|
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
ANIMALS PROTECTED BUT NOT HUMAN LIFE - BILL C-10
One
of the most peculiar bills ever, Bill C-10, is making its
way through Parliament. This Bill deals with two completely
unrelated issues, which are cruelty to animals and firearms
control. The only common thread between these two issues is
that both are driven by the lobbying of powerful, well-funded
special interest groups.
Bill
C-10 amends the Criminal Code to broaden protection previously
provided only to persons and property (which also included
animals), so as to move animals out of the property category,
and make animals into beings in their own right, worthy and
needy of separate protection under the Code.
The Bill
provides that anyone who kills or causes suffering, injury
or pain to an animal, which is defined as a vertebrate, other
than a human being, that has the capacity to feel pain, will
be subject to a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment.
Yet the same Criminal Code now provides no protection whatsoever
for pre-born human children who similarly feel pain and suffer.
Pre-born children can be killed anytime up to birth without
penalty under the law, since there is absolutely no protection
for them under the Criminal Code.
Further,
for those who kill by way of Infanticide, defined in the Code
as the killing of a newly born child by its mother, also may
receive the maximum penalty of five Years' imprisonment -
the same penalty as that of causing harm or pain or suffering
to an animal. What kind of justice is this? Where is our value
system?
It seems,
in a nutshell, that the Liberal Government lacks concern for,
and understanding of, the dignity and value of human life,
pre-born or newly born, and has a greater compassion for animals.
This Bill indicates that the time is now overdue to extend,
at the very least, the same protection to pre-born human life
as is now being extended to animals.
How
This Bill Came Into Existence
The animal
rights group, Animal Alliance and its political arm,
Environment Voters, have long been lobbying to give
animals special rights and protections under the Criminal
Code.
Their
big breakthrough occurred during the last federal election
in November, 2000, when then Minister of Justice, Anne McLellan
(Edmonton West), was floundering and in real danger of defeat.
It was at this sensitive and opportune moment that the political
arm of the animal rights movement, Environment Voters, came
to her rescue and pulled her from defeat to a narrow victory
by 700 votes. The [Animal] Alliance of Canada acknowledged
this in its Winter 2002 newsletter in which is stated:
…
It started in the last federal election. Because of a commitment
made by the minister of Justice, Anne McLellan, in the House
of Commons to pass C15B, Environment Voters campaigned for
her re- election. Under attack by hunters and gun owners
and a cabal of extremist right wing groups, Ms. Mclellan
was in a losing Campaign. Environment Voters stepped in
and championed her election. We ran the better campaign.
Ms. McClellan won by 700 votes.
Good
to her word, Ms. McLellan introduced the breakthrough animal
protection legislation. Not surprising, it was viciously
opposed by the fur trade, researchers, hunters, agri-business
Ð all those who profit or take pleasure in the harming
of animals. Their tactics? Fear mongering, lies, and
the vilification of people like you who have compassion
for animals. (emphasis ours)
In short,
Ms. McLellan, who was already well known as a passionate dog-lover,
paid back her political debt to the animal rights people by
introducing Bill C-15B, so numbered in the last Parliament,
but which has now been re-numbered Bill C-10 in this current
Parliament.
During
the debate in the Senate on this Bill on October 22, 2002,
Senator Tkachuk asked the sponsor of Bill C-10, Liberal gender
feminist, Mobina Jaffer, whether the Bill will include protecting
fish from cruelty. Senator Jaffer said fish would be included.
Fisherman, both in the industry and for pleasure, should take
note.
Bill
C-10 will also have deep ramifications for others, such as
farmers and hunters, especially in the Northwest Territories,
Northern Quebec, etc., where hunting is carried out as a necessity
for sustenance. This Bill will also affect the seal and whale
hunts, trappers, medical research and such Canadian institutions
as the Calgary Stampede, where, for example, the famous chuck
wagon race has long been condemned by animal activists. The
latter will unquestionably be the subject of litigation once
this Bill is passed.
