ANIMAL WELFARE BILL - A LEGIT CONCERN
ON 20 February 2017, the cabinet gave a go-ahead to the proposed Animal Welfare Bill. Apparently this nod of approval seems to be pro-bono; however, from a less legally critical perspective, it really is. This draft law has tried to redefine the term 'animal' and attempted to widen its domain. One of the most admirable steps is to increase the jail terms and fines as forms of punishment for animal abuse. Undoubtedly, compared to the existing eighteen-century law, i.e. Cruelty to Animals Act of 1920, this draft bill will prevail.
How far this law can be praised as a bio-centric legislative step, is subject to another discourse under the ever-evolving environmental law. The idea underlying this entirely subjective reaction to the draft Bill is to critically analyse the provisions of punishment enshrined in the Act.
From more of a pair of environmentally ethical eyes, being cruel to animals is a moral wrong. However severe the punishment is, the abused can't have a redress thereby. In that case, punishment, by deterring the offenders, can play one of its most theoretically important roles. And a well-calculated increase in jail terms can definitely serve the need. The problem lies with the alternative monetary charges. The provision of alternative monetary charges saddeningly drags this praiseworthy endeavor one step backward.
Getting away with committing offences under the draft Bill without the crime even being reported will be very common. Monetary charges therefore can't be a proper deterrent. Even though the second alternative (imprisonment or fine or both) creates a space for the judiciary to apply its discretion by imposing both imprisonment and fine, that can hardly be counted on. Animal rights are not widely accepted in our country. Whether or not we can hope for a proper implementation of the second alternative overnight, is the main concern.
Almost all the states in the US provide for the similar sort of monetary charges, alternatively or jointly with imprisonment. Animal activism, as more of a movement, is traceable back to the mid-fifteen century in the US. The kind of consciousness regarding animal rights the judiciary in the US would possess, certainly cannot be brought on a par with that of ours. Any legislative intent, however noble tends to be, will fail, if the same doesn't have a connection with the psyche of the people.
The judiciary will apply the Bill, along with those who are targeted by the same, need to be made aware of animal ethics and rights. Only then we can hope for someone to apply his discretion and go for a simple imprisonment instead of fine, considering the gravity of the offence. This might seem to be a naive suggestion. However, that's the only possible way out since the provision of imprisonment, exclusively, will have a more disastrous effect.
The Bill speaks on behalf of those who can't speak for themselves. And it's up to us to make their voices heard through the proper implementation thereof.
PSYMHE WADUD
STUDENT OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF DHAKA.
Comments