Few people know about Mauritius being the second largest exporter of primates for research. Thousands of monkeys are captured from the wild every year and forced to breed, and they are then bundled off to dubious laboratories overseas where the poor animals are subjected to vivisection and countless other atrociously painful experiments.
Please read about BUAV's laudable campaign below and do sign the petitions and write letters urging the Mauritian Government to put an end to this cruel trade of suffering and despair. Primates, like all other animals, are sentient beings who deserve protective legislation. I hope the government of Mauritius is able to take the wise and compassionate step of putting an end to this trade.
It is true that a lot of money is made from this trade and many try to justify this basing themselves on a variety of reasons such as:
- That the primates are not indigenous to Mauritius
- That the millions of dollars made help support the economy of the country
Both premises are inherently wrong and misguided. Even if some primates might not be indigenous to the island, this does not mean that one should partake in the extreme evil it is to try to get rid of them in any way possible. Sending them off to be vivisected and to suffer countless agonies are not how civilised nations ought to operate. There are now various alternatives to cruel experiments on animals, and all countries must strive to better and make use of those alternatives.We should not be basing ourselves on such an unpardonably discriminatory basis in order to justify causing stress, suffering and pain to sentient beings.
A country can also never make real progress if that progress comes at the cost of the suffering of innocent animals. I would rather be dirt poor, but practising compassion, instead of being wealthy and this money made on the heads and blood of animals crying of pain in laboratories worldwide. We only have one life to live, but we have the opportunity of trying to nourish our souls by being compassionate and acknowledging that, for whatever reason, causing an animal to suffer can never be justified.
The image of Mauritius as the purported 'Paradise Island' has been greatly harmed by the way we treat our animals.Animal welfare legislation are not only absent in the country, but the country also engages in dishonourable practises such as these! We must, as a nation, strive to promote animal welfare and stop the export of monkeys. It is only when the animals of the country have legislation protecting them against such cruelty that the island will really deserve the above praise.
The capture and trapping of monkeys in Mauritius must be put to a stop once and for all. Please read and sign below:
http://www.buav.org/our-campaigns/primate-campaign/
http://www.buav.org/our-campaigns/primate-campaign/buav-primate-trade-investigations/trading-in-cruelty/take-action
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/mauritius_vivisection_trade/
Saturday 3 December 2011
This is a response to the article titled “Pris sur le vif - Chiens de race" which appeared in Week-End, 4th Dec 2011.
This is a response to the article titled “Pris sur le vif - Chiens de race" which appeared in Week-End, 4th Dec 2011. I tried emailing this to the newspaper but, sadly, its quota is said to be "exceeded". However, I posted this comment on an unrelated article, hoping they will redirect it to the relevant person:
I am writing because I am extremely shocked by the vicious and wrong approach adopted against dogs in this article. How can a newspaper blatantly write articles which so clearly have no notion of animal welfare at all? The article even talks of using "baton" (wooden stick) against dogs!
And the ending line about putting dogs first is just so stupid as to be unfit of any intelligent journalist. Yes, a compassionate government should put people and all animals first, and it is time that you, journalists, try to even briefly think about the intelligence and sentiments of the people who might be reading your newspapers. How can a journalist write such a biased article which outright propounds that human beings are the supreme beings on the planet and that animal (dogs) are inferior to them? This is false and shows that no amount of thinking, creativity, originality, research or even generosity of thought went into the matter. An article should reflect the journalist's maturity and intelligence and I'm afraid that if your journalisist write so very biased and downright anti-animal welfare stuffs like that, then I won't be able to trust any valid report you may have. In my eyes, the Week-End newspaper (Le Mauricien) has lost a great part of its credibility and be sure, my family and friends will know about that too!
An article such as this very clearly adopts a brainwashing approach which again seeks to vilify dogs. Relentlessly, the media is trying to portray animals, especially dogs, as nuisances when it is a shame that such a word can even be used linked to any living being. Does your journalist have no notion of the sanctity of life?
In a small country such as ours, we need to be promoting the cause of animal welfare, and responsible journalists ought to do greater research before publishing anything. Is there no sense of responsible journalism nowadays? Have you no idea that to some people their dogs and other pets are like their sons, daughters, and friends without whom they cannot live? And in such a scenario, wouldn't one want all the animals in Mauritius to be attributed certain protections from abuse and cruelty, and this article is very clearly verbal abuse against dogs!
This extremely silly piece of writing seriously undermines all the laudable work done by organisations such as PAWS. You are not in any way furthering animal welfare or encouraging people to take some time and try to understand dogs and not to vilify them. Man's best friend does not need to be made victim of such silly propaganda. They are so much more noble, and absolutely DOES NOT deserve to be treated as inferior to man! That last line of your piece of writing is grossly uneducated, misguided, and shames this whole newspaper which condoned it.
Human beings, on an everyday basis, use and abuse animals in all sorts of ways, and yet, a human being can still afford to write such a discrediting and unspeakably nonsensical piece? This has truly shocked and saddened me. I am disappointed with the level of writing and how a newspaper can publish stuffs like that without thinking at all. Indeed, we should put animals first in all our considerations because without them we cannot live! They are vulnerable beings which need to be protected. Of course, an issue such a responsible ownership must be advocated, this is very important, but there is absolutely no need to malign dogs and write such outrageously biased articles! Such a shame, Week-End, such a big shame. Is that article a legacy to your children and population? Is that the level of intelligence and reasoning you want to bequeath to the citizens? I hope you remedy to this by expounding much more about the need for animal welfare and anti-cruelty legislations, which are increasing concerns worldwide, instead of hoisting such stupidities upon your readers!
A very disappointed and disgusted reader,
Rajshree Boyragee
The above is what I tried to bring to the attention of the newspaper.
Many newspapers in Mauritius do not seem to care about issues such as animal welfare and often come up with articles thoroughly biased against dogs. Where our fellow four-legged creatures are concerned, they are tried without any benefit of a doubt attributed to them. It is high time all of us, the local media included, start thinking about how our animals can be protected. Countless aberrant abuses and cruelty against them go unreported and are hardly ever mentioned in newspapers!
We, humans, live in a world together with animals, and yet, our local newspapers hardly ever feature those magificent beings in favourable lights. Animals are used and abused for a variety of things and we do not think about them at all...but on the occasion of a dog biting someone, everyone jumps on the conclusion that the animal is at fault or ought to be put down immediately or even taken away from its family (fair trials for animals are unheard of and would probably be scoffed at by many). So many forget the cruelties and endless persecution suffered by animals on Earth because of the beyond cruel ways men treat them. It is true that there are many irresponsible owners and everyone should strive to educate each other about what responsible ownership entails; however, there is no reason for an animal to be so promptly vilified just because it is an animal. And there is of course no need to say stuffs (such as the said article proposed) about the government needing to change its slogan and that instead of putting people first, it should put dogs first. This is shamefully misguided, inappropriate, and shameful bias towards our innocent animals.
Yes, A TRULY COMPASSIONATE NATION, puts its ANIMALS on the same footing as the VULNERABLE GROUPS in society which need extra protection. YES, animals ought to have rights such as not being made victim of cruelty, and YES, animals are equal, IF NOT SUPERIOR, to men, because animals DO NOT SUPPORT wars, bloodshed, nor hatred. Animal-kind are so much more better evolved than human beings in so many ways. They are peaceful, compassionate, loving, and so very wise. We need to wake up, people, to the fact that the country needs animal welfare legislation as well as campaigns which promote compassion!
Saturday 19 November 2011
Defending street dogs in Mauritius - they need you; be their voice.
Be a voice for the hapless street dogs and all the other animals victims of cruelty and neglect...
