Dogs' deaths, the law and speciesism

Mary Shephard writes the following letter in today's The Times:

"Brigitte Calascione (Driver Who Got Away...Twice, The Times, February 4 and Helen Cassar (Shame On The Judicial System, The Times, February 8) both have expressed their disgust at the judicial system, through which an irresponsible person got away scot free, after running over Chloe, a pet dog.

I can more than empathise with Chloe's owners; my dog Peppi was savaged and brutally murdered by an Alsatian. Peppi's lung and stomach were punctured and he died the next day in spite of the love and care I gave him. Peppi was a happy, much loved family pet - he did not deserve such a cruel death.

I, too, testified in court, together with my veterinarian and eye witnesses to the horrific attack. Who would have believed that the owner of the Alsatian would be allowed to get away scot free? It would seem that the St Julians police had presented the 'wrong papers' to the court!

And guess what? This same Alsatian attacked another dog. Yet again, St Julians police were on the scene within minutes, yet again failed to proceed with the matter. This time, the reason given was that it was not up to them to make the report! Whatever the reason, yet again, an irresponsible person got away scot free.

Why does an accident have to involve a human child for something to be done? Is a dog's life of no value at law? Shame on the judicial system!"

I will start my commentary by answering Ms Shephard's last two questions.

"Why does an accident have to involve a human child for something to be done?". Simple. The answer is that non-human animals are legally considered human property. Therefore, at law, property (pet) owners may or may not be entitled to compensation for damage or loss of property (injured or killed pets), but justice for the directly harmed party (the non-human animal) never enters the picture for the simple reason that non-humans are not legally considered as persons with rights.

Compensation (if any) given to the property (pet) owner is only given after due consideration (if any) of any blame, consideration (if any) of emotional distress caused to the property (pet) owner, and consideration of the monetary value the court arbitrarily assigns to the damaged (injured) or destroyed (killed) property (pet).

As long as non-human animals are legally and morally considered to be human property, non-humans can expect no further protection than that given to other property such as a house or a car. In most cases, the protection would actually be less, since pets are usually valued much less than cars or houses.

Also, something that should be taken into account is the fact that since non-humans are morally and legally considered by most humans to be no more than human property, it is up to the discretion of the particular police officer or law court whether to give any case involving loss or damage of property (pets) more or less importance than other "more important" cases involving "more serious" crimes. After all, as a speciesist might say, "It's only a dog. Property is replaceable. Buy yourself a new pet".

As for the second question: "Is a dog's life of no value at law?", the answer is actually very simple as well. Again, since dogs are legally nothing more than property (conceding owners' emotional ties - but emotional ties could also be claimed with respect to inanimate objects such as an object that belonged to a dead relative or loved one), the value of dogs (at law) is the value arbitrarily assigned by any presiding judge, which could range from next to nothing (as in the case of "stray" dogs - having no owner and therefore "no value" or "negative value" if seen as a nuisance), to perhaps a few hundred Euros in the case of eugenically designed property such as "pure-breeds". In any case, the value does not reflect the animal's own worth to herself (which is priceless), but is only the value that is arbitrarily reached upon after considering the property (pet)'s worth to the owner or to possible property buyers.

"Animal lovers" (and I don't consider myself one - to say I'm an animal lover makes as much sense as saying that I'm a black lover if I support equal rights for black humans, which I incidentally do) should stop deluding themselves. In a speciesist society where non-humans are legally and morally seen as human property, there can be no animal rights law. Yes, you read right. A single animal rights law is not only improbable - it is impossible. Property cannot have rights.

And what if most of us come to see non-human animals as persons in their own right, and therefore not human property? Ah, but then a lot of things most of us see as normal would need to change.

If non-human animals are not human property (and of course, they should not be, since they are individuals in their own right, who value their own lives irrespective of the arbitrary value we assign to them according to what benefits us), then we would have to stop breeding them as if they were our property. We would also have to stop killing them just because we enjoy the pleasure of the taste of their flesh, or the comfort or fashionable look of their skins. We would have to stop putting them in cages so that we enjoy looking at them or seeing them perform stunts we "teach" them to perform through coercion and violence. We would have to stop vivisecting them, a practice which if applied to humans we would describe as sadistic torture. You can't have the cake and eat it too.

Non-human animals are either human property or they are not. If they are human property, then we shouldn't be at all surprised with the "lenient" court sentences as applied in cases where pets are attacked by other non-humans, or run-over by cars, since such cases would be at most cases of propety loss or damage. But then, if pets are no longer to be considered "just property", what rational arguments shall non-animal rights "animal lovers" bring up to justify the exclusion of dogs from property status while retaining the property status of other animals such as pigs or cows?

If Ms Shephard's dog Peppi was "savaged and brutally murdered" and "he did not deserve such a cruel death", what makes it any different in the case of, for instance, cows? Aren't cows also savaged and brutally murdered? Do they deserve such a cruel death just because to most people, their flesh tastes good? Is it fine to have cows raped and their offspring taken away and, if not killed, preserved to be raped in turn for their milk? Do "animals" only have "rights" when it suits us?

Animal rights, if taken seriously, are not a matter of personal emotional ties, or even charity. Animal rights are a matter of strict justice. Animal rights entail no less than the recognition of each sentient individual as someone (as opposed to something) who values his/her own life, and whose value does no hinge on any value we arbitrarily place on them according to whether they benefit us more as "companions", slaves, or butchered carcasses.

Animal rights is about a complete denial of property status, and without the right to life and liberty (rights that are not applicable to property, as was evident in the era of black slavery), all other pseudo-rights are meaningless.

Ms Shepard concludes her letter by writing "Shame on the judicial system!", somehow expecting from our judicial system anything more than what is normally or legally expected from it. I would actually say: Shame on all of us who still see and treat any or all non-human animals as human property, whose welfare depends on our whims and on whether we are better off by their being treated badly, less badly or well, and on whether they should be allowed to be free or enslaved, live or be murdered.

If we ourselves do not treat non-humans otherwise than as our property in our daily lives, how can we expect the justice system to do otherwise? A country's laws reflect the opinions of its citizens. Unless we change ourselves and abandon all our (racist, sexist, ageist, homophobic, speciesist and all other) prejudices, we cannot expect the system to do as much.

Let us be consistently "pro-animals" (animals includes humans, who are also animals themselves) before we start expecting the justice system to be "pro-animals" itself. Let's shed our speciesist prejudices. Petophilia has no part to play in the the advancement of animal interests. It indirectly harms the animal rights cause, by promoting the view that non-human animals' worth hinges on our arbitrary preferences, apart from directly harming pet animals themselves.

Justice requires no less than the shedding of all prejudices and arbitrary discrimination. Justice requires that all sentient animals be considered as having an equal right to life and freedom from human control, manipulation and use. As long as the overall majority remain speciesists, we will never see true justice, be it in the law courts, or outside the courts' walls.