The Political Question of the Rights of the Whiskered and the Tailed
The horse was the first to get lucky. Incidentally, it had suffered from our kind perhaps more than any other. Therefore, it is not surprising that the first animal advocates protested specifically against cruelty to horses. In 1822, through the efforts of Sir Richard Martin, a member of the English Parliament, and his associate, Lord Chancellor Thomas Erskine, a bill against cruelty to animals was passed for the first time in history. It was called the 'Act for the Prevention of Cruel and Improper Treatment of Cattle'.
In 1824, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was founded in London, which, thanks to the patronage of Queen Victoria, soon acquired the title and status of Royal, and later such organizations appeared in other European countries.
At the beginning of the 20th century, animal protection societies arose on all continents. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in Great Britain took the initiative to create a single international organization, and in 1959 the International Society for the Protection of Animals was established. One of its most important decisions was the organization of a system of inspectors who, while helping animals, carried out work in various parts of the globe.
And in 1979, a new, fundamentally important stage was reached in the development of the animal protection movement – the problem entered politics. The main political parties of Great Britain for the first time in history officially formulated their attitude to the problem of animal protection.
In 1987, in Strasbourg, the Council of Europe adopted a convention on various aspects of the use of animals. And in 1984, the European councils for scientific medical research and the WHO Advisory Committee on Medical Scientific Research approved the International Recommendations for conducting biomedical research using animals.
How Do Cats and Dogs Live Abroad?
Since then, animal protection has become a significant political issue. And in 1987, 21 countries – members of the Council of Europe – signed the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals. This document is based on two main principles of the welfare of our smaller brothers:
1. No one has the right to cause unnecessary pain, suffering, or damage to an animal.
2. No one has the right to abandon a pet.
Quite strict restrictions have been imposed in the field of animal training and their participation in advertising shows, sports competitions, and exhibitions. Thus, it is forbidden to cause pain to an animal during training or to mutilate it in deference to fashion trends. For example, in Germany, docking of tails and ears and removal of claws and teeth are prohibited. Exceptions are necessary castrations and cases when, in the opinion of a veterinarian, such non-therapeutic operations are necessary. Operations during which an animal may have to suffer acute pain must be performed by a veterinarian under anesthesia.
Only a veterinarian or another competent person may euthanize pets. Euthanasia must not cause physical or moral suffering and must cause immediate loss of consciousness and death.
Many European countries have supplemented the requirements of the convention with their own provisions. For example, in Sweden it is forbidden to keep a dog in a locked car with closed windows for a long time. In this case, any passerby has the right to break a window with impunity to let the dog breathe. And if the animal dies from suffocation, the owner faces a very large fine and universal condemnation.
In Turkey, a law has recently been adopted that tightens penalties for the mistreatment of animals: two years in prison and a fine of $60 to $250. It is forbidden to leave pets hungry, to throw them out onto the street, or to treat them without anesthesia. Television cannot show films with scenes of physical violence against animals. If a motorist hits a dog or cat, he is obliged to immediately take the animal to the nearest veterinary facility, or arrange a call of a veterinarian to the home.
And in Singapore, for killing a dog, even in self-defense, a sentence of three months in prison and an $800 fine is imposed.
High fines (in the amount of several thousand dollars) for cruelty to animals are provided in Canada and Ireland. And in some cases, the owner faces imprisonment for several months. Half of the US states have adopted similar tightening of legislation. Moreover, since last year, the most prestigious law schools of Harvard and Georgetown universities have introduced special courses on animal rights into their curricula.
And Germany became the first European country to guarantee animal rights in its constitution. By a majority vote, the German parliament adopted an amendment that adds the words 'and animals' to the article obliging the state to respect and protect the honor and dignity of man.
In general, to date, the vast majority of countries in the world have adopted laws protecting animal rights. And where there are none, through the joint efforts of various foundations, RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals), WSPA (World Society for the Protection of Animals), PETA ('People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals'), their adoption is being accelerated.
The Beastly Grin of the Average Man
And how are things with animal protection in our country, Ukraine? Not at all. No, the question, of course, is being 'studied and worked on.' The ultimate goal of our lawmakers' efforts in the zoological field is to join the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals. However, for such accession we need a state law regulating Ukrainians' relations with animals, and such a law has not yet been adopted. Currently, the only regulator can be considered Article 89 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses: 'Cruel treatment of animals that caused their death or injury, as well as torture of animals, entails a fine of three to seven non-taxable minimum incomes of citizens.' But this article, as they say, is 'dead.'
Another painful issue is the attitude toward stray dogs and cats. What to do with them? Sterilize and release? Catch and euthanize? Treat and place in 'good hands'? And again public opinion is divided... This is a serious issue and requires a separate discussion.
