Confusion in Sense
It would be unwise to express a solid opinion on the verdict without knowing the exact text in its entirety. Detailed knowledge of the Norwegian legal system would also be necessary. Otherwise, misunderstandings and complete misinterpretations are guaranteed. Forming an opinion on any legal case always demands extra precautions and immense background knowledge. However, the story itself delivers some eyebrow-raising moments.
I am a person who likes to think in structures, constantly seeking logic, reason, connections and sense in situations. Incoherence makes me puzzled and frustrated. And there are some elements of the story in and out of the courtroom that personally annoy and bother me.
As I expressed in the story of the Labradoodle having failed to give birth to a dozen puppies for her second litter, I clearly have a bitter taste left in my mouth after encountering a double standard in the animal welfare approach.
Given that vets have filed comprehensive cases of concern both to the authority and the animal welfare organisation, the reaction of Dyrebeskyttelsen Norge lacks enthusiasm. The CEO of the animal welfare organisation claims what happened previously and still going on is not illegal, though it can raise ethical concerns. (The category of “ethical concern” usually means a certain degree of disapproval without further consequences.) And anyway, they proposed an ID system for dogs in Norway, since without it, the authority cannot effectively undertake too much further investigation. That’s all they could say—and their part in handling and solving the matter is done.
And meanwhile, there has been a public campaign running for years against registered, trackable breeders. They pick up six people but no exact cases and then gleefully spread statements such as “for many decades, sick dogs have been bred in violation of Norwegian law”. For the sake of accuracy, the law was amended with the section relevant to breeding some months earlier, in July 2021. This rhetoric adds extra value to their fight, and press releases read more powerfully but fail the reality check.
There are two visible sources of dogs: puppy farms, where you cannot supervise the dog population effectively as dogs are not registered, and breeders and their individual dogs registered under the NKK.
The former is okay; the latter is a violation.
If welfare concerns emerge at a puppy farm, that is “unfortunate”; in the case of a registered breeder, it’s “a systematic and organised betrayal” and “has been confirmed that this is a crime”.
Additionally, to improve the welfare of dogs further in Norway, they promise to take more breeds and breeders to court.
The lawsuit submitted by Dyrebeskyttelsen Norge is limited and only about attacking the current registration system while turning a blind eye to other problems.
I don’t say they favour puppy mills over NKK breeders, but I genuinely notice the absence of the same enthusiasm and the equivalent measures. Their activity as an animal welfare organisation is partly discredited for me. That is purely my personal opinion.
Any decision is only good if that changes things for the better. And what will the “historic verdict” move forward or improve? That is a fundamental question. Suppose we accept the interpretation of Dyrebeskyttelsen Norge, and the verdict means that breeding these dogs is banned. (Just a reminder: the NKK and the local authority comprehend the interpretation differently.) In that case, Cavaliers and English Bulldogs cannot be born in Norway anymore.
The most significant criticism of the verdict was that it will boost the illegal puppy trade, escalating further animal welfare problems. This assumption is valid if the public’s demand for these two breeds will not perish all of a sudden at the same time the verdict goes into force. Demand dictates. And where there is a demand, there will be a supply. If not from registered breeders, then from other channels.
Many opinions concluded that the whole lawsuit is purely about attacking registered breeders, nothing more.
This concept was opposed on the basis that the law applies to all and does not distinguish between registered and non-registered populations. Law enforcement cannot be effective —not even in the case of a registered facility like the puppy farm in the story of Luna—as identification of the individual dog is not compulsory. Meaning, that there is a population of dogs entirely off the radar. And how can you conduct effective law enforcement when you do not even perceive a particular population of dogs?
Making the whole story and the reasoning behind it even more hectic and confusing, let’s take a look at a particular part of the statements of Åshild Roaldset, the CEO of Dyrebeskyttelsen Norge.
According to her interpretation of the verdict, it “does not imply a ban on serious breeding of Bulldog or Cavalier, as serious and scientifically based cross-breeding could be a good alternative”.
What do “serious” and “scientifically based” mean in this context? Who will define it, and who will decide whether it’s fulfilled? Who decides on the legal ground if that action was “serious” and “scientifically based” enough?
We love to use words like “normal”, “optimal”, “good”, and “bad”. As they are common, we are confident in knowing what they mean. But that is wrong! These words are so general, vague, and highly context-dependent that if you attempt to find a meaning anyhow, you can write massive philosophical essays without reaching a solid conclusion.
