sipping his tea, he concludes: "A marvelous thing! Especially the parenthesis - `or by overstepping that which is acceptable for attaining that purpose`- stands out in its beauty.” |
It will always be a balancing of interests , those of the animals as against the those of the other. It is not of interest to the cat, for example, whether it is cut open by a sadistic 16 year old schoolboy or by a 36 year old scientist searching for a cure for aids, but it is of interest to the judge. |
The formulation of the article dates from ancient times. It is based on two stipulations against animal abuse which were incorporated in the Code of Penal Law in 1886. The Minister of Justice, Modderman, was at that time on the trail of animal rights. But at the end of the day, it wasn't the animals who were afforded rights to be safeguarded from pain and injury, but the members of the upper classes who obtained rights to be protected from the coarseness of the lower classes, or plebs. As late as 1980, Parliament decided to abandon the indecency element and determined that there was an obligation to treat animals with dignity, to respect their interests and to leave them in their intrinsic value. |
Boon: "Intrinsic value, everyone loved it, but that concept can be put in the fridge, as far as I'm concerned. It is the same as insults and slander. It is there, absolutely, but what can you do with it?” |
The law distinguishes between animals which are "kept” and those that are "not kept”. In the case of kept animals, a further distinction is made between animals for production, for companionship and laboratory animals. Non-kept animals are, in their turn further divided into wild animals and dangerous animals. |
"Animal protection has never", he says, "never been able to achieve anything. The cart-dog was only prohibited when transport had long been motorized”. |
I: "Maybe you should rely more on the price of land than on the law.” I: "And you want to put an end to that?" |