Animal rights activists pretend to be about animal welfare, but in reality, they want to outlaw all instrumental uses of animals.
We can see this illustrated in Oregon, where animal rights activists are attempting to qualify Initiative Petition 28 for the November ballot. Proponents claim it is about ending cruelty. But the actual purpose is to effectively outlaw animal agriculture and hunting in the state.
Legal Equality
First, if passed, the law would create a legal equality between animals and people. From the Yes on IP28 website:
We believe everyone should be equally protected under the law, and that all animals deserve equal consideration, regardless of whether or not we consider them our companions. All animals deserve a life free from cruelty.
Note what would be included in the concept of “cruelty” under the proposed law. From the “About IP28” link:
For those hearing about IP28 for the first time, this ballot initiative would remove many of the current exemptions from Oregon’s animal cruelty laws against animal abuse, animal neglect, and animal sexual assault. These statutes prohibit the intentional injury or killing of an animal (abuse), the withholding of care from an animal or the injurious tethering of an animal (neglect), and the sexual contact of an animal’s mouth, anus, or genitals (sexual assault), but many animals are not currently protected under these laws due to the numerous exemptions included.
Sounds Sort of Reasonable, Doesn’t It?
But wait. All exemptions for animal husbandry would be removed, meaning that if IP28 became law, it would effectively outlaw animal agriculture in Oregon since it would prohibit the slaughter of food animals and the breeding of any animal through artificial means. The proponents even admit it (again, from the “About” link, my emphasis):
IP28 does not prohibit a rancher from strictly raising and caring for bovines or any other animal. It would, however, require that the rancher does not abuse, neglect, or sexually assault the animals under their care, meaning that the animals could not be killed or forcibly impregnated. This would certainly increase the cost to raise animals, since many are currently killed at a small fraction of their natural lifespan, which is why we encourage ranchers to transition to an alternative agriculture practice. If a rancher would prefer to continue caring for animals, there is also the possibility that they could help operate an animal sanctuary. At a sanctuary, they could still care for animals, while also letting the animals live out their natural lives.
If enacted, it seems to me that would mean all meat sold in Oregon would have to imported from elsewhere — assuming that wasn’t also banned at some point. The goal is to end all animal agriculture for food throughout the country:
To provide some clarity, IP28 would not ban the sale of meat, leather, or fur. This is not because our campaign supports animal product consumption, but because we are focused specifically on criminalizing the practice of killing animals. Once successful in Oregon, we hope to bring similar initiatives to every state until the killing of animals is against the law nationwide.
That is why IP28 would create a fund to retrain workers now employed in commercial agriculture and animal husbandry industries. The proposal would also ban fishing and hunting: If passed, IP28 would remove the exemption for hunting, fishing, and trapping from our cruelty laws, meaning that any practice that involves the intentional injury of an animal would be criminalized. Although the practice of seeking, pursuing, and in some cases even capturing an animal would still be legally protected, the practice of killing animals would no longer be protected. IP28 would also end all animal research in Oregon.
Remember, This Is Oregon
“It won’t make the ballot,” you say, because previous efforts have failed. Ah, but this is Oregon. According to the American Kennel Club — dog breeding would also be impacted deleteriously — the measure has already garnered more than 87,000 signatures, with only 30,000 more needed by July. Sounds like it’s on a glide path to the ballot. “Oh well, it will never pass,” you say? Hopefully not, but I remind you again: This is Oregon, a state in which anything deemed progressive is possible.
In any event, IP28 illustrates that the animal rights movement is not ultimately about improving animal welfare as activists sometimes pretend. Rather, the ideology seeks to end all human uses of animals and create a false equality between people and fauna. In an era where many among us “feel” more than “think,” the potential for such radical proposals becoming law cannot be dismissed out of hand.
Hit this link to read the proposed law itself.
Cross-posted at National Review.