While I would not recommend the The Communist Manifesto as a basis for any society, the orangutans is on the verge of extinction, mainly because of the clearing of forests for palm oil plantations.

It is also being thought that the orangutan has a better ability to memorise details than humans.

Considering the ability of humans to hear, see and smell compared to many other aniumals, humans are not that sophisticated.

This is a rather simplistic article in terms of analysing Peter Singer's views. And Spain will never be a civilized country while it allows - no, encourages, as a "tourist attraction" - the routine torture and slow, brutal deaths of thousands of bulls.

"Livestock" all over the world are brutalized by the greatest predator this planet is ever going to have to answer for - humans.

ALL animals are sentient beings, capable of feeling hunger, thirst, pain, fear and loneliness. Until we, as a species recognize that, and treat animals humanely, we cannot claim any degree of civilzation.

Nicky

What a poorly argued article.

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others” has been true for centuries though not in the way Orwell has intended. The human animal has long dominated most other species. Even if we count humans as above mere animals. There is a vast difference in the way we kill pests with pesticides and 'domesticated' livestock for consumption in abattoirs.

I haven't seen the new Spanish law or read Peter Singer's book but to suggest that the Spanish government can't protect workers, immigrants and animals at the same time is not very convincing. Similarly the statement that animals as sub humans don't deserve humane treatment doesn't cut the mustard either, the RSPCA is a very popular charity in Australia and I think many people do believe that some animals do deserve humane treatment.

Hi Gusi

To be fair, I think in Australia most people believe that animals should receive humane treatment, but the wider community is largely uninformed, chooses to be so, or is apathetic about what goes on in industrialized farming such as intensive pig, meat chicken and battery hen farming.

The RSPCA, and especially Animals Australia try to get the information out there. I think there needs to be a comprehensive labelling system detailing exactly how meat and eggs are "produced". Some animals are most definitely more equal than others. If some of the practices and mutilations carried out upon "farmed" animals were carried out at all, or the same way on "companion" animals, they would attract prosecution. But because State and Federal "Codes of Practice" exist, "farmed" animals virtually have no protection under cruelty legislation. CoPs are voluntary and unenforceable, but compliance with these pitiful documents can form the basis of a defence against cruelty charges. Non-compliance, however, can form the basis of a prosecution.

Similarly, people are outraged by whaling and will spend hours in cold water trying to save a beached whale, but have no regard for the tormented lives of the animals who finish up on their plates.

Your cat or dog is definitely more "equal" because it happens to be under your table, not on it.

Cheers
Nicky

The arrogance of our species!
How dare we destroy billions of bacteria and viruses every year, just to maintain our selfish dominance of the planet.

Equal rights for cholera!

Cook's put together rather an impressive piece of propaganda, though when you actually think about it, you can see this piece for the Trojan horse that it is.

You really need to ask yourself what it is that Cook is actually criticising. It's not as simple as it sounds, because I didn't specifically hear him say he's opposed to animal rights per se. Evidently, it's just the degree of animal rights that Cook is questioning.

Which leads me to wonder what it is that Cook is really writing about in this piece. Aside from being a scarcely veiled attack on left wing views, I think this paragraph is quite telling:

"Unborn and infant humans, comatose humans, retarded humans and senile humans will all be lower in the hierarchy than a healthy chimpanzee, or guinea pig, for that matter."

Of course, were Cook to write another piece criticising pro-choice policy, it would be seen for the commentary that it is. So instead, he criticises left wing politics, and makes an oblique attack on what seems to me to be a pretty petty policy in regard to animal welfare. As Cook says himself, there's only 350 apes in zoos in the country.

So the piece essentially says that this law is stupid. Why does it say that? Because there's more important things to discuss.
So what are these more important things?

Evidently Cook wants to put in place pro-life policies. Instead of tackling the fact that this inevitably degrades women's rights.

If you think this sounds like a long bow based on this single paragraph, ask yourself what the real problem with giving apes a few more rights is - unless of course, you'd like to give the same rights to the 'unborn' as Cook makes abundantly clear.

But I suppose it's easier to pick one stupid policy, use this to tar the 'left' as incompetent and use it as a Trojan horse for his own views, than take on the complex issues of women's rights versus abortions.

Though I for one, don't particularly like this approach.

This article is full of hate against some kind of ideology that the author feels has done him some injustice by respecting animals.

I find the law (proposed or otherwise) intriguing, but not sure where I stand on it though I support the rights of animals to not be unnecessarily exploited, killed and mistreated by humans.

Nicky, I agree with most of what you are saying.

I am not sure that all animals are sentient beings. I am thinking of bacteria for instance. But to be honest I am not a biologist and am not sure where the "boundary" of animals lies.

It is well know that animals that live in social groups have a very developed consciousness. Alex the African grey parrot could express his thoughts and feelings in english and had the mental age of a 4 year old. There are also quite a few apes that have been taught sign language.

What I don't get is why people would be against animal rights.

Hi Gusi

I guess my comments are largely in relation to animals with a central nervous system, who are vertebrate, and have a clearly developed level of intelligence. I think we can establish that the "domestic" animals we use in farming all feel hunger, thirst, fear, pain and loneliness, and in most cases "wild" animals likewise.

That's why I have problems with intensive farming, rodeos, circuses, zoos and the like. Should these animals have rights? The Brambell Committee of the Farm Animal Welfare Council in the UK established decades ago the "Five Freedoms" that ALL animals, as a minimum, have the right to:

1. Freedom from Hunger and Thirst - by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health and vigour.
2. Freedom from Discomfort - by providing an appropriate environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area.
3. Freedom from Pain, Injury or Disease - by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment.
4. Freedom to Express Normal Behaviour - by providing sufficient space, proper facilities and company of the animal's own kind.
5. Freedom from Fear and Distress - by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering”.

How well do we measure up in that context?

Cheers
Nicky

Gusi, Nicky, there doesn't seem to be any logical reason for opposing these animal rights. The author admits there aren't many apes in Spain.

It's because this piece isn't actually about animal rights, it's because the author is ticked off that rights are being considered for things other than fetuses and coma patients (no mention of whether they're brain dead or not).
Rather than argue the more difficult parts of this stance (such as women's rights, or the ambiguity of forcing those on life support to live) the author has cooked up a broad spray on 'the left' and animal rights.

It's a trojan horse, pure and simple. The argument is scarcely about animal rights at all.

Nicky, TurnLeftThenRight,

Thanks for clearing that up. I'll need to think through the 5 rights for a bit. Obviously we have a long way to go with farm animals.

Gus

This shows the law of diminishing returns..and how the absence of an 'issue' causes those who's existence depends on them.. creating new ones to justify their existence,and yearning for relevance.

It also shows a window into the future.. once basic justice is established.. these left wing fools will continually become increasingly petty and pedantic and seek to control more and more minutae of our lives.

Its time for the 'oppressed classes' to right the brutal wrongs and unconscionable exploitation perpetrated against them the Left Wing twits.

The only 'illumination' they are good for is that which comes from a burning copy of the Communist manifesto...

babble babble babble 0_^

Polycarp, overgoverning cuts both ways, for both the right and the left. Once upon a time, small government was the favoured slogan of the conservatives but it's become quite evident that economic policy and social policy have only the most tenuous relationship.

I'd like to see genuinely small government in both laws regarding social policy, and economic.

Most conservatives are quite content to see big government, provided it's making laws restricting things like same-sex civil unions and abortions.

Funny that. Would you be saying the same thing if this article was about the stupidity of making extra laws governing marriage and sexual practices?

I suspect not.