`Some Strange Things Happening in our Country': Opposing Proposed Changes in Anti-Cruelty Laws in Canada
| Author | John Sorenson |
| Published date | 01 September 2003 |
| Date | 01 September 2003 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/09646639030123005 |
| Subject Matter | Journal Article |
‘SOME STRANGE THINGS
HAPPENING IN OUR
COUNTRY’:
OPPOSING PROPOSED
CHANGES IN ANTI-CRUELTY
LAWS IN CANADA
JOHN SORENSON
Brock University, Canada
ABSTRACT
Ideologies are most efficient when they operate invisibly to naturalize power
relations, yet even the most successful hegemonies are not seamless. Contradictions
in our attitudes towards animals are exposed by welfare measures such as anti-cruelty
laws. This article examines opposition to proposed amendments to Canada’s anti-
cruelty legislation. Directed at individual acts of violence, anti-cruelty amendments
proposed in Bill C-15B posed no challenge to animal exploitation industries and
consisted of only moderately increased penalties for deliberately sadistic actions in
non-institutional settings. The amendments were not motivated by ideas from an
animal-rights perspective and constituted no fundamental change. Nevertheless,
industrial users of animals presented even modest reforms as a direct threat to their
interests. This article examines discursive strategies of those who profit from insti-
tutionalized abuse and killing of animals and shows that they deliberately exagger-
ated the amendments’ effects and vilified those with genuine and reasonable concerns
for the welfare of animals as ‘radicals’, ‘extremists’ and ‘terrorists’.
INTRODUCTION
IDEOLOGIES ARE most effective when most invisible, when their premises
are taken for granted as elements of ‘common sense’ and as reflections of
inevitable, natural processes; yet, as Antonio Gramsci (1971: 419–25)
argues, common sense is always contradictory. Among the most basic
SOCIAL &LEGAL STUDIES 0964 6639 (200309) 12:3 Copyright © 2003
SAGE Publications, London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi,
www.sagepublications.com
Vol. 12(3), 377–402; 034852
assumptions of common sense are those which refer to our relationships with
animals: our anthropocentric society regards them as instruments for our use,
our economy is based on their exploitation and our dominion over them is
sanctioned by religious and legal codes. Yet even these most commonsensical
relationships are fraught with contradictions: having made animals our slaves,
we believe that they should be treated in a ‘humane’ manner and should not
suffer ‘unnecessarily’. One arena in which these contradictions are played out
most strikingly is in our thinking about animal cruelty legislation. This article
examines some of the contradictions in relations to efforts to update Canada’s
anti-cruelty laws and shows how those who profit from animal exploitation
have deliberately misrepresented the nature of the proposed legislation and
sought to vilify animal advocates.
BILL C-15B
Recognizing that Canada’s laws on animal cruelty were unchanged since they
were first enacted under the Criminal Code in 1892, then Justice Minister
Anne McLellan introduced Bill C-17 in 1999 to update the legislation. Oppo-
sition from animal exploitation industries, supported by the Canadian Alliance
Party, stalled the Bill until parliament was dissolved in 2000. In March 2001,
McLellan revived the proposed amendments in an omnibus Bill C-15, which
was referred to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and
Human Rights. The House divided the Bill and provisions on animal cruelty
were specified as C-15B, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to
animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act. The Standing Committee heard
witnesses in October and November, completed a review in December and
sent Bill C-15B back to the House of Commons for further debate. In June
2002, the Bill passed its Third Reading in the House and then moved to the
Senate. Prorogation of parliament in September 2002 ended unfinished
business, including C-15B, but the proposed legislation was reinstated as Bill
C-10 in the Senate, where it encountered further obstruction from senators
who favoured animal exploitation industries and opposed gun registration.
In November 2002, the Senate took the unusual step of dividing Bill C-10
into two sections and had not completed deliberations at the time this article
was written; animal advocates feared that the Senate would bow to corpor-
ate pressure and include a blanket exemption for all animal exploitation
industries, leaving animals with even less protection. The proposed amend-
ments were supported by much of the public, the police and a variety of
animal welfare organizations. Despite their modest character, the amend-
ments were vociferously protested by special-interest groups that exploit
animals for profit: agricultural industries, medical researchers and hunters.
They claimed that the amendments concealed a ‘hidden agenda’ that would
not only ‘humanize’ animals but would allow ‘animal rights extremists’ to
accomplish their goals. This article uses critical discourse analysis to analyse
opposition to the proposed amendments and argues that concerns raised by
378 SOCIAL & LEGAL STUDIES 12(3)
To continue reading
Request your trial