2012 Budget in Mauritius: Rs13.5 million given to the MSPCA to catch stray dogs. (See link: http://www.gov.mu/portal/site/Mainhomepage/menuitem.a42b24128104d9845dabddd154508a0c/?content_id=6e33f36684d83310VgnVCM1000000a04a8c0RCRD) Sign the petition advocating for a compassionate approach to this issue: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/defending-street-dogs-in-mauritius---a-compassionate-approach-urgently-needed/ Join FB page here: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Defending-street-dogs-in-Mauritius-they-need-you-be-their-voice/179166805506156?sk=wallThis page has been created with the aims of urging the Government of Mauritius to consider implementing humane dog population control programme, to promote mass sterilisation campaigns rather than focusing on the catching and killing of strays, and to promote animal welfare awareness. The strays must be sterilised and put up for adoption by caring families. Mauritius has been dealing with the problem of strays since 1972 and year after year, the situation is the same. It is clear that leading a ruthless campaign which depicts strays as being a nuisance is not effective. Instead, the campaigns should focus on how letting a stray wander is in itself cruel, because the animal has to fend for its life by looking for meagre scraps of food and be subjected to the contempt and cruelty of people who do not care (animals deserve much more than that!). That this cruelty is being done against an animal should be the focus: not that the poor strays are "eyesores" as many people seeing adverts and campaigns start to think. Back in time, the Huelec Chamber for the electrocution of dogs had been used (the animals are terrified when they are dragged to be killed).**This is as per the International Animal Rescue Organisation's report in 1999/ 2002. (It is classed as being old fashioned by many animal welfare circles and all RSPCA centers now use the 'lethal injection method of euthanasia. Even if the Heulec chamber is painless for the animal the trauma it experiences by being dragged from it's pen into the chamber needs to be addressed."). ***There is an update from the IAR: " IAR maintains close links with PAWS, the local animal welfare group, and we are told by PAWS that the dreaded electrocution cabinets are no longer used to kill the dogs. Instead, they are killed by an injection directly into the heart. This is still not a recognised method. " As they currently stand, animal control standards are unacceptable, inhumane, and do not operate using the highest standards of animal welfare In the view of the language used in the general media about stray dogs and even in sensitisation campaigns, these poor beings have been depicted as being a nuisance, a pest instead of a being deserving something much better than wandering on the streets, looking for food, and some meagre signs of affection from the people who are kind enough to smile at them. Most of these dogs are first caught in a serious-injuring inflicting manner, with no consideration whatsoever about the enormous stress and pain the dogs undergo. Countless members of the public (and even tourists!) have been shocked to see dogs fighting for their lives being beaten on their heads if they prove challenging to capture. These hapless dogs are then put to death.The Rs13.5 million (2012 Budget) allocated to the MSPCA to capture strays in that same cruel manner could have instead focused on training officers about how to properly handle the dogs by caring about their welfare, the vaccination and mass sterilisation of dogs - these are the only humane, long-term, and effective ways to reduce the population of strays! Laws in Mauritius are grossly antiquated and have little to no measures concerning animal welfare. These poor souls don't have a voice. Be their voice. Here is a 2002 report of the International Animal Rescue organisation: (http://www.radiomoris.com/forum/discussions-generales/3370-mauritius-society-prevention-cruelty-animals-mspca.html) Quoting from the said report, which accurately depicts how misleading the name " Mauritius Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals" is: "In our view the MSPCA have a fine infrastructure however they seem to have lost their way. The inflexible nature of the management system is symptomatic of the current policies being followed by the Society.These policies seem to be based on a militaristic view of animal control rather than a compassionate animal welfare policy that would normally be employed." "We found the views of Dr S on compulsory sterilization of the dog population to be somewhat confused. On many occasions he agreed that this was the only way to control the dog population and the next minute he would tell us that the program would never work." "We were taken by Dr S to visit the Dog pound in Port Louis and witnessed the "control of dogs" within the compound. We also went on a dog catching expedition with Dr S.We witnessed the netting of two dogs. Both of these dogs were netted in a very rough way and were hurled into the back of the van with no thought about whether the dog would be injured. We witnessed the hostility of the public towards the MSPCA dog catchers and in fact were under severe threat of attack after Dr.S decided to call them all of the names under the sun! One of the dogs caught was taken from the forecourt of a small shop and the family that owned it immediately came running out of the shop to try and ask for the animals return.The young daughter was crying for the release of her dog and the family were ignored.The dog was taken! IAR returned to the shop on our own to discuss the retrieval of their dog from the dog compound. They told us that they would have to hire a car to go to Port Louis to pick the dog up and told us it would cost about 1000 Rupees* which is a weeks wages for most Mauritians!" "We returned to the shop a day later to see if they had managed to claim their dog back. We were told that they went to the dog pound and identified their dog.They had to pay 1700 Rupees (nearly 50% of an average months wages ) .After paying the money they were told that they could not have their dog then but would need to go to the Rose Hill HQ to pick the dog up at 5.00pm. This involved the family in four separate journeys in one day at considerable expense in time and money to reclaim their dog. This attitude has totally alienated the general public against the MSPCA." "It is our view that the MSPCA currently run an efficient dog killing service** with little or no compassion shown to the animals.The simple gentle handling of the dogs and reassurance was totally absent." * Please note that this Rs1700 in 2002 has now become an unfair, and cruelly expensive Rs10000 or more in 2011. People who love their dogs and might have unintentionally let them free for a short while are subjected to this grossly unacceptable demand. One wonders whether this could amount to a deprivation of property under Section 8 of the Constitution. However interesting it would be to debate in the Supreme Court, this is a very serious matter and the amount of this fine must be drastically cut. Only people who care about their dogs would come in search of them, wouldn't they? Why in the world punish them for loving that innocent being, who many times is no less than a family member? Why can't the families be given the benefit of the doubt, instead of tried at the outset of being guilty of letting their pets loose!? **The MSPCA does run an effective dog killing service, but this does nothing to help reduce the population of strays. Stray animals suffer on the streets - that is a form of cruelty and it is with this approach in mind that the dogs must be humanely handled, not because these living beings are a so-called "nuisance"! See the following report by the OIE (World Organisation for Animal Health): http://www.icfaw.org/Documents/Supporting%20the%20implementation.pdf When it comes to Mauritius, the report says the country needs: "1) Support for the introduction of humane stray-animal control programme 2) Better capture and handling techniques" The Oie recommends the "reduction of the use 'catch and kill' as only population management tool. Moreover, as if the cruelty is not enough in the morning. Starting in mid January, the dog-catchers will even work at night (till about 22:00); there is something sinister in this way of working into the night - animal lovers are heartbroken to hear the helpless cries of dogs as they are being violently bundled off into the dog-catchers' vehicle in the morning, now they will be compelled to witness and hear this heartbreakingly cruel scene even at night. This is why it is urgent to implement humane, internationally standards of handling these animals immediately. Proposed solutions: 1) A good start will be made by changing the way we talk of animals and street dogs in particular. These are sentient beings capable of feeling pain, fear, happiness, and sadness. It is recommended that a pro-animal welfare tone is used in legislations drafted with animals in mind. The government is urged to provide humane animal-handling methods to the officers of the MSPCA who are involved with dog-catching (methods recommended internationally). Organisations such as the World Society for the Protection of animals (WSPA)/ Humane Society International (HSI)/PAWS could be asked for guidance. Why should it be that many members of the public should look upon the famed "camion lichiens" (dog-catchers) with dread and tension? (I know I do) This doesn't have to be the case. With the appropriate resources diverted towards training the officers for humane dog-catching techniques, maybe a general member of the public might even come to their help to calm the animals, to help them suffer less fear and stress. The stray dogs need then be sterilised and put up for adoption to responsible, caring families. 