THE WELFARE OF ANIMALS [To the Editor of -Tim SPECTATOR.]
Sio,L-I would remind Major Procter that a large and unani- mous audience urged- the expunging of the Protection of ' Aniniab3Aet, 1984, from the Statute Book. It not only did not stop the Rodeo frinn coming here, hilt its passing handicapped our efforts in this direction. The chief cause of complaint in the 1624 Rodeo was the steer-roping, and the new Act does :not stop that episode. To judge from a notice in the Press it was intended to lasso calves by the neck, swing them thrOugh the air and have them caught without their touching the ground. I have a photograph bf such an incident which we- sent to the Home SecietarY, asking whether it would lie allowed. As it is certainly not forhidden under the new Act, can only imagine that our . letter was responsible for its omission.
Nor does the new Act prevent the biting, gouging,- nostril- . wrenching, &c., of any animal except,- perhaps, in certain cases, of an untrained bull, and it only needs two witnesses to declare that the animal has been " trained," in order to exonerate the perpetrator of the outrage. No inspection is provided for ; there is therefore ample opportunity for the use of drawing pins, corrosives, &c.-, in order to make an animal buck. Even if by some miracle we were able to dis- cover the exact method used (and it is obvious from Press photographs that some of the animals are in great pain) we should, under the new Act, have to prove that the rider intended to make the animal buck, before a conviction could be recorded. It is unthinkable that Major Procter can have read this Act before holding me up to obloquy for calling it hypocritical.
Both Mr. Coleridge's " Dogs Protection Bill " and Sir Robert Gower's " Cinematograph Films (Animals) Bill " are spurious and both for the same reason. They contain pro- visions which will have to be conceded, leaving a worthless policy which will not stop the cruelty but will deceive the public. Let us take the latter, since Major Procter quotes it. Under it the real offenders, animal film producers (quite
80-90 per cent. of whom liVe abroad and cannot therefore he brought to book) and innocent exhibitors will be liable to fine and/or imprisonment in respect of animal films,
(1) where suffering has been caused, (2) where suffering may have been caused, (3) which depict suffering.
Both (1) and (2) would have to be deleted owing to legitimate pressure from the trade, and for this very obvious reason. In a film under (1) the cruelty, which would not be obvious, would have to be proved and we should be faced with the monstrous situation of hundreds of absolutely innocent cinema managers and their assistants being fined and/or imprisoned for showing a film which had been passed by Censor and had been exhibited by them months beforehand as being above reproach ! Under (2) the same people would be at the mercy of anyone who could show that suffering might have been caused, and this could apply to almost, if not quite, all animal films.
What, then, is left of the Bill ? Films depicting cruelty. .This sounds all right, but is it ? On the contrary, it is all wrong, for if a man took a photograph of someone illtreating an animal, the effects of a steel-toothed trap, &c., for the pur- pose of drawing public attention to an existing form of cruelty, instead of being 'commended by the magistrate he would be liable to fine or imprisonment. But the chief defect of (3) is that it would encourage unscrupulous producers to he as cruel as they wished provided the suffering was not apparent on the screen: Is this not hypocrisy ? Matters are made worse by the fact that the policy embodied inthe genuine Cinematci- graph (Protection of Animals) Bill was first in the field. This fact is well known to the headquarters of the R.S.P.C.A. and it is only lack of funds that prevents our presenting' it to Parliament. Perhaps some influential Member who 'thinks that the time has come for Parliament to pass some genuine measure of animal protection- will sponsor this Bill.—I arts
Hon. Director. • f
Performing and Captive Animals' Defence League, 17 Buckingham Street, Adelphi, W.C. 2.
Previous page
