Stuck on a way to ‘real change’; when compassion is taken as an act of extremism
The question is not, “Can they reason?” nor, “Can they talk?” but rather, “Can they suffer?” ~Jeremy Bentham
“Sunny ways, my friends. Sunny ways…time for change in this country my friends. Real change.” This is, of course, what Justin Trudeau told his enthusiastic supporters in Montreal during his victory speech on October 20, 2015. Trudeau reminded us that Canada was built by people from different parts of the world, representing different languages, cultures and faiths. At the same time, the new government committed itself to promoting equality, generosity, compassion, and peacekeeping. With his contagious enthusiasm and bursting level of energy, Trudeau has made us believe that Canada is on the threshold of an exciting, new era of the ‘sunny ways’ where the politics of division and discord would dissipate, giving way to a more inclusive Canadian identity.
And thus - discarding our habitual cynicism - we all jumped on board eager to show the world that we can be more understanding, more empathetic and more compassionate. And we did. We embraced refugees from Syria by opening our borders and welcoming them to our soil. We bravely addressed complex social issues of promoting gender equality, advancing women’s rights, standing up to bullying by spreading kindness, fighting against the stigma surrounding mental illness, and committing ourselves to repairing damaged relations with aboriginal people. The world applauded us for that. We became an example for other countries to follow. We have filled ourselves with pride - empathetic and compassionate Canadians who treat everybody with dignity and fairness.
In the light of this enthusiasm, on February 26, 2016, Toronto-area Liberal Member of Parliament Nathaniel Erskine-Smith introduced a Private Member’s Bill (C-246), the Modernizing Animal Protections Act. This bill was supposed to extend our highly promoted fairness and justice to non-human animals. It is important to emphasize that the animal cruelty sections in the Criminal Code were first enacted in 1892, and the offences have not been meaningfully updated since 1954. Incidentally, it wasn’t the first time that Liberal and NDP Members of Parliament have tried to speak up for the vulnerable and voiceless. Since 1999, they have been persistently trying to modernize the antiquated and inadequate animal cruelty provisions in the Criminal Code of Canada. There have been 13 attempts over the past 16 years. Every time, however, our government failed to offer better protection to animals. Now, in the era of “sunny ways”, the time seemed right. With the winds of change sweeping through Canada, odds seemed better than ever that we can finally live up to the idea of offering compassion and empathy to non-human beings.
Bill C-246 builds on the previous legislation introduced to the House of Commons by Liberals and New Democrats. It aims to ban the importation of shark fins not attached to the carcass, as well as prohibits the importation and sale of cat and dog fur. It also requires companies to label the source of fur. Furthermore, the bill seeks to strengthen and modernize the Criminal Code’s existing animal cruelty offences by making it easier to prosecute people who cause harm to animals through gross negligence. Finally, it closes the loopholes related to animal fighting by making it illegal to train or breed animals for the purpose of fighting, as well as making it illegal to profit from dog fighting. As Mr. Erskine-Smith argues, the legislation aims to bring our long overdue Canada’s animal welfare laws “into the 21st century.” Importantly, there is a clear and broad support for such a change among the public. According to a 2015 Environics poll, 92 per cent of Canadians believe that we need to update the Criminal Code to make it easier to convict people who commit acts of cruelty against animals.
Still, instead of being embraced, Bill C-246 has faced immediate and furious opposition from some Members of Parliament. All of a sudden, much desired compassion and empathy have been interpreted as an act of a ’hidden agenda’. “I think it’s a Trojan horse that masks an agenda to eliminate all animal-use,” Manitoba Conservative Member of Parliament Robert Sopuck argued. Unfortunately, thus, rather than focusing on enhancing the animal welfare legislation, Mr. Sopuck and others devoted all their efforts to fear mongering, erroneously claiming that C-246 will shut down all legitimate animal use practices, including hunting, fishing, farming, and medical research. Of course, for his fear mongering to work, all compassionate Canadians have to be turned into animal rights extremists harboring ‘dangerous’ and ‘threatening’ intentions.
The first hour of debate at second reading of the bill took place on May 9, 2016 and it clearly demonstrated the extent of the paranoia. Conservative MP Blaine Calkins ominously echoed Mr. Sopuck’s suspicion of “a Trojan horse” by bringing up PETA’s radical agenda and letting other Members of Parliament know that he himself has “heard phone calls and recordings of individuals who have left threatening messages on family farm answering machines, because they did not like the type of farming in which the farm was actively engaged.” Even more depressingly, this opposition to the bill by the Conservative MPs was also expressed by Liberals, as if the notion of ‘sunny ways’ did not extend to animals. To the surprise of many supporters of the new government, falsehood and mischaracterizations were propagated by Toronto Liberal MP Bill Blair (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada). Mr. Blair wrongly argued that by criminalizing brutal or vicious killings of animals, the bill could threaten our cultural heritage and traditional indigenous activities. He claimed that “even if [hunters, trappers] are practising their sport or commercial or traditional activity lawfully and by prescribed socially accepted practices, they may come into jeopardy.”…Well, who wouldn’t fear extremists now?