2) Families who come to request their dogs back should not be punished/ condemned to pay an excessive amount of money. Even those who commit road contraventions do not pay this amount! Those found guilty of cruelty to animals usually end up paying less than Rs2000! 3) Compulsory sterilisation of every and each new pet acquired in the household is another option. An effective control of breeders should be maintained. Mass sterilisation is the most humane option and should be intensified. The cruelty behind pet shops and puppy mills are well-known. Only licensed people should be able to sell pets across the island, and these should respect international animal welfare standards. (They should also be very few in number; people wanting pets should consider adopting a sterilised stray dog or puppy - these hunger for love and affection that has been deprived to them since birth). 4) Ultimately, it is advocated that no animals should be killed, and that they should instead be sterilised and put up for adoption. However, if this is not possible, then the most compassionate and painless way of putting the poor animal to sleep must be considered.This is what Humane Society International's US branch has to say about humane and painless method of putting an animal to sleep: "The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) recommends the injection of sodium pentobarbital, prepared specifically for use as a euthanasia product, as the preferred agent for animal euthanasia. This method, properly performed, has been deemed the most humane, least stressful, safest, and most professional choice by The HSUS, the American Veterinary Medical Association, The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, American Humane Association, and the National Animal Control Association. The HSUS strongly believes that there should be two people involved in the euthanasia process: one to hold and calm the animal and one to inject the drug. Intravenous (IV) injection (into the vein) is the most rapid and reliable method of performing euthanasia by injection when it can be administered without causing fear or distress in the animal. Sodium pentobarbital may be administered by intraperitoneal (IP) injection (into the peritoneal cavity) to cats, kittens, and puppies if IV injection is deemed to be impractical or stressful for the animal. The use of pre-euthanasia drugs is not always necessary but should be considered prior to administration of sodium pentobarbital, to ensure safe and humane handling of certain aggressive or frightened animals. Muzzling and other forms of humane restraint may also be used when needed." Here are some links you might want to consult: http://www.hsi.org/assets/pdfs/eng_euth_statement.pdf http://www.animalsheltering.org/resource_library/policies_and_guidelines/statement_on_euthanasia.html It must be noted that the Gas chamber, too, is an atrociously cruel method of killing animals and should never be adopted. 4) Educating the public about animal welfare, encouraging debates about animal welfare codes. Street dogs should cease to be labelled as pests and nuisance in official sensitisation campaigns. Controlling the population of stray dogs is an important matter because a dog having to wander aimlessly in the street is in itself cruel. It is cruel for the animal to constantly have to fight against starvation. They are in danger of getting into accidents and even face the insults, kicks and mistreatment from some heartless individuals. Only on these terms should a humane dog control population programme be put in place, and not on the basis that they are a nuisance. We are hoping, Sir, that you will consider adopting a compassionate approach to this matter and will stand forth as a wise leader, listening not only to the voice of animal lovers, but also to the voices of animals which are suffering. As Jean-Jacques Rousseau the famous 18th-century French philosopher said: "What wisdom can you find that is greater than kindness?" Sincerely, The Petition Signers PS: Dear friends, you can also use extracts of the above petition and write/email government officials and voice out your concern. Here are some relevant emails: A. The MSPCA (Mauritius Society for the Prevention of Cruelty Against Animals (sometimes seems like a misleading name, sadly) contact here: http://www.mspca-mu.org/index.php?option=com_aicontactsafe&sTask=message&r_id=2102901405&task=display&Itemid=49&pf=1&lang=en i) Dr The Hon Navinchandra Ramgoolam, GCSK, FRCP Prime Minister's Office New Treasury BuildingIntendance StreetPort Louis Tel: 201 1331-33 Fax: 211 7099 Website: http://pmo.gov.mu/ e-mail: pmo@mail.gov.mu ii) The Hon Charles Gaetan Xavier Luc Duval, GSCK Minister of Finance and Economic Development New Government House, Port Louis Tel: 201 2507/201 1146 Fax: 211 0096 Website: http://mof.gov.mu/ e-mail: mof@mail.gov.mu iii) The Hon John Michael Tzoun Sao Yeung Sik Yuen Ministry of Tourism and Leisure Level 12, Air Mauritius Centre, Port Louis Tel: 211 7930 Fax: 208 6776 Website: http://tourism.gov.mu/ e-mail: mtou@mail.gov.mu iv) The Hon. Lormus Bundhoo Minister of Health and Quality of Life Emmanuel Anquetil Building Port Louis Tel: +230 201 2175 Fax: +230 208 7222 Website: http://health.gov.mu/e-mail: moh@mail.gov.mu iv) The Hon Mr. Yatindra Nath Varma The Attorney General's Office Level 2, 3, 4,5 and 6 Renganaden Seeneevassen Building Port Louis Tel: +230 203 4740 Fax: +230 211 3819/ 213 0250 Website: http://attorneygeneral.gov.mu/ Email: ago@mail.gov.mu Also write to the municipalities across the island. Write to them to let them know you do not support the cruel handling of strays by dog-catchers. Tell them you would rather they call upon the government, and use their own delegated powers, to help put in place humane methods such as mass sterilisation, sensitisation campaigns with a compassionate outlook,provide for training about humane catching of dogs by MSPCA officers. Call upon them to advocate for the humane control of the population of strays. Put your heart and soul in all your letter/s (you can use the bcc or cc function of your email to help you), and speak up fearlessly. The animals need you. Beau Bassin/Rose Hill Municipal Council of BB/Rose Hill Town Hall Royal Road, Rose Hil lTel: 454 9500 Fax: 454 9509 Email: mubbrh@intnet.mu Website: www.bbrh.org Curepipe Municipal Council of Curepipe Queen Elizabeth Avenue,Curepipe Tel: 670 4897 Fax: 676 5056 Email: curepipe@intnet.mu Website: www.curepipe.org Port Louis Municipal Council of Port Louis Jules Koenig Str.,Port Louis Tel: 212 0831 Fax: 212 4258 Email: townclerk@intnet.mu Website: mpl.intnet.mu Quatre Bornes Municipality Council of Quatre Bornes St. Jean Rd., Quatre Bornes Tel:: 454 8054 Fax: 466 0571 Email: mcqb@intnet.mu Website: www.qb.mu Vacoas / Phoenix Municipality Council of Vacoas/Phoenix St. Paul Ave.,Vacoas Tel:: 696 2975 Fax: 696 4668 Email: mvp@mcvp.intnet.mu Website: vacoasphoenix.gov.mu Moka / Flacq District Council of Moka/Flacq Royal Road,Quartier Militaire Tel:: 435 5531 Fax: 435 5661 Email: mokaflacq@yahoo.com Website: www.mokaflacq.org Pamplemousses/Riv.Du Rempart District Council of Pamplemousses & Riv. Du Rempart Royal Road, Mapou Tel:: 266 2095 Fax: 266 1405 Email: prdcce@intnet.mu Website: www.prdconline.org Black River District Council of Black River Geoffroy Road,Bambous Tel:: 452 0304 Fax: 452 0303 Email: briverdc@intnet.mu Website: www.brdc.intnet.mu Grand Port Savanne District Council of Grand Port Savanne Royal Road, Rose Belle Tel:: 627 4575 Fax: 627 4640 Email: gpsdc@intnet.mu Website: gpsdc.intnet.mu 7) To all the compassionate souls reading this, sharing, and taking action, thank you for all you do for animals. Know how precious you all are! We can only hope for a world where no stray animals are killed and where compassion becomes a way of life. Everything starts with us, though. If animal lovers don't do anything, who will? "Until he extends the circle of his compassion to all living things, man will not himself find peace." "A man can do only what he can do. But if he does that each day he can sleep at night and do it again the next day." Albert Schweitzer, early 20th-century German Nobel Peace Prize-winning mission doctor |
The draft of the "dog control bill" is a shamefully backward, cruel and badly written piece of writing.
