Restoring our proud heritage of protecting animals responsibility of our Constitution makers

The Lal Wijenayake Committee appointed to receive public representations for Constitutional Reform has recommended that provision for animal protection be enshrined in the proposed Constitution. To quote the recommendation:“Several groups came before the Committee to advocate on behalf of the need to include animal rights as a Constitutional provision. These groups argued on the basis that animals are sentient beings who like humans have a right to life. They also cited the examples of several countries such as New Zealand, France and Austria who have statutorily recognized animals as sentient beings.

While Article 29 of the current Constitution bestows a responsibility on the State to “protect, preserve and improve the environment for the benefit of the community”, animal rights groups pointed out that since the Directive Principles are not enforceable in any court or tribunal, there is a gap in implementation.

The Committee recommends that a clause enshrining justiciable protection for animals preventing cruelty and promoting their welfare should be considered for inclusion in the Bill of Rights. This should ensure humane and compassionate treatment of animals.”

This is a momentous step towards assuring Sri Lanka’s commitment to providing a fair and just society, not only to its people, but also to its other living creatures – the animals, who have neither a voice nor a vote.

Animal Rights Activists commend the Wijenayake Committee for recommending not mere protection but protection and recommending such protection to animals.

Constitutional protection for animals demonstrates a political will to promote animal welfare and will guide policy makers, judicial and law enforcement authorities, administrators and society in general to change their attitudes towards animals, for their betterment.

Powerful civil society activism has been a major contributory factor towards incorporating animal protection in national constitutions.

In Sri Lanka, the campaign is of very recent origin and we are fortunate that the Wijenayake Committee has acknowledged that need without reservation.

Animal rights advocates in some countries have struggled for years and sometimes succeeded in achieving it only as a non-justiciable Directive Principle, or as applicable only to particular animal species.

The campaign in Germany commenced in the 1980’s. Discontented by delays, individual States began to incorporate this protection into their own constitutions. Erin Evans (University of California) in “Constitutional Inclusion of Animal Rights in Germany and Switzerland” refers to how judicial determinations spurred German activists to intensify their campaigns, by citing two cases - one being where a court held that a Berlin college teacher who was denied a permit to conduct research, on the basis that it would cause cruelty to the animal, was an infringement of his right to freedom of profession and the other,where the Supreme Court allowed a practising Muslim to perform ritual slaughter involving unnecessary cruelty, a decision that caused a public uproar. Reporting on the “goahead given to award animals rights in the constitution alongside those given to human beings” in 2002, Kate Connolly states that“their entry into the constitution ends a decade-long battle between politicians and campaigners.”

Evans relates that when the Swiss canton of Aargua recognised the “dignity of animals” in its constitution, it “brought about a demand from animal welfare circles that the notion be included in the federal constitution”. The Swiss constitution was amended in 1992 to regulate the boundaries of gene technology, using as Evans says, “the country’s system of direct democracy, including the referendum since that is the easiest way of social mobilization to access policy making”. Today the constitution of Switzerland acknowledges animals as beingsrather thanthings.

Mara Alioto (Northwestern University)observes that in the Egyptian constitution, “the clause on animal protection was included as the result of Egyptian activist groups, not because the drafters came up with it on their own. The animal rights activists had to decide how much emphasis to put on Islamic law and how much to focus on arguments based on international standards. Activists approached the Salafist party during the drafting of the 2012 constitution. The proposed article and the arguments supporting it were based mainly on Islamic law, especially the Quran. However, when the 2012 constitution went into force, there was nothing on animal rights ………. Luckily for the activists, the 2012 Constitution did not last for very long. The new constitution drafting committee was made up of a very different group than the previous committee since the Muslim Brotherhood was excluded from the drafting process.”Activists argued that international conventions regarding (kindness to animals) which Egypt had ratified,obliged the State to implement this commitment – the phrase said to have deep roots in the Islamic tradition.

Today, as World Animal Net records, many countries give constitutional protection to animals.

W.A.Hiranya Jayatilaka (University of Kelaniya) writing on “Measures Taken by Ancient Kings to Protect Animals” states that animals rendered a great help to human life of ancient societies, where there was an established co-relation between humans and animals, and even centuries ago, animal protection was a necessity- a challenge that our ancient rulers successfully faced, as evidenced by historic rock inscriptions and ancient chronicles. Andrew Scott, in a feature on “Some animals mentioned in the

cites many instances of royal protection for animals - King Parakrama Bahu establishing an animal hospital, King Upatissa establishing a bird sanctuary, King Mahinda 11 distributing rice and cakes to wild boar and other animals, King Buddhadasa treating a cobra to remove a boil from the animal’s body and other Kings who fed animals without reserve.King Nissanka Malla gave security to all animals, decreeing that no animal shall be killed within seven leagues of the city.

That rich animal friendly cultural heritage which began over 2500 years ago with Arahat Mahinda’s words, to deer hunter King Devanam Piyatissa, “Oh! Great King, the birds of the air and the beasts have an equal right to live and move about in any part of this land as thou. The lands belongs to the peoples and all other beings and thou art only the guardian of it”, inspiring succeeding kings to assure State protection to animals, based on compassion, the very tenet of Buddhism, where it is wrong to kill or harm any living being, sadly declined with colonialism. Enshrining animal protection in our Supreme Law, the Constitution,will hopefully be the new beginning to restoring that proud heritage; and that responsibility lies in the hands of our Constitution makers.