Ironically, however, it is the opposition to the bill - rather than the bill itself -that comes across as extremism and radicalism. For instance, Mr. Sopuck made it clear that his stand against Bill C-246 is unshakable and immune to any arguments by stating that “people will die if [the bill ] is implemented” and that he “wants to see this bill defeated at second reading and wants it off the table.” Mr. Sopuck’s and even more sadly, Mr. Blair’s displeasure with the bill are so-deeply rooted and adamant that they want to end the very discussion of it and prevent the bill from passing into the committee stage where it could be amended to ensure exemptions for all legal animal use practices. Mr. Erskine-Smith’s repeated requests for letting the bill pass second reading so he and others could sit down with lawyers to “address any concerns, questions, and potential drafting errors” and make things “black and white” have, unfortunately, fallen on deaf ears.
It is a truly disappointing turn of events, especially in the context of the promises made by the newly elected government. Indeed, even though I find Mr. Sopuck’s fearmongering disturbing, I realize that he represents the party I didn’t vote for. What I am truly disappointed with is the position of our government. For instance, Mr. Erskine-Smith said that the language used in the bill “was drafted by the Justice Department in 1999, and previous Justice Minister Cauchon stated categorically that such a change would not affect animal use practices.” And now, our newly elected government wants to kill the bill in order to, supposedly, allow for more public consultation? The pseudo-arguments put forward by those who oppose the bill — and especially by Liberal MP Blair — are truly insulting to me as a Canadian who voted for the kinder and more compassionate government that committed itself to rejecting the politics of division and discord. By declining the invitation to give the bill an opportunity to be further reviewed and improved, the government is, in fact, denying the majority of Canadians their voice.
This is, for me, an act of extremism because compassion doesn’t imply extremism, but the lack of it does. What about standing up against woman abuse? Is it an act of extremism or compassion? What about turning away from a suffering child? Extremism, again? Why then is standing up against animal abuse is not seen in the same light? Have our leaders forgotten that people who had voted for a more compassionate and progressive government are the same people who wish to speak up against animal abuse. Yes, these are the same people. It is important to remember that our capacity for compassion does not have to be narrowly defined; we can care for and be compassionate about many issues at the same time. The same person who will give a helping hand to the homeless is also likely to jump into a river to rescue a drowning dog. It will, again, be the same person who will be concerned about the environment, pollution and the loss of biodiversity, and who cares deeply about better education and gender quality. As supporters, we represent a wide spectrum of professions, ages, ethnic backgrounds, and personal stories. Are we all extremists because we voted for a kinder government and are now asking it to fulfill its promise?
Moreover, it has been conveniently forgotten that primary supporters of the bill are animal welfare organizations such as SPCAs and Canadian Federation of Humane Societies that don’t advocate for the end of all animal use in all circumstances. In addition, Canadian Federation of Humane Societies has an established working relationship with the very industries that the opponents of the bill claim would be harmed by it. The bill is also favoured by the the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) that sees a direct link between the abuse of animals and violence towards people. Consequently, the CVMA believes that we need a legislation that deals more effectively with cruelty to animals to help break the cycle of violence in our communities.
It is thus time to dispense with the political charade that underpins the opposition to Bill C-246. Times are changing and we are not the same people we were in the 1800s. The notion of broader animal protection is increasingly being embraced by society as a whole — activists, academics, social workers, veterinarians, scientists, and ordinary citizens who live by compassionate values but who would be the last to call themselves extremists. Our media already acknowledges this change and has started reporting more on the worldwide evolution towards empathy for animals. Countries such as France, New Zealand and Australia are already advancing their animal protection laws. Indeed, we must realize that animals are not the same as rocks, tables, or chairs.
Given a growing body of scientific research in animal cognition, we can no longer deny that animals are sentient beings with deep emotional lives. As Stuart Wild writes: “They talk, they have families, they feel things, they act individually or together to solve problems, they often care for their young as a tribal unit. They play, they travel, and medicate themselves when they get sick. They cry when others in the herd die.” The former Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado, Marc Bekoff, who studied animals for over thirty years, argues in his book Animals Matter that “The study of animal behavior helps us to learn about how animals experience their own worlds and about their capacities for experiencing a broad range of emotions ranging from joy and pleasure to pain and suffering.” Feeling empathy and compassion for non-human beings has, thus, nothing to do with extremism or radicalism. Rejecting these feelings does.
Therefore, our government has to act now. How much longer will they be bogged down in the quagmire of passivity? How much longer will they allow important legislations to be stalled or derailed? It is time to vote in favour of the bill at its second reading and respond to the repeated invitations by MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith to sit down at committee to address any concerns about unintended consequences of the bill. It is time to listen to the majority of Canadians who elected their officials and not be influenced by the irrational minority that relies on the well-funded campaign of fear mongering and misinformation. What is now accepted as a “good animal welfare legislation” is not good enough. SPCAs and humane societies investigate more than 45,000 complaints of animal cruelty and neglect each year but only a small percentage of these complaints is successfully prosecuted because of our weak animal cruelty laws. The government claims that it cares about the nature but we remain complicit in cruel practices of shark finning. The Globe and Mail just reported that Canadians imported over 300,000 pounds of shark fins last year alone and it indicated that we are the largest importer of shark fins outside of Asia.
It is crucial to let the bill be passed to the committee stage for further deliberations. Blocking this process will constitute an open admission that is acceptable for animal cruelty and neglect to continue. This is, in the end, a real act of extremism and radicalism - stripping the majority of Canadians of any hope for real change and ‘sunny ways’ that we were so explicitly promised last year.
