Anticorruptionnz's Blog

30/03/2010

Pensioner prosecuted – will we be next

Filed under: transparency — anticorruptionnz @ 8:30 am

A news item was forwarded to me today   it is what is happening in the UK t he item was about a sick pensioner who was prosecuted because their pet  had become sick  so instead of  helping the pensioner and the   beloved pet  they put it down and    fined the pensioner..  such compassion   probably will result in the death of the pensioner.

It made me look at the 5  Freedoms of animals   in the UK  they are

1. Physiological needs – e.g. food and water, appropriate temperature/humidity, air and light conditions etc.

2. Social needs – preference for living in solitude, in pair bonds or in a group.

3. Psychological needs – appropriate stimulation and activity to prevent boredom.

4. Environmental needs – suitable home, space and territory.

5. Behavioural needs – e.g. hibernation, nest building, burrowing.

But in New Zealand where  our legislation was written by a former RNZSPCA director  who saw  his own opportunity  for setting up an animal welfare  “organisation” which  could prosecute  offences  the freedoms were   written into  legislation as

Definition of physical, health, and behavioural needs

  • In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the term physical, health, and behavioural needs, in relation to an animal, includes—
    • (a) proper and sufficient food and water:
    • (b) adequate shelter:
    • (c) opportunity to display normal patterns of behaviour:
    • (d) physical handling in a manner which minimises the likelihood of unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress:
    • (e) protection from, and rapid diagnosis of, any significant injury or disease,—

being a need which, in each case, is appropriate to the species, environment, and circumstances of the animal.

The  difference is the    last one   it leaves the door wide open for people to be   prosecuted  when  their animal  is  ill.  It may be that the person is  ill , Penniless, or does not  realise that the animal is ill  it is an offence.

I use the analogy of a mother I knew   she was a doctor  , her son hurt his leg  skiing  , because he could weigh bear    he skied for a week,  the following week  it was found to be broken  .. she felt  very bad  and it was not intentional, now this was a child  who was old enough to  say something  about  the pain  , he obviously didn’t  complain hard enough  but if he had been a dog  the doctor  mother would have been prosecuted and  banned from owning a dog  for life.

Why do animal support groups need to prosecute?  If  there is no deliberate cruelty  they should  help  and maintain the bond between animal and owner.

It appears to me that we have arrived at a stage where  animals have more rights than Humans

It seems to that because the legislation which he wrote was to be self serving that it was left without  accountability  to   the public  , in that they are not registered or  subject to tribunal action at all .

Just a thought

With regards to clause  D in the animal welfare Act  – physical handling in a manner which minimises the likelihood of unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress:  Now if this had been a punishable  offence I could have taken AWINZ to task and all those who  have claimed to be part of    for they have   gone to all lengths to   provide distress to me and my family.

The  word Hypocrites   comes to mind.

Advertisements

2 Comments

  1. […] Do we need to   prosecute   those who  through poverty ,illness or lack of intent  neglect their  animals… those people  need help  not  fines… see   the example of what happened in Britain recently […]

    Pingback by Who can be an approved Organisation.. Back door wide open to legilative powers. « Anticorruptionnz's Blog — 16/04/2010 @ 10:24 pm

  2. […] Do we need to   prosecute   those who  through poverty ,illness or lack of intent  neglect their  animals… those people  need help  not  fines… see   the example of what happened in Britain recently […]

    Pingback by Who can be an approved Organisation.. Back door wide open to legislative powers. « Anticorruptionnz's Blog — 16/04/2010 @ 10:25 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: