Originally from: brentns
                        
Mona..

My appologies.. I write very directly.. and my intention was not to attack you personally.. But to skewer the idea...

I hadn't paid attention.. if it had been suggested before..

It's a terrible idea to get anything related to Animals like that in a constitution..for all the reasons I've stated..
It will hand, game set and match to the AR radicals.. It is exactly what they want..Rights for animals.. And AR really means dehumanizing humans

We're gonna lose most domestic animals eventually.... It won't happen right away.. but that's clearly the course.. The AR agenda i consider just part of the government sanctioned social engineering effort. AR radicals believe owning domestic animals is slavery and putting anti-human, animal rights in a constitution greatly advances the agenda..
It will guarantee that we lose animals all the sooner..
And it doesn't matter if one thinks one is only putting "welfare" issues in the constitution..because they'll keep chipping away "redefining" "welfare".. they'll say..surely keeping animals in slavery cannot constitute good welfare after all..
Notice that quote and what she stands for..That straight AR radical stuff.

The problems of FMD have been with your own government.. And were not constitutional issues. The problems of an out of control government are not solved .. by having a bigger government , for example the EU..with a type of constitution that even further limits liberty, in fact doesn't recognize "natural" rights..

If they really wanted to fix the problem, and i suggested this earlier.. The UK gov should have allowed each farmer to decide for themselves whether to vaccinate.. That would've been a lot more empowering.. and they could've done it this time..
Nothing to do with a constitution.. In fact.. If Ben Gill hadn't been such an obstacle to vaccination.. and had he been in favor.. the government couldn't have used (however inappropriately) his position as an excuse.. And was the NFU a legitimate representative of UK farmers anyway??
What real right did Gill have to speak for individual farmers??
Maybe a best approach in retrospect would've been for farmers to rise in anger and impeach Ben Gill..

Think of it this way.. if your local county or council or whatever.. were a sovereign country..you would have much more direct input.. into issues.. The bigger the government,the less input you have..

For now.. the EU seemed like the good cop (wrt FMD).. to the UK government bad cop.. However.. as i recall, our good friend Chris Booker or Richard North.. revealed that actually the EU was already responsible for ensuring the UK had an up to date emergency policy.. So in that event . they had responsibility and let us down badly..

Part of the process, that they are trying to use,is to "validate" the EU in the UK citizens eyes..So the EU investigation offered a sympathetic ear..(but no tangible action)wrt FMD..

But later.. if the UK succumbs fully to the EU.. You will be faced with an even worse problem with less input..

And the proof of that is all the countless other EU regs.. . that the UK gov.. even now, insists they have to impose.. to comply with EU requirements...

A more distant.. and less accountable government is not what you want.. I know how sorely tempting it may seem at this stage.. to grasp for "salvation" to a "higher authority" when your own government has abused you so badly..But it's the wrong thing to do.

The real solution is to hold the UK government/others to account..
If we cannot easily do that.. Think how much harder it will be in the future to hold the fascist/soviet EU to account..

All the issues you cite are welfare issues.. Those that occur outside the UK.. have nothing to do with the UK.. except as they affect conditions of trade..

Allowing the freedom to be different.. is exactly the advantage of having separate countries.. being anti-EU is being Pro-European..as far as I'm concerned..

There is no reason to want one constitution.. in the first place.. but if other countries in Europe wanted a better system than their own.. surely they are free to adopt the Anglo-Saxon model.. It's by far the best system we had so far to guarantee "individual" freedom

But in any event, one should not put any animal issue within a constitution..for the reasons I've given..

Here's the process they use on us to try to condition us to implement the change they want..
Hegelian Principle
http://www.learn-usa.com/er011.htm

Government created the problem.. and their Synthesis in this case, is to greatly increase government power and control.. (like the AHB).. sigh.. And to hand over more power to Brussels..

And that's also what suggestion wrt the EU constitution would do..only worse..

Getting people to look to the EU for "validation".. would be one of the desired outcomes of the gov bungling of FMD.. And putting AR in a proposed EU constition would be an desired outcome of the AR's..

But wouldn't it just be simpler.. and more freedom to just let farmers decide for themselves whether or not to vaccinate.
If you don't and you lose your animals.no compensation.. free to choose and easy to implement.. and we could've done it this time..

No constitutional amendment is needed or desireable..Very much the opposite for the reasons I've given

When government is the problem.. bigger government isn't the solution.. Less government, and accountable government is.. (if we can only get it)

All the Best
brent

From: ...
Reply-To: ...
To: ...
Subject: [farmtalking] Petition to include animal protection in EU
Constitution
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 07:36:20 EDT

I put this forward for consideration as during FMD animals and their owners
lost any 'rights' they thought they had.

It was a shock to all the good folks who were hurt by the action of this government.. I know..

I certainly thought at the start that my animals were safe as long as they
stayed healthy--not so.

I'm sorry that it occurred..

Some EU countries had access to vaccination--why not all.

As above.. nothing precluded the UK government from vaccination.. they were allowed to as i understand.. They just decided that they didn't want to and gave various excuses..
For the UK government to claim it was just a bit of muddle.. just could never wash for me..After all, they took decisions.. What are they supposed to claim.. that the decisions they in fact took were inadvertant?? Of course not.. that's ridiculous..
I cannot overlook, that cutting back farming in the UK was in accordance with their long term goals... But the way they did it, abusing people so.. was just abhorent to me..

If vaccination to live, was written in the Constitution would we not all
sleep easier.

I know .. but you will never get such a narrow definition in a constitution.. And putting any "animal" related issues in an EU constitution will simply guarantee that the AR radicals agenda is implemented.. and sooner than otherwise.. It will greatly empower the AR's.. and disempower animal owners.. That would be the result..

Why are we hauling live slaughter animals hundreds of miles (up to 1500
miles) to their deaths?

Didn't EU regs gold plated by London do this?? vet inspections etc hurt cost structure of small abbatoirs

The plight of horses from Eastern Europe travelling to Italy without
partitions still goes on despite the work of charities like ILPH and VIVA.

This would be a welfare issue..

I'm not familiar with ILPH.. But remember, just as you may feel this doesn't meet good welfare standards, and i may agree.. AR feel that ownership of animals is slavery.. So if you want to legislatee.. be aware that there are others who want to legislate all ownership of animals away from you..And will do so if given an opening..

I briefly looked at the Viva site.. Viva IMO, is an AR/Eco organization although they don't acknowledge it.. They are trying to link vegetarianism to AR.. But i was vegetarian for a short time.. and never would have proseletysed AR.. I was not veg because of concern for animals but because i thought at the time it was a healthier choice..
I'm strongly in favour of what i consider, good animal welfare, for the record..

Why is Halal slaughter allowed?

Freedom of religion for now.. but i would expect this to come under pressure eventually

Why when cruelty cases are proven in the court do magistrates sometimes
allow
the animals to be returned to the owner?

i cannot comment .. i don't know any details..

Horses have been dying this spring of EHV 1 the paralytic form of equine
herpes--not a notifiable disease so DEFRA has given no advice, no
recommendations, no travel restrictions, no help in tracing how it has
spread. A number of livery stables and horse owners have had weeks of
worry--although perhaps relieved that DEFRA did not come in and recommend
culling to prevent further spread.

I understand the concern..and sad to say i think they are not unjustified in being worried about the political aspects..
I tried to warn of some of my concerns previously.. http://www.warmwell.com/brentmar15.html

The gov wouldn't have implemented the AHB.. unless they were going to use it..At some point i'm sure they will..
Whether they would in this case i've no idea..

I've no knowledge at all about the disease.. It does sound like something for which tracing and travel restriction would help..
However this could be handled in a traditional disease management system.. if Defra could be trusted to act ethically.. as we decent folks understand the term.. But we know they, and this governemnt cannot be trusted.. Unfortunately.. this still cannot be remedied, to look to the EU for hope.. What really needs to happen is to hold the miscreants to account..

The way a country treats its animals and children is a reflection on its
people.
Many children saw the full horrors of FMD and lost their pets, I wonder at
the effect on them in years to come.

Yes.. it's a valid concern.. the government was brutal..

We have seen what happens when one country allows a treatment/euthanasia
and
another doesnt--people of determination just move countries.

The intent of all the new so called "bio-ethical" and other values.. is that they eventually be mandated everywhere..(they will replace for example the Christian based values of the west)..
So if you want the freedom to differ from some of these new values.. and want to be able to live in a society with your own values.. You've just pointed out exactly why it's a good idea to fight to retain sovereignty.. For example.. If the utilitarian Singer gets his way.. selling children for body parts could well be condoned.. Singer calls himself an utilitarian.. and that's an example of his thinking.. commodifying , "dehumanizing" humans..

 Is it so wrong

to have basic legislation Europe wide.

If that would force everyone to conform to the same values, contrary to the deeply held beliefs of some.. I would say yes.
For instance , why would anyone in the UK want to give up their form of government which has been the best guarantee of individual freedom, and adopt the Collectivist models..which have a consistent record of failure The bigger the grouping of people, the more likely you will have large minorities permanently disaffected from federal power..That is not healthy.. For example..right now, even in the UK, there's a major propanganda campaign demonizing farmers, animal owners and the countryside.. Has this been healthy?? Why does the Countryside Alliance exist??.. because people are disaffected from, and being disenfranchised by, the power center.. The bigger the federal state.. the worse the alienation from the center.. and the more likely one will have a draconian police state to keep "order".. You're also assuming that you get laws.. with which YOU concur.. that's not a good assumption.. The AR's don't agree with owning animals for instance..and they will win if one gives them the legislation with which they can bludgeon you..

The Utopian dreams turn sour when confronted with reality.. Russia had lots of major ethnic groups.. crammed together for a long time under their utopian Soviet..
Someday Turkey wants to be an EU member.. And i think the EU is working preparatory deals for North Africa.. and Egypt and possibly a good part of the Middle East eventually..
Can all these people be happy with for example Dutch Liberal values.. Were the Dutch happy with Muslim values.. Seems not judging by the rise of Pim Fortuyn's party.. The Fellow who was unfortuneately murdered..

I believe that all of mankind should share some core values.. but i would keep it to very few..
I'm not in favour of enforcing a comprehensive set of global values on everyone.. a la agenda 21, one world (pagan) religion etc
They talk about tolerance and diversity, but seek to eliminate it..