These are subjective and inexact terms. And the law, including implementation and enforcement, should be exact without the choice of misinterpretation. Who decides what “serious breeding” is? And what is a good alternative? What would it look like in action?
This concept sounds good; it creates the illusion of a functional alternative. But the content behind the statement is so empty that it means nothing in action.
And is there a guarantee that if breeders cross-breed—like in the case of Luna, the Labradoodle—and something goes wrong, that will be considered as “unfortunate” instead of getting labelled as a “systematic and organised betrayal”? Will mixing two breeds offers a special judgement within animal welfare even if the result becomes problematic?
Without jumping on any conspiracy theory, there are apparent signs that the principal objective of the lawsuit was to eliminate breeders’ activity. Nothing more.
There are many inconsistencies in explaining and arguing the attempts and the verdict.
I cannot see the concept; I cannot see a healthy alternative. I can just see that the mission of Dyrebeskyttelsen Norge aims that these registered breeders no longer do what they used to do. All of them, without exception.
And what next? Who cares. What matters is that NKK breeders do not do it, make the current registering system impossible and deconstruct it for good.
And how will they supply the demand for dogs in Norway? With imported dogs from abroad? Smuggling dogs via the illegal trade already causing massive problems in Europe? From puppy farms where animal welfare concerns are considered “unfortunate circumstances”? Local unregistered backyard breeders with no control or visibility at all?
And meanwhile, they are talking about how good it would be to start a registration process in the future since there are issues, but they cannot see and monitor the population.
Evidence Rules
Now then, let’s take a closer look at why the judge ruled this way. This is the most mind-blowing bit for me. I mentioned and promised to explain what I mean by “theoretical trial”. (It is not a legal definition.)
Even if you are not experienced in any type of legal procedure, you still surely know the importance of evidence in the courtroom. You can say whatever you want, but you must prove you are right to make your argument count. Evidence is all those validated facts verifying and justifying your statement and argument. The judge needs evidence to rule.
So let’s get back to Norway, and the six breeders found guilty since “for many decades, sick dogs have been bred in violation of Norwegian law in a systematic and organised betrayal of our four-legged friends.”
What a tough and impressive description of nasty people, don’t you feel? You can easily visualise them thanks to the detailed and adjective-packed description. Lucky then, that their activity has been confirmed to be criminal.
So there stand those six soon-to-be-convicted-criminals at trial for breeding and betrayal. Now guess how many sick dogs these six people have had under their activity for decades?
Maybe all of them. Maybe around half. Or two altogether. We have no clue. No one knows, as no one investigated.
Instead of assessing the detailed ongoing activities of the six soon-to-be-convicted breeders—including the health status of their dogs—the reasoning of the trial was the battle of scientific papers.
The only "data" submitted were the results of applying the BOAS functional grading system. No evidence on the state of health of Cavaliers and English Bulldog populations in Norway was presented. Instead, a bunch of scientific papers conducted on populations of other countries from previous periods were used. This was a battle of abstracts, not facts. That’s why I call it “theoretical”.
And just because there is a likelihood that this and that disease have a prevalence in the breed, there is also a likelihood that these dogs can suffer; therefore, the six people are guilty.
Six people’s unchecked and unevaluated activity falls back on anyone else involved in breeding. And thus, anyone else involved in the reproduction of animals from these two breeds is guilty as well.
How can one be convicted of a crime based on probabilities instead of conducted action?
This is dangerous! I would hate to live in a world where one is judged by not the actual act but its probability of having occurred.
Do we really want to implement the law this way? Shouldn’t one rather accuse, judge, or convict someone based on certainty?
You commit nothing, but are you still guilty because there is a certain probability you might do it? Just implement this idea in any area of our everyday life.
There are studies profiling rapists. If I meet the definable sociological parameters of sexual abusers, can I be convicted of rape without committing it myself?
Following the logic of how the breeders were found guilty, many would be.
Okay, let’s say we love dogs so much that we don’t want to gamble on their health under any circumstances. If there is a chance a dog will be unhealthy and suffer, do not risk it and banish the existence of any hazardous possibilities and actions entirely.
But there are some glitches with that.
Let's Ban Breeding!/? - A Legal Case in Norway - part 1/3
Let's Ban Breeding!/? - A Legal Case in Norway - part 3/3
This writing is a chapter of the book “Let’s ban breeding!/?” to be published at the beginning of 2023.
No comments:
Post a Comment