Would it really have been such a concession to animal rights fundamentalists for politicians to stop party pill testing on animals?
SOMETIMES, YOU JUST want to cry. We’re all used to seeing politicians performing like a pack of crazed baboons in Parliament, and I guess few of us are surprised these days when another ill-considered piece of legislation is passed.
But when it came to the subject of party pills, and specifically the suggested alteration to legislation that would have made it illegal to test the safety of party pills on animals, you’d think that for once, our elected representatives would have just done the right thing.
Instead, the majority voted against the amended legislation, which means that while testing party pills on animals is not encouraged, it’s also not banned.
When I saw the rather too-short item on the TV3 news last night, I wanted to see each politician explain his or her actions. Instead, we got the disgraced Peter Dunne and his ridiculous bouffant saying that he wouldn’t be party to the amendment, because it was part of the animal liberation agenda to get all animal testing banned.
And then it cut to that craggy smoker Winston Peters, giving some weak excuse for abstaining from voting on the issue.
It doesn’t take a brain of MENSA complexity to work out that opinion in government, whether it’s left or right leaning, is generally stacked against animals, given that the economy is uppermost in a politician’s mind, and agriculture is such a large part of NZ’s economy.
While a huge groundswell of New Zealanders do care about animal welfare, it’s not in the politician’s best interests to support the idea, and there’s an entrenched attitude that animals are just there for us to exploit as we wish, hence John Key’s infamous support of experimental research on ways to stop sheep farting.
It’s great that John Banks is an animal advocate, but who would want that ridiculed and faintly ridiculous man on their side? It was only a sound bite, but from the TV3 item, it looked as though Banks was claiming that testing on ‘puppies’ was intrinsically worse than testing on ‘bunnies’, when anyone who has studied or observed animals knows that domestic pets and farm animals are all pretty similar – sentient beings that think, have the capacity to enjoy life, and feel pain and misery just like us.
It may be true that animal lobbies are looking to a complete ban on testing on animals, and good on them. Regardless, it’s unbelievably pompous, wrong-headed and just nasty of that doomed loser Dunne to hold one lobby’s agenda over a specific issue that deserves attending to for what it is.
Why should animals suffer for our frivolous kicks, when there’s no legitimate reason for them to be subjected to such torture?
As SAFE’s campaign manager Mandy Carter said in the group’s press statement: “The profits of drug dealers have effectively been put ahead of animals’ lives. New Zealand says it aims to be a world leader in animal welfare, but in fact we are legalising animal cruelty for the sake of testing recreational drugs – something that other places such as the United Kingdom have banned.”
SAFE and the Green Party have done a great job between them in respectively promoting and introducing the failed amendment.
Those who voted against it, or abstained from voting, might as well be now wearing a badge that says: “We don’t care about animals”. GARY STEEL