INDIGENOUS JUSTICE: Animal activists of Canada may have new weapon against cruelty
Canadian aboriginal world views are built on notions of animal personhood in the primary, social-ontological category as humans, insofar as they consider animals to be conscious, sentient beings who possess volition, plan and deliberate, interact socially and communicate with each other and with humans.
KYLE MACDONALD: Spearheaded by Canada’s efforts for reconciliation, legal actors and law institutions have within the last decade integrated Indigenous legal orders as part of their curriculum and practice. Some of Canada’s most prominent legal minds, such as the Hon. Beverley McLachlin, who was the longest-serving chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, have called for Indigenous legal orders and traditions to become integrated with Canada’s conceptualization of the law.
Before this movement, the legal landscape of Canada was mainly concerned with the de facto common law and Quebec’s civil law, both of which regularly view animals as chattel (property). This anthropocentric view of animals in Canada considers humans as superior to other animals, removing notions of “personhood” and other non-anthropocentric views that allow the law to regard animals as kin or entities of merit.
In its current state, the common law has a lack of legal precedent that often makes it difficult when trying to develop stronger, more robust animal rights. Maneesha Deckha, a law professor at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, published the article “Unsettling Anthropocentric Legal Systems: Reconciliation, Indigenous Laws, and Animal Personhood,” which discusses Indigenous legal orders relating to animals and how they vary from Canada’s common law.
“Animal advocates are often stymied by the law’s dismal regard for animals as property when seeking even incremental and modest law reform in favour of animals,” she writes. She draws comparison to the recent United States animal rights case, where a group known as the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP) argued on behalf of non-human animals. The NhRP sought to establish legal personhood for all animals, starting with chimpanzees and other humanlike animals.
“Judges who were otherwise sympathetic to the NhRP’s claim, lamented that the lack of legal precedent or authority in the common law tradition ties their hands to recognize animals as persons even though they agreed with the NHRP that their chimpanzee clients are not just things,” she writes. She also notes that, as part of Canada’s effort of reconciliation, a movement toward understanding Indigenous cosmology and its interspecies perspective can help to decolonize national legal and social orders. Various academics and law professors think so.
Deckha writes that “Some scholars have discussed how Indigenous cultures in Canada incorporate an understanding of personhood that is non-anthropocentric”… But this is where Indigenous cultures may become a legal cornucopia for Canadian supporters of animal rights…
Indigenous legal researcher Andrew Brighten writes that “Canadian aboriginal world views are built on notions of animal personhood in the primary, social-ontological category as humans, insofar as they consider animals to be conscious, sentient beings who possess volition, plan and deliberate, interact socially and communicate with each other and with humans”…
Brighten states that, as an example, the Rock Cree of Manitoba believe that animals are in possession of something known as ahcak, which is a mindfulness shared by both humans and animals. The ahcak is described as “the seat of identity, perception and intelligence” by Robert Brightman, an American anthropologist and professor who has authored inquisitive books about the Manitoba Cree. And this conception is extensive among Indigenous cultures of Canada…
The Indigenous cosmological and ontological world views on animals and interspecies personhood may become a legal foundation for Canadian animal activists. In the leading years, a new legal precedent stemming from Indigenous culture may be the focus point of litigants and jurists of a courtroom who attempt to establish the barrier of personhood and its applicability to animals.
If the courtrooms embrace such favorable views, the decision could profoundly change any industry dealing with animals, such as livestock, agriculture, and the food industry. And if dairy cows are established to possess the legal capacity of personhood, extra-measures like consent and willingness may be required as an industry standard. It is interesting to ask oneself… does a cow wish to be milked? SOURCE…
RELATED VIDEO: