Thursday, January 07, 2010

to clarify.

to even consider that animals could actually have rights is insane.

the idea of rights for animals has proselytised thousands of people to subscribe to actions which, by any stretch of the imagination, could be considered criminal.

we do the same thing when we aim for rights for children.

as adults we have the legal responsibility for the protection and sustenance of both animals and children, and as a result we must bear the consequences of failing in our obligation to these groups.

to give rights to these groups without thier ability to be responsible for themselves creates chaos.

and, of course, bureaucracy.

we already have laws in place for the abuse of children and it is against the law to harm animals also...whether the animal protection laws are strong enough is a seperate issue, and not one for justifying seperate rights for them.

or gays.

or women.

or anyone other than every adult person alive.

to give groups rights that others don`t is a privelege our society can ill afford. it sets people against eachother and stresses society in general.

september 5th last year doug saunders of the globe and mail wrote that athanisios hadjis, a canadian government official, quietly announced that section 13 (1) of the canadian human rights act, popularly known as the hate-speech law, will no longer be enforced.

the reason why the hate law is no longer being enforced is that, according to hadjis, there are better laws in place to deal with libel, slander and the like.....

wow. a calm voice in the sea of invective screaming we come to know as "the media".

maybe there is hope for society after all.

No comments: