19 Mar 2009 |
|
Animals, men and the lawmakers By Reuben Abati ONE of the fall-outs of the reality of globalization is the tendency in developing countries, in an attempt to keep up with the rest of the world, to imitate nearly every pattern or fad in the West, without passing same through the filter of anthropomorphic priority or socio-cultural need, or developmental relevance. Only a week ago, so much dust was kicked up in Abuja when homosexuals, NGOs accessing foreign funding for the promotion of homosexuality, and the anti-gay movement stormed the National Assembly to argue over whether or not persons of a certain kind of sexual orientation should be allowed the freedom of their choice. The position of the extant law is that sodomy is a crime in Nigeria and the meaning of marriage is a union between a man and a woman. I wonder why the National Assembly thinks that it needs another law to re-affirm this. But nothing for me demonstrates the unnecessary dissipation of energy by Abuja lawmakers more than the beginning this week, of a public hearing in Abuja on a Bill whose intendment is to criminalise cruelty towards animals, beginning with the regulation of the "transportation of animals used for food production". The Guardian reports: "Expressing concern, Bankole who was also represented by the Deputy House Leader, Baba Shehu Agale lamented that unhealthy breeding and housing environment, over-loading, constant flogging and cruelty cause avoidable stress to animals. According to the Speaker, the ill-treatment makes the animals to release unnatural amounts of adrenalin which mingles with their flesh, creating a vile and poisonous admixture." The rhetoric is taken straight from the pages of an Animal Liberation manual. But the House of Representatives should be more concerned about the pain that human beings in Nigeria experience in relation to transportation and other aspects of social living. In many parts of the country, the cost of transportation, the inadequacy of transportation facilities, and the inability to access transportation opportunities limit the scope of the individual's expression of the freedom of movement. The Representatives are asking for a public debate on how the ill-treatment of animals when they are being transported results in the release of adrenaline which "mingles with their flesh, creating a vile and poisonous admixture." I invite them to take a ride in the Molue or the Kombi bus or take the okada, and witness the kind of pain and humiliation Nigerians are subjected to as they confront the challenges of movement. They are invited to visit the okada wards in Nigeria's orthopaedic hospitals where many limbs are in plaster casts, or have been amputated due to the vile circumstances of public transportation in the country. Many of the Construction companies in the country ferry their workers to and from construction sites in trucks that are no better than mobile prisons. Apart from the crisis of transportation in the country, many would argue and rightly so that in the face of global economic recession and great economic depression at home, a committed and sensitive legislature ought to bee more concerned with the welfare of the Nigerian, rather than an academic and philosophical disputation on the rights of animals. In our context more than anywhere else, the attempt to confer a legal personality on goats, horses, rabbits, fish, cattle, dogs and cats and so on can only be a philosophical and academic exercise. It would be quite a dramatic leap from the world of local folklore where animals act as persons. And it is not necessary to say that it is in this direction that the future of human civilisation lies. How would a piece of legislation on animal welfare and rights be enforced in Nigeria? The House of Representatives should dedicate its energies to more pressing issues. Its attempt to legislate on animal welfare can only result in unnecessary distraction. Before long, an Arewa lobby could begin to insist that such a bill is intended to victimize a large section of the population whose traditional work includes cattle-rearing and cattle-grazing. The nomad who transports his cattle from the savannah to the rainforest, in search of water, food and market takes his herd through stretches of difficult landscape, using his stick to direct the cattle from one location to another. Would the proposed law describe this as cruelty to animals and then outlaw it? I further imagine that there will be protests from the Butchers Association and the owners of abbatoirs where the prelude to the slaughter of the cow, or a goat, includes in part what in the eyes of the law could be interpreted as violence, torture or cruelty. Dotted across the country, are all kinds of restaurants which specialize in animal-based delicacies: Chicken Flavour. Tastee Fried Chicken. Chicken Inn. Chicken Republic... How about the road-side Mama Put where a goat is tied to the post and it is soon slaughtered in a most ceremonial manner. Or the pepper-soup joints. I know many of such joints where the special treatment for the customer is in the thrill of having to point at a pond of catfish and select the particular one that you desire. It is called Point and Kill! The fish is soon captured, paraded for your delight before it is taken to the kitchen and either barbecued and dressed up with tomato and onions and vegetables or it is soaked in tasty sauce. In those kitchens where isi-ewu, nkwobi, and peppersoup or chicken peri-peri are prepared, the restaurant owner and the cooks are not concerned about any such thing called animal welfare. Animals? - when a human being is waiting for his pain to be reduced, for his stomach to be fed, and his taste buds treated for his own good and for the larger good of the community. Would the lawmakers declare all persons involved in this process, assassins and accomplices, or accessories before and after the fact? The entire social and legal province of animal rights protection is a Western phenomenon. In Europe and North America, there are Societies for the Protection of Animals, or Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The central argument of the animal rights activists is contained in the resolve that (i) Animals are not ours to eat (ii) animals are not ours to wear (iii) animals are not ours to experiment on (iv) animals are not ours to use for entertainment (v) animals are not ours to abuse in any way. This has resulted in all kinds of lobby against the wearing of animal skin, hunting for game and such sports as bull-fighting, cock-fighting, and dog-fighting. The advocacy for the equation of animals with the human person in the West dates back to the 17th Century. Across Europe, there are prescribed penalties for cruelty towards animals which had been enforced in many instances. In 1822, a law was passed in England which made it an offence "to beat, abuse or ill-treat any horse, mare, gelding, mule, ass, ox, cow, heifer, steer, sheep or other cattle". In the United States, animal law is taught in law schools. Socially, it is common to see how Westerners have bridged the gap between man and lower animals. Persons keep animals as pets and treat them as children, clothing them even and including them in their Wills. When such an animal dies, it is buried as if it were a human being with special notice in the papers. One of the big stories in the first month of the Obama Presidency was about the Obamas getting a dog. Presidential dogs in the White House have been known to enjoy as much fame as the human occupants. In the United States, at the University of Maryland, College Park campus, I was always amused seeing how squirrels ran freely around the campus without anybody grabbing any one of them for peppersoup. Any squirrel that moves carelessly anywhere in Nigeria is sure to end up as bush meat! Vegetarians (the animals are not for us to eat crowd) seem to give the impression that what is at stake here is not just animal abuse but cannibalism. The tricky thing about animal rights is the idea of conferring rights on animals that are not in a position to defend, or articulate their own rights. The closest indication of any form of regard for animals in Nigeria would seem to be in conservation laws (but do we still have forest reserves?); the criminalization of the export of rare animals, the worship of certain animals in some communities for purely mythological, or spiritual reasons. Otherwise, across the country, the pervasive attitude is that man has dominion over all animals, and that animals are for us to eat. In the face of deepening poverty and anxieties about tomorrow, any legislative attempt to focus on animal welfare is no more than an act of legislative Afghanistanism. The average Nigerian is bound to ask and for good reason: How about our own welfare? How about the pain that average Nigerians are continually subjected to? Why animal welfare when there are serious issues of equality among Nigerians? How about the rights of women and children?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
# 
Your Comments
Please make The Square an enjoyable experience for everyone by refraining from gratuitous ad-hominem contributions, defamatory comments and off-topic posting. Such posts will be removed.