Skip to main content

My stance on animal-welfare

Having a sound Green outlook on animals is a central priority of mine.

 

The central ethos behind our policy in this connection, in the Green Party, is to call for nothing less than a complete re-framing of the way in which all of us relate to the animal world. No longer to be perceived as mere things that can be manipulated and mistreated as commodities in a mainly profit-orientated world, animals should rather be seen as sentient beings worthy of our respect. We all know that this is true of our own dogs and cats; it is just a question of extending that respect to animals who are exploited in factory-farms, in sport, etc. .

 

The Green Party is also very aware of how animal rights and human rights go hand in hand. The amount of land and water needed to sustain animals destined for slaughter is entirely disproportionate to that needed to grow vegetables. As resources begin to dwindle, and with land-use under great pressure, this is not an issue we can continue to take lightly. Worldwide, the amount of grain sent to feed animals could be redirected to prevent more than a billion people from going hungry, not to mention the high rates of heart disease, cancer and diabetes that are associated with the meat industry.

 

Existing Green MEPs have been strong advocates for animal welfare in the European Parliament, for example by backing a campaign to reduce the time that it is legal to transport animals as 'live exports'. If I am elected on May 22nd - and I was just 1% short, last time - then I will be a similarly strong voice for our animal kin.
 

Overall, we in the Greens would like to move towards a more humane system where animal welfare is seen as beneficial not only to the animals themselves, but also to the environment, human health and in eradicating global poverty and famine. This is about a win-win: caring better for animals, and helping to produce a happier world for humans in the process.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Post-Growth: A new vision for a fairer and more sustainable Britain

More on why 20's plenty -- without need for any further 'trials'...

There are a number of reasons for setting a default speed of 20mph throughout the 'unclassified' road network in residential parts of a city such as Norwich. Most important perhaps is that of driver recognition as to what the speed limit is. If you have 20 mph as the default then you not only establish this limit clearly, but you also adjust the driver's recognition as to what is the "normal" speed in such residential areas. The most important aspect is that drivers set 20 mph as the norm with those 30 mph areas or roads being seen as 50% faster, rather than seeing 30 mph as the norm with 20 mph as 33% slower. The psychological adjustment of normal speeds in residential areas is key to the success of reducing speeds and therefore danger to pedestrians and cyclists. Therefore any trial, pilot or whatever, that only implements 20 mph in a tiny proportion of the city is not modelling 20's Plenty in any realistic manner.   When considering the val...