Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1537507
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. On animal welfare, Malta is falling behind, rather than be- ing a leader in the protection of animals, with efforts having weakened over recent years. The animal welfare impact of all policy decisions must be taken into consideration if the country is to continue to be a force for raising standards in this area. A case some time ago of exot- ic animals found living in poor conditions in Naxxar and the government's response there- to clearly demonstrates the government's lack of planning and vision when it comes to animal welfare. Worse, many shortcomings related to animal welfare have led to a situation where it is unable to enforce the law to ensure animal well-be- ing. The law is supposed to be there to ensure that all types of animals are given everything necessary to guarantee a better quality of life, both physically and psychologically. The Ani- mal Welfare Act (Chapter 439) was enacted in 2002 to estab- lish and consolidate the protec- tion and well-being of animals kept for work, sports, shows, commercial reasons, compan- ionship, food, conservation, education, private collections, medical reasons and experi- mentation. Many have decried the gov- ernment's underenforcement of animal welfare legislation be- cause of the direct negative ef- fects on animal interests. Such underenforcement has a much stronger societal effect because it undermines the rule of law, regardless of whether we have the interests of animals at the front of our minds, as it is a matter that should concern us all. Recalling how our Consti- tution demands that the law recognise and uphold human rights, it is easy to envisage a thick and expansive conception of the rule of law that also de- mands recognition of animal rights or rights of all living be- ings. There is, after all, a strong and persistent movement in favour of fighting for specific rights of animals. A similar, but different, sub- stantive value to the recogni- tion and protection of animals' dignity within the rule of law is to recognise animals as vulner- able and that a commitment to the rule of law demands a pro- tection of that vulnerability. We should value animals not for their proximity to humans but, instead, because of their vulnerable and precarious lives. Any sensible and coherent theory of animal rights should focus on just one right for ani- mals, the right not to be treated as the property of humans. In reality, however, there is no animal welfare legislation that protects the rights of life and liberty, let alone preventing animals from having property status, because animal welfare legislation is predicated on animals having this status, of humans having the capacity to own, use and kill non-human animals. Indeed, it is difficult to categorise animal welfare legis- lation as containing any rights at all. Still, there have even been some advances in that field, with habeas corpus applications finding some success in Colom- bia and Argentina by extending the human right of liberty to captive animals. Animals' current legal pro- tections in our current animal welfare legislation may meet the minimal conceptual crite- ria for rights, but they do not perform the characteristic nor- mative function of rights. They are, therefore, at best atypically weak and have imperfect rights. Two years ago, the Ministry for Animal Rights unveiled a three-year plan for animal wel- fare reforms that led to legisla- tion to regulate zoos and anoth- er allowing dangerous animals to be used in the film industry, allowing also for lethal weapons to be present during filming in case the animals get aggressive. Despite such legislation, the Commissioner for Animal Welfare and the Association for Abandoned Animals both expressed their concern about how lax enforcement of animal cruelty laws seems to be. Animal welfare is not a ze- ro-sum game in which human interests are pitted against the interests of other animals. It is about promoting our common interest. There is a deep human need to positively relate to oth- er animals and treat them with care and respect. Good laws and regulations are part of how we can achieve this. Animal welfare legislation is still lacking in certain sectors that have not yet caught our legislators' eyes. Take farming, for example. In the case of agriculture, an- imal welfare improvements are a win-win-win: Animals benefit, consumers benefit and frontline producers also benefit. Maltese farmers who are working with animals on a day-to-day basis want to be supported in maintaining high welfare standards. They don't want a race to the bottom in which they are forced to com- promise on welfare in the name of efficiency. They want a stable livelihood but don't want to put profit before welfare. From another aspect, genome editing and selective breeding lead to terrible welfare prob- lems. Again, animals often get over- looked in policymaking. Pol- icies receive environmental impact assessments but never animal welfare impact assess- ments. Moreover, we must move with the times and emulate good practices abroad. For example, welfare risk sensors are being developed to detect emerging health and welfare problems such as lameness and mastitis in dairy cows and to catch avian influenza outbreaks early. The dignity of animals means their interests are relevant to how the government decides to enforce legislation that affects those interests. Systemic under- enforcement of animal welfare legislation is a signal from the government that it underval- ues the interests of animals and means that offending against animals is often undetected and unprosecuted. This maligning of their interests in this way is an affront to their dignity. Animal welfare misgivings Mark Said A veteran lawyer 10 maltatoday | WEDNESDAY • 16 JULY 2025 OPINION