This is the letter I sent to Ministries of the country. Unfortunately, the Ministry of Agro-Industry's email was not reachable because its quota was full.
I have just read the draft called "Dog Control Bill" (http://www.gov.mu/portal/goc/moa/file/dogcontrol-bill.pdf) posted on the website of the Ministry of Agro-Industry and Food Security, being a law graduate who cares deeply about animals, it shocks me that the legislators of our country can do no better than this farcical, purported piece of legislation. It has to be amongst the worst pieces of purported law I have encountered. I would rank it amongst the same kind of laws which have promoted Apartheid in S.Africa and Nazi laws; only, this one is not about humans, but about dogs. Have those who have drafted the draft of this bill even done an inch of research into the rapidly-developing field of animal welfare law? To me, this looks like its been written in ten minutes at most, as if one was eager to quickly get over with the writing without putting an inch of thought into what was being written. I am quite simply shocked.
Dogs, man's famed best friend, are being villified as mere monsters. I am ashamed to be a citizen of a country where instead of developing animal welfare codes (the likes in place in England for farm animals), the Ministry of Agro-Industry is putting his efforts into sinking into incompetence and blatant disregard of the sentience of animals. Dogs are beings with feelings, and they are capable of feeling intense fear, sadness, joy and love. Many families in Mauritius regard their pets as members of their family; their sons, daughters, friends and companions. If you decide to go ahead with this cruelly ignorant, shameful and backward draft, I can foresee a time when animal lovers will go to court and accuse the ministry of violating their constitutional rights and freedoms, and even acting in a criminal manner. Just how can anyone come on your property and decide to "destroy" your dog? This is trespass and anyone coming in and killing a being one loves with all one's heart simply on the farcical and outrageously weak basis as those put down in draft is what I consider the deepest way of violating my rights as a citizen. My dog is like my son or daughter. Do you really think this sounds acceptable to me? Do you think I would just let anyone come onto my property and kill or seize my child? Do you think a mother would let anyone take away her child to be killed without fighting like a lioness? A child does not have to be human. A child can be an animal; a dog, a monkey; a cow; a goat; any animal which one loves as much as one loves her human father, mother, sister, or brother. It is unbelievable that those people who have written this piece have not considered the sentiments of people who love their pets.
I have done my University dissertation on Animal Rights, and I am so very ashamed of the people working in the State Law Office. Is that the level of our lawyers? Is that all thinking they can manage to do? Is that what they call research? Is that what they call quality of writing? Where is the underlying debate about the philosophy of law? This is not something blatant in a piece of legislation, but every 'good' law, every complete 'law' in the sense of a well-written legislative piece, should be based upon, and seen as promoting the cause of human beings. One of the cause of human beings from the very start of human civilisation has been their dealings with animals. Over centuries, the sentiments of compassion or generosity of soul has taken root in the human heart. Shouldn't therefore every piece of legislation which deals directly or indirectly with animals take this factor into account? Wouldn't it be only then that a nation will be able to progress both morally and economically? Where is the spirit of the law which is considered as being based on what is fair and just - ultimately that which is compassionate and important for the betterment of society? This farcical bill is bare of any of those. It doesn't do credit to the word "law" as it fails to take into account so many animal welfare matters which is a contemporary concern in the minds of jurists and legislators worldwide.You will be doing great discredit to the image of Mauritius if you go ahead with such nonsensical provisions. As a citizen with the power to vote, by electing you, I had in mind that the voice of concerned citizens will be taken into account and that the various sentiments of citizens are taken into account before even proceeding to draft any kind of bill. I have been greatly disappointed by such official evidence of the tendency to ignore the feelings and opinions of caring families who love animals. I truly hope that this will be remedied, otherwise as a human being living and partaking in a civilised society, my faith in humanity's capacity for wisdom will be greatly diminished.
Below are listed a number of not mere faults but seriously aggravating propositions I forced myself to read on because the draft of a bill has the potential of becoming a law. While I consider that this is a bill which because of it inherent mediocrity, and baseless harshness ought not even to see the light of the day, these are some of its most obvious ridiculous and cruel provisions. Respectfully, Sir, I pray you to consider these and to concentrate your efforts on putting in place animal welfare laws. Why shame the image of Mauritius with such a backward bill? Everywhere across the world, legislators are thinking about ways to prevent animal cruelty and more and more animal welfare laws are being put in place. In Mauritius, this is practically non existent, but what's more, instead of going forward and helping to establish the country as one with advanced morals and even intelligence by working hard to become leaders in various fields of the law, such kind of badly thought out bills only make animal lovers like myself doubt the very basis of the word "law". The Laws of a country are supposed to represent justice and fairness. How does this shameful bill even approach the important notions of "justice" or "fairness"? It is a 'cruel' bill with no consideration of humanity's most laudable characteristics such as compassion, intelligence and wisdom. To call such a bill representative of the Mauritian population by condoning it will be false and an outright blow to the intelligence of many Mauritians. I personally would never want to call myself proud of my country if the efforts and resources of the Ministers are being wasted in drafting such bad laws. It is great time, Sir, that the focus is put on animal welfare. We are truly lacking behind in these, and concerned citizens like myself would gladly help in research, reviews, comments, and even drafting which would help put in place the greatly needed laws on animal welfare. Animals who are voiceless, who suffer at the hands of man, who toil so hard for us, deserve so much more than the disregard and virtual hate in bills such as these.
1) The Interpretation Section of the draft of the 'Dog Control Bill'
i) The definion of a "dog breeder" is just not enough. It is unclear and vague. It should also have mentioned dog breeders being those who focus in breeding dogs with the aim to sell them for a profit. Mention should have been made about the needs of animals in the hands of dogs breeders, about the measures required to ascertain their welfare, their food, their water, the space they need for a healthy growth. Leaving the definition of "dog breeders" that short and cruelly lacking does not make sense! If a compassionate soul finds an injured, pregnant dog on the street and bring the poor animal home to take care of it, if the pregnant dog gives birth, isn't it far from being logical to label such a person as a "dog breeder'. Provisions such as these clearly shows how rushed and thoughless this piece of writing is. Please do not make the mistake of calling this bill representative of Mauritius and its citizens. I cannot understand how professional lawyers, people who have surely taken some kind of course in the drafting of legislation, can fail to see this weakness and not address it. Where is the wide and thorough thinking of these lawyers, where is their incisive research, where is the passion in their work? Moreover, how can the Ministry not see their faults?
ii) It has also been written that a domestic animal "includes any kept animal by a person for recreational purposes". While it might be that some people keep animals for recreational purposes, why is it not mentioned that some people keep animals for their own emotional well-being as well. In a world where the economic progress is being made, loneliness has been reported as one of the greatest ills affecting the civilised world. In such a society and world, it is not uncommon for a person to pitch his world around his loving, faithful animal companion. It is probably an on purpose omission, for linking an animal as important for the emotional well-being of a human will be weakening the very essence of this shameful bill, whose tone is blatantly anti-animal welfare, thoroughly against dogs, and thoroughly against all the animal lovers of the country.
iii) '"owner", in relation of any dog, means every person above the age of 18 years old who has a dog in his or her possession for more than 72 hours;" Again, this sentence seems to have been written by a barely knowleagable person. One has to wonder whether the person has ever heard of the word "foster"? A foster is a person who volunteers to take an animal from a shelter because the shelter is currently overflowing and keeps the animal for a few days with him until a caring family is found. The foster has no intention to keep the animal forever with him. He makes a compassionate decision so that the animal does not have to be euthanised. He feeds the animals and provides a temporary home for the animal until its permanent home is found. The interpretation of "owner" in this section is lacking and grossly inadequate. It does not encourage people to keep fosters and cultivate compassion. It does not encourage people to foster animals so that these innocent beings are not then condemned to death. It again fails me how someone who has a law degree and has succeeded at the bar put not only all the feelings which make him a good human being aside, but also not do justice to his or her own intelligence.
