How our treatment of animals reveals what it means to be human

We need not be fanatical vegans to accept that decent behaviour applies to all beings

Before one embarks on a discussion about the ethical treatment of animals and prepares to take the controversial anti-cruelty side of the debate, it is customary to establish one’s credentials as a non animal-fanatic. I am not sure why this is so. I can only observe tradition, and tell you that the one thing on this earth I am fanatical about is bacon.

Perhaps you, too, feel obliged to state that you are not an animal fanatic. Yet I suspect you are opposed to animal cruelty.

We need not believe, as some do, that animals have exactly the same rights as human beings to believe that our society ought to take all reasonable efforts to protect animals from out-andout mistreatment.

Nor must we believe, as still others do, that the pain and lives of animals are worthy of precisely the same type of concern as the pain of human beings, to know that their pain and lives merit very strong consideration.

We need not be vegan, we need not be vegetarian, we need not have ever loved an animal or even much liked one, to at least understand that animals should not be confined, kept, bred and treated throughout their lives in ways that any reasonable person could anticipate would cause their suffering.

And though we may think it fanatical to describe your pet dog in terms similar to those you use to describe your child, we know it would be much more odd to hold your dog in no greater esteem than you would any inanimate object you own — say, a particularly likable kitchen utensil.

And yet just this week a Canadian man was arrested for animal cruelty: specifically, for keeping about 60 large dogs without shelter. Around the same time, a mother and daughter duo were arrested for similar reasons, albeit involving a slightly fewer dogs.

These recent events, of course, would not in themselves be evidence of a failure on the part of policy-makers — after all, governments can no more guarantee that no one will ever treat an animal badly than they can guarantee that no one will ever treat a person badly — were it not for the fact that the same man and the same motherdaughter pair had done the same thing before, and not only did anyone fail to stop them from repeating the abuse, but Canada failed to ensure there was any possibility anyone could have stopped them. Canada doesn’t have a federal registry of animal abusers, and the really determined ones can avoid bans on animal ownership by moving from province to province. Serial silverware thieves, on the other hand, may find their record follows them.

Equally disturbing is that Canada allows pet animals to be killed by their owners for any reason at all — including for no reason at all. A pet pig was killed by the family that adopted her into it this year only to eat her, and though it may be morally repugnant to bring an animal into one’s home to be killed, it is not criminal.

Even more disturbing: Most acts of bestiality aren’t criminal, either.

Someone can sexually abuse an animal, but as long as it is only sexually abused in very specific ways, the law will tolerate it.

Canada does not do enough to protect animals. That seems fairly clear. The question is, why not?

I said I am not sure why people often feel shy talking about ethical treatment of animals. But I suspect that it derives from the fact that we understand what it means to be human in largely these terms: to be human is to not be an animal; to be human is to be better than an animal. By seriously considering the position of animals, perhaps we, and our politicians, fear looking as if we do not have our most fundamental priorities straight — that by actively working to better the lot of animals, we diminish ourselves.

But even if we believe that the mistreatment of animals is a small problem, what does our failure to address it say about our ability to resolve big ones?