'Animal lawyers' vote attracts foreign press attention

A recent edition of The Sunday Times reported that Switzerland was “going to new extremes in the battle to improve life for its animals” before referring to recent legislation passed to protect the “dignity” of plants and “establishing rights” for pets including canaries and goldfish.

A similar version of the same article in The Daily Telegraph was penned by the paper’s entertainment reporter.

Cartoonists and comedy sketch writers all over the world will be sharpening pencils if the initiative on March 7 is passed and animals are provided with lawyers in court. At the very least, the issue is bound to feature on an episode of Boston Legal, if it already hasn’t.

And as voting forms start arriving in the post throughout the country this week, the initiative, launched by Swiss Animal Protection is generating increasing activity in Switzerland as well.

On Monday, the association of small and medium farmers (VKMB) opposed the larger Swiss Farmers Union by declaring itself in favour of the proposal which would require each canton to appoint a specialist lawyer.

“As farmers we are interested in having a good image in animal welfare and are of the opinion that such a lawyer has more competence than normal justice,” VKMB director, Herbert Karch told Swisster.

“If there are legal actions against farmers which are not rectified or addressed then these competent lawyers can act on our behalf,” Karch added.

When contacted by Swisster, Sandra Helfenstein, a spokeswoman for the Swiss Farmer’s Union (representing 60,000 agricultural families) said: “We think that it is not necessary to have this. The actual law already caters for the animals and if there’s a case of bad treatment the whole process is clear.”

“Even now you can have a specialised lawyer if you want – they already have one in Zurich.”

Enter Antoine Goetschel, Zurich’s advocate for animals, who has been in the post for two years, worked in animal welfare for 25 years, and has written or co-authored 15 books on the subject.

He told Swisster his office deals with “between 150 and 200 cases every year” while other cantons process “very few”.

Following the Zurich example would “reduce cruelty in the long run”, he said.

“Now it’s often taken as a misdemeanour and most crimes against the animal are carried out by the person who should be looking out for its interests,” he said.

One of Goetschel’s more recent cases involved a cruelty to animals charge against a fisherman who had told a journalist it had taken ten minutes to land a particularly large catch. After a complex and well-publicized proceeding, the judge threw out the case, much to the relief of Zurich’s amateur angler population.

Others are hoping similar cases are not destined to become the norm.

The government is against the initiative and a group of political parties recently joined forces to state: "Animal rights advocates are useless to animals. They can't prevent animal abuse because they only get involved after it has been perpetrated." Some may wonder why the same argument doesn't apply in cases of say, cruelty to children?

Meantime an English-speaking vet in Geneva, who declined to be named, told Swisster that a vote in favour of the new legislation “wouldn’t change anything” concerning the protection of animals.

While Karch feels that the initiative on March 7 could go either way, Helfenstein fears it will pass “because a lot of people don’t understand the issue”.

Goetschel appears in two minds. “I’m not too optimistic, but on the other hand it passed with 83 per cent in Zurich and the post of animal attorney has functioned very well here for 18 years,” he said.

“This makes it much easier for other cantons to adopt it; usually nobody wants to be the first.”

He also feels a 'yes' vote “would make a big difference in the discussion of animal rights worldwide, which has been turning in circles over the past 30 years.”