PROTECTION OF ANIMALS IN THE CONSTITUTION IS FOR NOW JUST A DEAD LETTER ON PAPER

Without a doubt, we haven’t gotten here yet. But more and more people are radically changing their minds, and the first signs of a new human-animal relationship are even in the laws of advanced countries concerning the protection of animals, which reads: “The purpose of this law and well-being. No one should cause pain, suffering or injury to an animal without a reasonable reason. ”The reference to“ reasonable reason ”, which allows animals to nevertheless cause suffering, certainly relativizes good intentions. Animal experiments are allowed to continue – not only for medical and cosmetic purposes, but also for so-called basic research. Nor is mass livestock farming prohibited, but only regulations must be made tolerable for animals. Animals for slaughter must be stunned first. The results of these facts from the law are known: the torture of animals in huge stables of industrial meat production, in transports and slaughterhouses is not reduced. Images of the misery of half-dead animals that have come to light are before our eyes. Animal experiments continue to be allowed, where we allow animals to suffer because of our diseases instead of us. We operate on them, we experiment with them, we destroy them for so many unnatural purposes of “basic research”. If the competent body wants to make full use of all the provisions of the law in favor of the protection of animals, they are in danger of being stopped by the Administrative and Constitutional Courts. Animal protection is based only on “simple law”, but research and science, animal husbandry and trade are protected by the Constitution, research and learning even without restrictions.

The sword of Damocles of unconstitutional conduct hangs constantly not only over the implementation of animal protection, but over the Animal Protection Act itself, as long as animal protection is not a constitutionally state goal. In fact, such a state goal also requires legislative concretization; otherwise, the adoption of an order on the protection of animals in the constitution would have consequences in conflicts with other constitutional values ​​such as freedom of research and economic exploitation of animals. It could be looked at more closely under the fingers of laboratories at university and research institutes. The pharmaceutical and food industries should also know their limits. Mass animal husbandry, cruel transport and slaughter of animals could be called into question if the Constitution valued animals more. In doing so, constitutional orders must be general in nature – such as the first sentence of the Constitution: “Human dignity is inviolable.” This is for many political, especially t. i. Christian, parties pure “lyrics”. It is obvious that someone who, as a member of a party, lives his Christianity on the model of the church, still has a disturbed attitude towards the dignity of animals – but therefore better towards the chemical and pharmaceutical industries.

Leave a Reply