2) i) Section 3(1)(d),(e) and (f) of the bill mentions about occasions where the dog is causing "nuisance" by barking and other behaviour such a damaging property. However, what if the said dog who starts barking has been provoked by other people? What about the provocation of the dog, inciting the animal to indulge in a behaviour which is normal to him; it will try to defend itself and its owner. What about persons with malicious intentions on purpose baiting the dog to act in a certain manner in order to then call the police and then to make the owner, against whom they might have a personal grudge and want to take a personal vendetta? How a bill can fail to foresee the probabilities of such occasions arising truly fail me.
ii) Section 3(ii) does not provide what kind of fines, or sentences people, with malicious intents, who provoke a dog into engaging into behaviour listed in 3(i) can encounter. Shouldn't justice be fair in that it always provides for a two-way road? Why seem so relentless in punishing an owner and failing to provide in situations where other persons can incite dogs into barking and trying to defend what they innocently think as the best interests of their owner?
3) Section 7 and 8 could have done a much better job in using a language much more conducive into making one believe that the main intention of entering a person's premise is concern for the welfare of the animal. Moreover, provision about a reasonably thorough enquiry being made into a complaint before acting upon the seizing of a dog could also have been delved upon. Of course, if it is clear that an animal is being starved and that cruelty is being inflicted upon it, then immediate action action should be taken for the sake of the animal's welfare. In particular, section 8(3) should also have mentioned that people with malicious intent who provoked the dogs can also be condemned to paying the costs entailed. Again, no spirit of "fairness" can be partaken from this particular section.
4) Section 9 makes no mention whatsoever about abuses of power certain officers might be found practising. At the very least a line should have been dropped about potential recourse to justice against those officers who abuse of their power; mention must have been made about these officers being liable to be subject of civil proceedings relevant under the aegis of the Mauritian Civil Code.
5) It is ironic that section 10 (4) of the bill forces one to immediately think of the very important section 10 of the Mauritian Constitution entitled "Provisions to secure protection of the law". Arresting a person without a warrant, as section 10 (4) of the bill provides, is a very serious matter, and it would have added some measure of credibility if this matter has been delved upon at length.
6) i) Section 12 (1) (b) provides about the competence of the Competent Authority to classify a dog as "dangerous" and "menacing" can do so on the basis of "sworn evidence" and "reasonable grounds to believe constitutes a threat (...)". Again, absolutely no importance is attributed to the dog as being a sentient being. A Competent Authority is NOT a court of law! How can they weigh what 'sworn evidence" is or even amount to? There is always the possibility of people with malicious intentions harbouring grudges against owners coming forward and lie their way to saying how dangerous the dog is. Absolutely no mention is made of giving the owner an opportunity to clear himself and have a 'fair hearing' which is of utmost importance in a democratic society. This is a dangerous piece of law, violative of a person's right to have a 'fair hearing'.
ii) Section 12 (1) (c) is another part where no concern about the welfare of the dog is evidenced. How can what an owner say be considered as the final word of law in deciding whether a dog is 'dangerous' or 'menacing'. If a child were reported as being uncontrollable by his parents, would children welfare authories satisfy themselves only on the basis of this assertion. Wouldn't a professional psychiatrist or other qualified professional enquire about the child's mental health or how his parents has been treating him. Similarly, the word of an owner cannot be so forthrightly taken as being right. An enquiry should be done in this matter and a qualified professionals such as veterinarians be asked to 'evaluate' the dog. An owner can be using this recourse to get rid of or abandon the dog, and it would be a injustice to the voiceless animal to be a victim of the failures of his human counterparts to properly look after him. The language used in section 12 is again entirely anti-animal welfare.
7) Section 13 (1) (d) and section 13 (3) (b) mention the expression "dispose of the dog" without explaining what is meant by such a term. Does 'dispose' mean drowning, shooting, killing by beating, decapitating, hanging? These methods are of course violative of the Prevention of Cruelty Against Animals Act of 1957, but it can be the case that someone find a way of killing an animal not englobed by the said act.
8) (i) From section 15 onwards come the sections which are not only dreadfully cruel, but the language used is so shamefully inadequate in all its cruelty, it makes one wonder whether those who have drafted this piece truly believe animals to be machines without feelings. The expression "destroy a dog" (15 (1), 15 (2), 15 (3), 16 (2) (b), 17, 17 (c), 18 (1)) has been repeatedly used and show no awareness whatsoever of how serious the word "destroy" means and the thousands and thousands of implications it may have! Does destroy a dog mean that because a person is angry it could have been bitten or that someone else has been bitten decide to destroy the dog by torturing it in the most despicable of ways? Just what is meant by 'destroy a dog'; how can such a term be used in a civilised society for a sentient animal? I cannot understand how such a word could have been used by people who draft laws which have such far-reaching and oftentimes unforeseen consequences by using a despicable word such as "destroy". If a situation warrants it, the expression "humanely euthanise" could have been used instead. 'Destruction of a dog' is a heartless expression, which goes against all precepts of animal welfare. Please see to it that a more humane expression is used. Stop using the easy way out and writing thoughless laws such as this one. It truly hurts the image of a country. Isn't, as Mahatma Gandhi says, the greatness of a nation and its moral progress judged by the way it treats its animals? I do not want Mauritius -- the country I was born in and love so deeply, to have laws which are lacking in depth, unresearched, devoid of humanity, devoid of the consideration that animals have a great capacity for suffering-- to have laws in place which seem so uncaring about the welfare of animals. Why are time and effort not put into bringing forth welfare codes for farm animals? Why isn't the Prevention of Cruelty Against Animals Act of 1957 be broadened in scope to englobe much more about animal cruelty, stricter fines and sentences? Why aren't laws entitled 'Animal Welfare' which delve into various ways the conditions of animals can be improved in Mauritius? I would glady support such efforts, but not bills such as the 'Dog Control Bill' which insults the intelligence and emotions of many Mauritian citizens.
(ii) In section 18 (1), it is mentioned that dog will be destroyed (using the inappropriate language of the bill), without even mentioning that an effort will be made to find the owner, nor that the owner will be notified. The owner might have had a mitigating circumstance to put forward in his defence. Is that 'fair' or even 'just'? Isn't this contrary to the spirit which went into writing the Supreme law of the land, our Constitution? While one can understand that seizing the dog is important if it is an active threat to wildlife, why should the animal be readily destroyed as the bill provides? Why is there no option left open? Why can't it be returned to its owner with a proper warning or even a fine. Shelters in this country are not nonexistent and the dog can even be sent there. Why insist on its destruction? Again, this is very much anti-animal welfare and does not follow international trends where protection given to animals are being vigorously put in place and reinforced. Mauritius should endeavour to follow this trend.
9) Section 20 (2) is a typical example of injuring and then rubbing the injury with salt. In crude words, it would mean "give me the dog you love. I will kill it, but you have to pay for the expenses"; does this make the least of sense? Isn't it cruel to kill a loved animal, which for the world has been judged as guilty for some reason, but whose owner still loves it dearly, to ask for that devastated person to finance the killing of four-legged companion? How humane is it? In what state of mind does that put the potentially grieving owner?
10) Section 21 again shows the typical anti-animal welfare approach of the bill.
