U of O law faculty to offer course in animal rights
The University of Ottawa’s law faculty is set to offer its first seminar course in animal rights this fall.
All 12 spaces in the optional course are already full, said Justine Perron, who will be co-teaching the course with lawyer Nicholas Jobidon.
Perron, who founded the Animal Protection Association at the university while she was a student there, said she got interested in animal rights after seeing videos of the treatment of animals in the food and entertainment industries.
“After seeing the reality of the situation I couldn’t live without questioning those practices that I was encouraging every day without even noticing.”
One way to create change is to tackle these issues at the legal level, she said. “I hope more lawyers will have the knowledge in that sphere of law and be more interested in that cause.”
Perron, who graduated from the University of Ottawa in June and is now studying for the Quebec bar exam, plans to broadly examine the civil code and the Criminal Code.
Each student in the class will choose a subject — topics will likely range from raising animals for food and fur to animals used for research and entertainment — and do presentations and write research papers on these subjects.
There has been a societal shift in interest in the rights of animals, said Camille Labchuk, a lawyer and the executive director of Animal Justice.
In December, for example, a bill passed that acknowledged animals are “not things” and recognizes them as “sentient beings” that have biological needs.
Last fall, Animal Justice won leave to act as an intervener in a Supreme Court appeal that decided on the definition of bestiality under the law.
Perron’s seminar is a course in civil law. The University of Ottawa’s faculty of law, like many others in North America, already offers an optional course in the laws and regulations that affect animals through its common law program.
Daphne Gilbert has taught that course since 2012. Typically, between 15 and 20 advanced law students sign up.
The course looks at philosophical questions, such as the distinction between animal rights and animal welfare, as well as laws and regulations, both national and international, and legal questions around such issues such as raising animals for food and protecting species at risk.
On a broad societal level, Gilbert has noticed a shift in appreciation for the animal welfare model and a recognition for what is good and fair for animals. But there has not been a similar shift in recognizing rights for animals.
For the most part, the law still only recognizes animals as property, she said. Aside from clear-cut cases of cruelty (in June 2014, for example, Ottawa’s Steven Helfer was sentenced to two years in jail for beating his dog Breezy with a shovel and rake before throwing her in a Dumpster) there are no standards for keeping a pet.
“It’s hard to do much to improve the lives of animals,” said Gibson.
There have been some high-profile cases that have attempted to have court recognize animals are more than possessions.
In the U.S., the Nonhuman Rights Project has sought to get the courts to recognize the rights of great apes, elephants and dolphins, attracting attention with a legal battle to release from captivity four chimpanzees used in research. So far, the group has lost, but has vowed to continue the fight.
In February, Toronto-area Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith introduced a private member’s bill aimed at modernizing animal welfare laws.
The bill aims to end shark “finning” — the practice of removing a shark’s fin, then dumping its body back into the water — by banning the import of shark fins.
It would also ban the sale of cat and dog fur and require fur source labelling as well as amending the Criminal Code on sections related to animal abuse, fighting, negligence and bestiality.
The bill is to receive a second round of debate early this fall. The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters has already said it will oppose the bill.
“I think there is a broad consensus that animals are not like a table or a chair,” said Erskine-Smith. “They are sentient. They feel pain and suffering, just as we do.”
But only a handful of lawyers in Canada have found a niche practicing animal welfare law from the animal protection side, and most legal work is done pro bono, said Gilbert.
“It’s hard to carve out a career at this point.”
Labchuk disagrees. “Animal law as a field is exploding in Canada,” she said.
“Animals already have small R rights — they have to be provided with food and water. They shouldn’t suffer,” she said. “You can achieve a lot for animals without challenging that they are ‘persons’ under the law.”
Perron wants to practice animal law. “It would be my passion,” she said. “I really think we can make change. Animals don’t have a voice.”