For some years, the Cape Town City Council has been in the process of reviewing the its animal by-laws and after much discussion and many complaints from the public, they are now ready to be accepted by Council. However, in response to accusations that the DA led Council has been indifferent to people’s concerns, a meeting was held on 12 April 2010 to allow interested parties to discuss the way forward.
A positive outcome of the meeting was the decision that a steering committee will be formed to develop a Democratic Alliance policy on animal welfare and that Mike Walters and James Vos will lead the process in the Western Cape Provincial government and the City Council respectively. The present Cape Town draft by-laws will not be postponed until the animal policy has been drawn up! While it would have been more sensible for the DA to have developed a policy, before drawing up the by-laws, the decision is a step in the right direction and will, hopefully, govern by-laws that may be developed in other DA led councils in the future.
The by-laws, in their present state, make provision for the confiscation of animals who are kept on properties in violation of specified numbers allowed by the Council and of those whose barking, or other ‘nuisance’ value, violates the by-laws. A ludicrous situation exists, where one may ask if the removal of one’s companion animals is not an infringement of “property” laws, which are also protected in the constitution, as animals are legally classified as ‘things’ or ‘movable property in South African law!
Unfortunately, any legislation, regulations, or even a political party’s animal welfare policy, will still exist within the framework of animals not having legal rights and the fact is that any improvement in laws protecting the well being of animals in this country rests heavily on their legal status being changed from that of “things”, or moveable property, to that of “sentient beings”. At the moment animals are regarded as nothing more than inanimate objects and if this classification remains, they will never be accorded the basic rights and protection to which they are entitled, nor will effective animal welfare laws be put in place to monitor such rights. Animal welfare legislation should be an adjunct to animal’s rights, in the same way as child welfare laws are to children’s rights!
Children’s rights are protected in the constitution, with child welfare laws and organisations in place to protect those rights. Similarly, animal’s rights must be included in the constitution, with animal welfare laws and organisations protecting those rights! At the moment we have the tail wagging the dog, so to speak, with animal welfare working without the benefit of rights laws! Animals are our nearest relatives, with whom we share our lives, the environment and the planet. The time has come for us to acknowledge the duty we have, which is enshrined in the constitution, to protect and respect the vulnerable among us and this duty must be applied equally to animals; we must extend the constitution to reflect this duty to all sentient beings.
Beryl Scott
© Beauty without Cruelty Newsletter June 2010
Well written and sensible response. I’ve always felt that our ‘world-class’ constitution has failed animals in this respect. Perlemoen are protected by the constitution, but animals still don’t have basic rights – that isn’t in accordance with world standards at all.