11) Section 23 of the bill takes the icing in the cake of cruelty. How can a person be absolved from responsibility when, in clearer terms, he is torturing the animal before killing it. This is a wholly unreasonable section which warrants zero credibility. How can the duty of doing one's job in the best possible manner not be respected when dealing with an animal? Could such a section have been envisaged when it comes to human beings? The answer is of course a resounding no! Why, then, should animal be treated with such contempt and disregard to their suffering? Please remedy this section quickly. It makes one believe a being devoid of an ounce of wisdom, intelligence, fairness and compassion to have drafted it!
12) Section 27 (1) (g) makes mention about the minister being able to make regulations about dogs being "tied up" or "confined". These terms have not been defined. Mention should have been made about taking into account the animal's well-being when it is subjected to such a state. Clearly, as with the rest of the bill, little to no pro-animal welfare stance has been used. International animal welfare organisations must be consulted on subjects such as these because they have much more experience and expertise in this matter. They would be able to shed more light on how to draft bill by taking into consideration, first and foremost, the welfare of an animal.
These are the more obvious faults with this bill. I truly hope you will take these in consideration and recognise how thoroughly inhumane and anti-animal welfare many sections of this bill prove to be. We must, as a country, develop the field of animal welfare law and not add to the list of 'bad' laws which we would be ashamed to reproduce in front of an international audience. Legislators of this country must not blind themselves to international trends where animal welfare is becoming a very serious issue. It seems to me that the bill is trying to be in line with the misguided policy used in trying to reduce the population of strays. The only long-term and proven solution to do this is by first promoting compassion. Letting a stray wander in the street is cruel for the animal itself, because it has to starve and look for meagre scraps and not because the animal is, using a term inherently shameful to be applied to a living thing, but so common in everyday thoughless banter, 'a nuisance'. Mass sterilisation campaigns, humane dog population control programme which focus on the well-being, rehoming of animals, education of children from their tender age about the importance of animal welfare, is how as a country we will truly make progress.
This dog control bill, by all its blatantly lacking and anti-animal welfare stance, must never be made into a legislation. It is noble feelings such as compassion which elevates the soul; let us, as citizens, legislators, human beings practise it to the best of our abilities. Let us protect our animals instead of villying them and turning them into monsters by having recourse to such thoroughly inadequate bills.
I am hoping to appeal to your wisdom and that sense of rightness residing deep inside the human heart when dealing with matters such as these, and all other matters of life. A piece of legislation is an important piece of writing which reveals so much about the way the citizens of a country think. This bill is not representative of how many animal lovers think. Let us concentrate our minds on how to improve our fellow animals' lives, instead of turning their existence into nightmares. Life is very short, and we live only once. However, legislation present in our lifetime attests to what we have condoned or not. Do not let a bill such as this one represent us. I am appealing to what is good in you. Let us put our forces together and improve the lots of our non-human companions whose worth cannot be put in terms of money. They are as important as human beings, and without them, we are nothing.
Reinterating my sincere hopes that you will take this appeal from the heart into consideration,
Sincerely,
Rajshree Boyragee
Mauritius
Dogs, man's famed best friend, are being villified as mere monsters. I am ashamed to be a citizen of a country where instead of developing animal welfare codes (the likes in place in England for farm animals), the Ministry of Agro-Industry is putting his efforts into sinking into incompetence and blatant disregard of the sentience of animals. Dogs are beings with feelings, and they are capable of feeling intense fear, sadness, joy and love. Many families in Mauritius regard their pets as members of their family; their sons, daughters, friends and companions. If you decide to go ahead with this cruelly ignorant, shameful and backward draft, I can foresee a time when animal lovers will go to court and accuse the ministry of violating their constitutional rights and freedoms, and even acting in a criminal manner. Just how can anyone come on your property and decide to "destroy" your dog? This is trespass and anyone coming in and killing a being one loves with all one's heart simply on the farcical and outrageously weak basis as those put down in draft is what I consider the deepest way of violating my rights as a citizen. My dog is like my son or daughter. Do you really think this sounds acceptable to me? Do you think I would just let anyone come onto my property and kill or seize my child? Do you think a mother would let anyone take away her child to be killed without fighting like a lioness? A child does not have to be human. A child can be an animal; a dog, a monkey; a cow; a goat; any animal which one loves as much as one loves her human father, mother, sister, or brother. It is unbelievable that those people who have written this piece have not considered the sentiments of people who love their pets.
I have done my University dissertation on Animal Rights, and I am so very ashamed of the people working in the State Law Office. Is that the level of our lawyers? Is that all thinking they can manage to do? Is that what they call research? Is that what they call quality of writing? Where is the underlying debate about the philosophy of law? This is not something blatant in a piece of legislation, but every 'good' law, every complete 'law' in the sense of a well-written legislative piece, should be based upon, and seen as promoting the cause of human beings. One of the cause of human beings from the very start of human civilisation has been their dealings with animals. Over centuries, the sentiments of compassion or generosity of soul has taken root in the human heart. Shouldn't therefore every piece of legislation which deals directly or indirectly with animals take this factor into account? Wouldn't it be only then that a nation will be able to progress both morally and economically? Where is the spirit of the law which is considered as being based on what is fair and just - ultimately that which is compassionate and important for the betterment of society? This farcical bill is bare of any of those. It doesn't do credit to the word "law" as it fails to take into account so many animal welfare matters which is a contemporary concern in the minds of jurists and legislators worldwide.You will be doing great discredit to the image of Mauritius if you go ahead with such nonsensical provisions. As a citizen with the power to vote, by electing you, I had in mind that the voice of concerned citizens will be taken into account and that the various sentiments of citizens are taken into account before even proceeding to draft any kind of bill. I have been greatly disappointed by such official evidence of the tendency to ignore the feelings and opinions of caring families who love animals. I truly hope that this will be remedied, otherwise as a human being living and partaking in a civilised society, my faith in humanity's capacity for wisdom will be greatly diminished.
Below are listed a number of not mere faults but seriously aggravating propositions I forced myself to read on because the draft of a bill has the potential of becoming a law. While I consider that this is a bill which because of it inherent mediocrity, and baseless harshness ought not even to see the light of the day, these are some of its most obvious ridiculous and cruel provisions. Respectfully, Sir, I pray you to consider these and to concentrate your efforts on putting in place animal welfare laws. Why shame the image of Mauritius with such a backward bill? Everywhere across the world, legislators are thinking about ways to prevent animal cruelty and more and more animal welfare laws are being put in place. In Mauritius, this is practically non existent, but what's more, instead of going forward and helping to establish the country as one with advanced morals and even intelligence by working hard to become leaders in various fields of the law, such kind of badly thought out bills only make animal lovers like myself doubt the very basis of the word "law". The Laws of a country are supposed to represent justice and fairness. How does this shameful bill even approach the important notions of "justice" or "fairness"? It is a 'cruel' bill with no consideration of humanity's most laudable characteristics such as compassion, intelligence and wisdom. To call such a bill representative of the Mauritian population by condoning it will be false and an outright blow to the intelligence of many Mauritians. I personally would never want to call myself proud of my country if the efforts and resources of the Ministers are being wasted in drafting such bad laws. It is great time, Sir, that the focus is put on animal welfare. We are truly lacking behind in these, and concerned citizens like myself would gladly help in research, reviews, comments, and even drafting which would help put in place the greatly needed laws on animal welfare. Animals who are voiceless, who suffer at the hands of man, who toil so hard for us, deserve so much more than the disregard and virtual hate in bills such as these.
