24/04/2002 
An imponderable state goal: Why the protection of animals must not be established in the Basic Law
A comment by Andreas Kathe, Oldenburgische Volkszeitung / Vechta
A new era for the protection of animals may be beginning this year yet. The Bundestag (lower house of the German parliament) and the Bundesrat (upper house of the German parliament) are just before making alterations to the Basic Law, so that the protection of animals will be sort of a
This sounds well and – if we may believe the results of opinion polls and the atmospheric picture, ordered by the societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals – is widely welcome among the German citizens. After quite some time of fighting against those plans, even the board of the Christian Democratic Party (CDU, led by Mrs Angela Merkel) and the candidate for chancellor of CDU and CSU (Christian Social Party), Mr Edmund Stoiber agreed to a corresponding alteration of the Basic Law. So everything is fine, you could say. No more reasons for excitement, if there is so much assent among the people. Those few critics from economy and agriculture are obviously just minor figures.
And yet I feel uneasy. Are we really welladvised, following these amendments to our Basic Law (which to my mind are absolutely unnecessary)? We do have the Law for the protection of animals. We do have the appropriate decrees and guidelines which are ever again adapted and revised, according to the politihil instructions and to new scientific knowledge. They are definitely sufficient to grant for the protection of animals as it is socially desired.
When agreeing on the alteration of the Law, the German government as well as the opposition parties give in to the many years of campaigning of the societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals. Thus, demands characterised by populism are served – which is also done for strategic reasons before the parliamentary elections to be held in September 2002. Something that both government and opposition do not see or do not want to see is that this alteration to the Basic Law will have serious consequences for economy.
It is foreseeable that the societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals will strive for judicial checking of all methods of livestock keeping which are presently permissible in law, the use of laboratory animals and even the interests of hunting. This would be done to find out about how they do match with the
It is a complete mystery to me how experienced politicians can have themselves incapacitated in such way. And how they can expose the economy or even the lesser animal breeders to imponderabilities the consequences of which they are themselves unable to estimate.
I do admit that protection of animals is necessary. However, it should not be established in the Basic Law as sort of a
A new era for the protection of animals may be beginning this year yet. The Bundestag (lower house of the German parliament) and the Bundesrat (upper house of the German parliament) are just before making alterations to the Basic Law, so that the protection of animals will be sort of a
state goal.
This sounds well and – if we may believe the results of opinion polls and the atmospheric picture, ordered by the societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals – is widely welcome among the German citizens. After quite some time of fighting against those plans, even the board of the Christian Democratic Party (CDU, led by Mrs Angela Merkel) and the candidate for chancellor of CDU and CSU (Christian Social Party), Mr Edmund Stoiber agreed to a corresponding alteration of the Basic Law. So everything is fine, you could say. No more reasons for excitement, if there is so much assent among the people. Those few critics from economy and agriculture are obviously just minor figures.
And yet I feel uneasy. Are we really welladvised, following these amendments to our Basic Law (which to my mind are absolutely unnecessary)? We do have the Law for the protection of animals. We do have the appropriate decrees and guidelines which are ever again adapted and revised, according to the politihil instructions and to new scientific knowledge. They are definitely sufficient to grant for the protection of animals as it is socially desired.
When agreeing on the alteration of the Law, the German government as well as the opposition parties give in to the many years of campaigning of the societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals. Thus, demands characterised by populism are served – which is also done for strategic reasons before the parliamentary elections to be held in September 2002. Something that both government and opposition do not see or do not want to see is that this alteration to the Basic Law will have serious consequences for economy.
It is foreseeable that the societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals will strive for judicial checking of all methods of livestock keeping which are presently permissible in law, the use of laboratory animals and even the interests of hunting. This would be done to find out about how they do match with the
state goalof the protection of animals. It remains yet unanswered what the results of that will be. Certainly will the regional gradingup industry be hit just as hard as will the hunters who see themselves as gamekeepers. And who knows? Will the keeping of rabbits in a little wooden hutch not be contradictory to the principle of free self-determination of the creatures?
It is a complete mystery to me how experienced politicians can have themselves incapacitated in such way. And how they can expose the economy or even the lesser animal breeders to imponderabilities the consequences of which they are themselves unable to estimate.
I do admit that protection of animals is necessary. However, it should not be established in the Basic Law as sort of a
state goal, which might allow for taking it to court. To my mind, it would be a much more sensible thing to revise it according to political discussions again and again. By this way only will the protection of animals be really accepted throughout the people in long term.
Comments...