There
is absolutely no doubt that these animal rights activists
intend to use Bill C-10 as a tool to implement their agenda.
This was made clear in the [Animal] Alliance newsletter, Winter
2000 issue, where it stated:
I can't overstate the importance of this change. This elevation
of animals in our moral and legal view is precedent setting
and will have far, far reaching effects. We'll make sure of
that.
It is
our nation's tragedy that this Bill amends the Criminal Code
to give moral and legal protection to animals, but provides
no protection whatsoever to pre- born human children. How
can our nation be so blind and foolish? There were approximately
110,000 abortions performed in Canada last year. That is,
more Canadians were killed by abortion in Canada in one year
alone, than were killed in all the wars in which Canada participated
in the twentieth century. What a legacy!
Firearms
Control
Other
controversial provisions included in Bill C-10 are matters
dealing with firearms, such as the appointment of a Firearms
Commissioner at a starting salary of $156,000 annually.
Whatever
one's views on firearms registration, however, one thing that
is certain is that when the Firearms Act became law in 1995,
it came about because of two outrageous falsehoods by the
then Minister of Justice, Allan Rock, who was responsible
for the Bill.
The first
falsehood was that firearms control was necessary to protect
vulnerable women who were victims of extensive domestic violence.
The 1989 tragic deaths of 14 female engineering students at
Montreal's …cole Polytechnique had been exploited by
radical feminists, who had argued that women were innocent
victims of the male patriarchy which was killing off women
with firearms. Senator Jaffer reaffirmed this in her speech
in the Senate on October 22, 2002, when she stated that "a
vast majority of domestic homicides are committed by rifles
and shotguns."
In fact,
according to Statistics Canada's Canadian Centre for Justice
Statistics for the year 1994, which data supported the Firearms
Control Bill when it was passed in 1995, the number of women
killed by firearms by their spouses or intimate partners was
23. In sharp contrast, 157 men were also killed by firearms
that same year. So much for "gender" feminist social
policies.
The second
falsehood made by Mr. Rock on the Firearms Control Bill Ð
one of the most stringent in the world - was that at the time
the Bill was introduced into Parliament, and during the entire
debate on the Bill, he claimed that the registration of firearms
required under the Bill would cost only $85 million annually,
which sum would be recoverable under the program, so that
it would not cost the taxpayers any money at all.
By 2002,
this registration process has cost $689.6 million and climbing,
and, of course, this amount is not recoverable by the taxpayer.
Mr. Rock
has never been made accountable for his misrepresentations
of fact on which the Firearms Control Bill was based.
Conclusion
For the
reasons given above, Bill C-10 is a travesty. It is an example
of special interest lobbying and the willingness of Liberal
Cabinet Ministers to pay heed to only those voices that they
believe will get them re-elected. It is irrelevant that such
legislation is eccentric, damaging both to society and the
economy, and unacceptable to the majority of Canadians.
The government,
however, continues to fail to listen to the demands of pro-lifers
in Canada, even though, in a poll conducted from October 1-6
and again from October 15-20 by L"ger Marketing in Montreal,
found that 56% of respondents said human life should be legally
protected before birth, of which 37% favoured protection
from conception on, 13% after three months and 6% after six
months, while 30% only said legal protection should be restricted
until after birth, which is the current situation. The results
for the fetal rights question had a 2.5% margin of error.
It is
a bizarre situation in this country that animals are protected
from pain and suffering, but not human life.
Please
write to:
The
Rt. Hon. Jean Chretien, PC, MP
Prime Minister's Office
80 Wellington St., 2 nd Floor
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A2
Tel. (613) 992-4211 Fax: (613) 941-6900
The
Hon. Martin Cauchon, PC, MP
Minister of Justice
Justice Building
284 Wellington St.
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H8
Tel: (613) 992-4621 Fax: (613) 990-7255
Your
MP
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
and demand
that Canadian pre-born children be given legal protection
under the Criminal Code.
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