1) The Interpretation Section of the draft of the 'Dog Control Bill'
i) The definion of a "dog breeder" is just not enough. It is unclear and vague. It should also have mentioned dog breeders being those who focus in breeding dogs with the aim to sell them for a profit. Mention should have been made about the needs of animals in the hands of dogs breeders, about the measures required to ascertain their welfare, their food, their water, the space they need for a healthy growth. Leaving the definition of "dog breeders" that short and cruelly lacking does not make sense! If a compassionate soul finds an injured, pregnant dog on the street and bring the poor animal home to take care of it, if the pregnant dog gives birth, isn't it far from being logical to label such a person as a "dog breeder'. Provisions such as these clearly shows how rushed and thoughless this piece of writing is. Please do not make the mistake of calling this bill representative of Mauritius and its citizens. I cannot understand how professional lawyers, people who have surely taken some kind of course in the drafting of legislation, can fail to see this weakness and not address it. Where is the wide and thorough thinking of these lawyers, where is their incisive research, where is the passion in their work? Moreover, how can the Ministry not see their faults?
ii) It has also been written that a domestic animal "includes any kept animal by a person for recreational purposes". While it might be that some people keep animals for recreational purposes, why is it not mentioned that some people keep animals for their own emotional well-being as well. In a world where the economic progress is being made, loneliness has been reported as one of the greatest ills affecting the civilised world. In such a society and world, it is not uncommon for a person to pitch his world around his loving, faithful animal companion. It is probably an on purpose omission, for linking an animal as important for the emotional well-being of a human will be weakening the very essence of this shameful bill, whose tone is blatantly anti-animal welfare, thoroughly against dogs, and thoroughly against all the animal lovers of the country.
iii) '"owner", in relation of any dog, means every person above the age of 18 years old who has a dog in his or her possession for more than 72 hours;" Again, this sentence seems to have been written by a barely knowleagable person. One has to wonder whether the person has ever heard of the word "foster"? A foster is a person who volunteers to take an animal from a shelter because the shelter is currently overflowing and keeps the animal for a few days with him until a caring family is found. The foster has no intention to keep the animal forever with him. He makes a compassionate decision so that the animal does not have to be euthanised. He feeds the animals and provides a temporary home for the animal until its permanent home is found. The interpretation of "owner" in this section is lacking and grossly inadequate. It does not encourage people to keep fosters and cultivate compassion. It does not encourage people to foster animals so that these innocent beings are not then condemned to death. It again fails me how someone who has a law degree and has succeeded at the bar put not only all the feelings which make him a good human being aside, but also not do justice to his or her own intelligence.
2) i) Section 3(1)(d),(e) and (f) of the bill mentions about occasions where the dog is causing "nuisance" by barking and other behaviour such a damaging property. However, what if the said dog who starts barking has been provoked by other people? What about the provocation of the dog, inciting the animal to indulge in a behaviour which is normal to him; it will try to defend itself and its owner. What about persons with malicious intentions on purpose baiting the dog to act in a certain manner in order to then call the police and then to make the owner, against whom they might have a personal grudge and want to take a personal vendetta? How a bill can fail to foresee the probabilities of such occasions arising truly fail me.
ii) Section 3(ii) does not provide what kind of fines, or sentences people, with malicious intents, who provoke a dog into engaging into behaviour listed in 3(i) can encounter. Shouldn't justice be fair in that it always provides for a two-way road? Why seem so relentless in punishing an owner and failing to provide in situations where other persons can incite dogs into barking and trying to defend what they innocently think as the best interests of their owner?
3) Section 7 and 8 could have done a much better job in using a language much more conducive into making one believe that the main intention of entering a person's premise is concern for the welfare of the animal. Moreover, provision about a reasonably thorough enquiry being made into a complaint before acting upon the seizing of a dog could also have been delved upon. Of course, if it is clear that an animal is being starved and that cruelty is being inflicted upon it, then immediate action action should be taken for the sake of the animal's welfare. In particular, section 8(3) should also have mentioned that people with malicious intent who provoked the dogs can also be condemned to paying the costs entailed. Again, no spirit of "fairness" can be partaken from this particular section.
4) Section 9 makes no mention whatsoever about abuses of power certain officers might be found practising. At the very least a line should have been dropped about potential recourse to justice against those officers who abuse of their power; mention must have been made about these officers being liable to be subject of civil proceedings relevant under the aegis of the Mauritian Civil Code.
5) It is ironic that section 10 (4) of the bill forces one to immediately think of the very important section 10 of the Mauritian Constitution entitled "Provisions to secure protection of the law". Arresting a person without a warrant, as section 10 (4) of the bill provides, is a very serious matter, and it would have added some measure of credibility if this matter has been delved upon at length.
6) i) Section 12 (1) (b) provides about the competence of the Competent Authority to classify a dog as "dangerous" and "menacing" can do so on the basis of "sworn evidence" and "reasonable grounds to believe constitutes a threat (...)". Again, absolutely no importance is attributed to the dog as being a sentient being. A Competent Authority is NOT a court of law! How can they weigh what 'sworn evidence" is or even amount to? There is always the possibility of people with malicious intentions harbouring grudges against owners coming forward and lie their way to saying how dangerous the dog is. Absolutely no mention is made of giving the owner an opportunity to clear himself and have a 'fair hearing' which is of utmost importance in a democratic society. This is a dangerous piece of law, violative of a person's right to have a 'fair hearing'.
ii) Section 12 (1) (c) is another part where no concern about the welfare of the dog is evidenced. How can what an owner say be considered as the final word of law in deciding whether a dog is 'dangerous' or 'menacing'. If a child were reported as being uncontrollable by his parents, would children welfare authories satisfy themselves only on the basis of this assertion. Wouldn't a professional psychiatrist or other qualified professional enquire about the child's mental health or how his parents has been treating him. Similarly, the word of an owner cannot be so forthrightly taken as being right. An enquiry should be done in this matter and a qualified professionals such as veterinarians be asked to 'evaluate' the dog. An owner can be using this recourse to get rid of or abandon the dog, and it would be a injustice to the voiceless animal to be a victim of the failures of his human counterparts to properly look after him. The language used in section 12 is again entirely anti-animal welfare.
7) Section 13 (1) (d) and section 13 (3) (b) mention the expression "dispose of the dog" without explaining what is meant by such a term. Does 'dispose' mean drowning, shooting, killing by beating, decapitating, hanging? These methods are of course violative of the Prevention of Cruelty Against Animals Act of 1957, but it can be the case that someone find a way of killing an animal not englobed by the said act.
8) (i) From section 15 onwards come the sections which are not only dreadfully cruel, but the language used is so shamefully inadequate in all its cruelty, it makes one wonder whether those who have drafted this piece truly believe animals to be machines without feelings. The expression "destroy a dog" (15 (1), 15 (2), 15 (3), 16 (2) (b), 17, 17 (c), 18 (1)) has been repeatedly used and show no awareness whatsoever of how serious the word "destroy" means and the thousands and thousands of implications it may have! Does destroy a dog mean that because a person is angry it could have been bitten or that someone else has been bitten decide to destroy the dog by torturing it in the most despicable of ways? Just what is meant by 'destroy a dog'; how can such a term be used in a civilised society for a sentient animal? I cannot understand how such a word could have been used by people who draft laws which have such far-reaching and oftentimes unforeseen consequences by using a despicable word such as "destroy". If a situation warrants it, the expression "humanely euthanise" could have been used instead. 'Destruction of a dog' is a heartless expression, which goes against all precepts of animal welfare. Please see to it that a more humane expression is used. Stop using the easy way out and writing thoughless laws such as this one. It truly hurts the image of a country. Isn't, as Mahatma Gandhi says, the greatness of a nation and its moral progress judged by the way it treats its animals? I do not want Mauritius -- the country I was born in and love so deeply, to have laws which are lacking in depth, unresearched, devoid of humanity, devoid of the consideration that animals have a great capacity for suffering-- to have laws in place which seem so uncaring about the welfare of animals. Why are time and effort not put into bringing forth welfare codes for farm animals? Why isn't the Prevention of Cruelty Against Animals Act of 1957 be broadened in scope to englobe much more about animal cruelty, stricter fines and sentences? Why aren't laws entitled 'Animal Welfare' which delve into various ways the conditions of animals can be improved in Mauritius? I would glady support such efforts, but not bills such as the 'Dog Control Bill' which insults the intelligence and emotions of many Mauritian citizens.