Through the efforts and nerves of enthusiasts of the Society for the Protection of Animals SOS in Kyiv, the notorious dog slaughterhouse in Pyrohiv was finally closed, and in 1997 a shelter for stray dogs and cats was built there. Now about 300 dogs and 130 cats live there, and treatment of dogs and treatment of cats is carried out. True, the state does not allocate a single kopeck for their maintenance. Fortunately, the supermarket chains Metro and Billa regularly supply products whose shelf life has expired. But, oddly enough, the main thing is not food... And let's not delve into bureaucratic and legislative jungles - let's talk about us.
"Back in 1993, when I first came to Ukraine, I was struck by the thoughtlessly cruel attitude toward animals," says Tamara Tarnavska, president of the Society for the Protection of Animals SOS. "A boy, standing with his father in a bakery line for bread, just out of boredom, kicks a pregnant cat in the stomach. Why? For what? Where does such callousness in a child come from? In Norway, for example, every school has a dog or cat. The children take care of them, they are taught to help those who are weaker, who love you.
In Ukraine, I am struck by the polarity of cruelty. On the one hand, there are the homeless who try to waylay a dog: to eat it, sell its skin, fat. These are adults and children who have become dull and brutalized by severe, sometimes hopeless need, when irritation accumulated in the soul over the years bursts out in an unexpected flash of violent aggression. And then it doesn't matter who gets in the way - a stray cat or a classmate who looked at you wrong, a mongrel in the gateway or a wife tired of eternal reproaches. I deliberately emphasize: a cruel person is cruel to everyone - both animals and people. The other extreme is successful, wealthy people, thriving businessmen, fashionable housewives. What, you don't believe? Here are examples. An owner beat a Great Dane to death for stealing sausages from the table and eating them. And in terms of income, the dog's owner could have bought a small sausage factory. Or a nice young couple who had a wonderful tiny Bolognese dog living in their apartment - a gift to the beloved wife for her birthday. Once, in the heat of a quarrel, the young woman grabs the poor dog and... throws it out the window of the seventh floor, so to speak, to spite her husband. A cheerful Cocker Spaniel rushed to meet its owner returning from work and received a hefty kick: he came in a bad mood. As a result, the dog had its jaw knocked out and broken, it couldn't eat, and the owner threw it out into the street, simply like useless trash.
You see, when I tell my Western colleagues about these and similar cases, they cannot understand me. They try to find some logic in the actions of these people; they strive to comprehend what kind of people we are. I have lived and worked in seven countries around the world and have not seen such a number of purebred dogs anywhere as in Ukraine. One gets the impression that here we know how to love only for something: for breed, for beauty, for medals and rosettes. People in expensive cars, well-dressed, sometimes come to our shelter with the noble mission of 'making a poor dog happy.' And they always ask to choose only a purebred dog for them. I am so tired of this that now I ask them to present their own pedigree: like, how can we give a purebred dog to 'mongrel' owners!"
Tailed landing in Germany
In general, not every Ukrainian family can receive a homeless animal. But then where and how to find new owners for them? "This fall, we participated for the first time in the action 'Mercy without Borders.' On October 13, a trailer with 45 dogs from the Pyrohiv shelter set off for Germany, where new owners were already waiting for them," continues Tamara Tarnavska. "Moreover, people took the sickest, often crippled animals. They said: 'You will always find people to take healthy and beautiful ones, but give these to us!' We hope that in the spring we will be able to send another 55 dogs. This is not easy: preparing the animals for shipment (passports and vaccinations) cost us about 2,000 hryvnias. In addition, all the dogs were implanted with special microchips containing full information about them. But 45 dogs is a drop in the ocean! And they keep dropping off new ones on us."
The life and work of the Pyrohiv shelter is constantly plagued by bureaucratic problems. But we will talk about what and how is done there for our smaller brothers in future publications.
...Have you not forgotten about the mongrel Charlik? Let us nevertheless explain what makes his story so remarkable. The fact is that he was taken to America by the previous US ambassador to Ukraine, Carlos Pascual. And when he took him from the Pyrohiv shelter, he did not ask to pick out a handsome dog - he took him as he was: affectionate, cheerful, but absolutely not purebred. A most noble act, isn't it?
And a couple more words in conclusion. I think many will admire the breadth of the foreign soul that allows one to warm and caress a poor mongrel. And someone might snort: they say, they are doing nonsense, going crazy from excess. There, in the West, there are simple and understandable rights for everyone. The right to love and believe in loved ones - that is for them, the mustachioed and tailed. And the right to be loved and to care for those who love - that is for us. Regardless of gender and age, religion and breed, skin color and tail length. And until we learn to calmly react to the ordinary human attitude towards animals of ordinary people, we are oh so far from Europe. Perhaps further than Charlie is from America.
The editors express gratitude
to the Society for the Protection of Animals SOS
for assistance in preparing the material.