(ii) In section 18 (1), it is mentioned that dog will be destroyed (using the inappropriate language of the bill), without even mentioning that an effort will be made to find the owner, nor that the owner will be notified. The owner might have had a mitigating circumstance to put forward in his defence. Is that 'fair' or even 'just'? Isn't this contrary to the spirit which went into writing the Supreme law of the land, our Constitution? While one can understand that seizing the dog is important if it is an active threat to wildlife, why should the animal be readily destroyed as the bill provides? Why is there no option left open? Why can't it be returned to its owner with a proper warning or even a fine. Shelters in this country are not nonexistent and the dog can even be sent there. Why insist on its destruction? Again, this is very much anti-animal welfare and does not follow international trends where protection given to animals are being vigorously put in place and reinforced. Mauritius should endeavour to follow this trend.
9) Section 20 (2) is a typical example of injuring and then rubbing the injury with salt. In crude words, it would mean "give me the dog you love. I will kill it, but you have to pay for the expenses"; does this make the least of sense? Isn't it cruel to kill a loved animal, which for the world has been judged as guilty for some reason, but whose owner still loves it dearly, to ask for that devastated person to finance the killing of four-legged companion? How humane is it? In what state of mind does that put the potentially grieving owner?
10) Section 21 again shows the typical anti-animal welfare approach of the bill.
11) Section 23 of the bill takes the icing in the cake of cruelty. How can a person be absolved from responsibility when, in clearer terms, he is torturing the animal before killing it. This is a wholly unreasonable section which warrants zero credibility. How can the duty of doing one's job in the best possible manner not be respected when dealing with an animal? Could such a section have been envisaged when it comes to human beings? The answer is of course a resounding no! Why, then, should animal be treated with such contempt and disregard to their suffering? Please remedy this section quickly. It makes one believe a being devoid of an ounce of wisdom, intelligence, fairness and compassion to have drafted it!
12) Section 27 (1) (g) makes mention about the minister being able to make regulations about dogs being "tied up" or "confined". These terms have not been defined. Mention should have been made about taking into account the animal's well-being when it is subjected to such a state. Clearly, as with the rest of the bill, little to no pro-animal welfare stance has been used. International animal welfare organisations must be consulted on subjects such as these because they have much more experience and expertise in this matter. They would be able to shed more light on how to draft bill by taking into consideration, first and foremost, the welfare of an animal.
These are the more obvious faults with this bill. I truly hope you will take these in consideration and recognise how thoroughly inhumane and anti-animal welfare many sections of this bill prove to be. We must, as a country, develop the field of animal welfare law and not add to the list of 'bad' laws which we would be ashamed to reproduce in front of an international audience. Legislators of this country must not blind themselves to international trends where animal welfare is becoming a very serious issue. It seems to me that the bill is trying to be in line with the misguided policy used in trying to reduce the population of strays. The only long-term and proven solution to do this is by first promoting compassion. Letting a stray wander in the street is cruel for the animal itself, because it has to starve and look for meagre scraps and not because the animal is, using a term inherently shameful to be applied to a living thing, but so common in everyday thoughless banter, 'a nuisance'. Mass sterilisation campaigns, humane dog population control programme which focus on the well-being, rehoming of animals, education of children from their tender age about the importance of animal welfare, is how as a country we will truly make progress.
This dog control bill, by all its blatantly lacking and anti-animal welfare stance, must never be made into a legislation. It is noble feelings such as compassion which elevates the soul; let us, as citizens, legislators, human beings practise it to the best of our abilities. Let us protect our animals instead of villying them and turning them into monsters by having recourse to such thoroughly inadequate bills.
I am hoping to appeal to your wisdom and that sense of rightness residing deep inside the human heart when dealing with matters such as these, and all other matters of life. A piece of legislation is an important piece of writing which reveals so much about the way the citizens of a country think. This bill is not representative of how many animal lovers think. Let us concentrate our minds on how to improve our fellow animals' lives, instead of turning their existence into nightmares. Life is very short, and we live only once. However, legislation present in our lifetime attests to what we have condoned or not. Do not let a bill such as this one represent us. I am appealing to what is good in you. Let us put our forces together and improve the lots of our non-human companions whose worth cannot be put in terms of money. They are as important as human beings, and without them, we are nothing.
Reinterating my sincere hopes that you will take this appeal from the heart into consideration,
Sincerely,
Rajshree Boyragee
Mauritius
Note: God knows if this email will be taken into consideration. I hope more people will voice out on this. Here are relevant emails you can use to address your concerns about such an appalling bill to the authorities:
| Ministry of Agro Industry & Food Security Levels 8 & 9 Renganaden Seeneevassen Building Cnr Jules Koenig & Maillard Streets Port Louis MAURITIUS Tel: (+230) 212 0854, (+230) 212 2940 Fax: (+230) 212 4427 E-mail: moa-headoffice@mail.gov.mu | |||
| Dr The Hon Navinchandra Ramgoolam, GCSK, FRCP Prime Minister's Office New Treasury BuildingIntendance StreetPort Louis Tel: 201 1331-33 Fax: 211 7099 Website: http://pmo.gov.mu/ e-mail: pmo@mail.gov.mu ii) The Hon Charles Gaetan Xavier Luc Duval, GSCK Minister of Finance and Economic Development New Government House, Port Louis Tel: 201 2507/201 1146 Fax: 211 0096 Website: http://mof.gov.mu/ e-mail: mof@mail.gov.mu iii) The Hon John Michael Tzoun Sao Yeung Sik Yuen Ministry of Tourism and Leisure Level 12, Air Mauritius Centre, Port Louis Tel: 211 7930 Fax: 208 6776 Website: http://tourism.gov.mu/ e-mail: mtou@mail.gov.mu iv) The Hon. Lormus Bundhoo Minister of Health and Quality of Life Emmanuel Anquetil Building Port Louis Tel: +230 201 2175 Fax: +230 208 7222 Website: http://health.gov.mu/ e-mail: moh@mail.gov.mu iv) The Hon Mr. Yatindra Nath Varma The Attorney General's Office Level 2, 3, 4,5 and 6 Renganaden Seeneevassen Building Port Louis Tel: +230 203 4740 Fax: +230 211 3819/ 213 0250 Website: http://attorneygeneral.gov.mu/ Email: ago@mail.gov.mu Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development Ken Lee Tower, Cnr Barracks & St Georges Streets, Port-Louis. Tel: +(230) 203 6200 - 6210 + (230) 210 5151 +(230) 210 5252 (Hotline) Fax: +(230) 211 9524; +(230) 212 8324 Email: menv@mail.gov.mu The Minister of Education and Human Resources Phone No. : +(230) 697 7862/+(230) 686 2403/+(230) 686 2402 Fax No.: +(230) 698 3601 E-mail: moeministeroffice@mail.gov.mu Agricultural Services Veterinary Services Division Réduit Contact Person: Dr D MEENOWA Position: Ag. Principal Veterinary Officer(Veterinary Services) Tel: (230) 454 1016, 454 1017, 466 6662 Fax: (230) 464-2210 Email:moa-dvs@mail.gov.mu | |||
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)