Hope for Homeless Animals

After the first meeting in which Dr Bismilla was present, I had high hopes that the next meeting would be even more fruitful. It was not to be.

During the meeting held in Braamfontein, it was evident from the Council legal advisers’ attitude that they had not come to give any real consideration to our objections, nor negotiate a way forward. Instead we were met with defensiveness and arguments justifying the by-laws.

The core of the legal advisers’ argument was that the by-laws were created to address an existing problem with confiscating hoarders’ animals. In addition, they were supposedly developed to meet the needs of many different stakeholders in the community. In the case of hoarders it is difficult to see how treating everyone like hoarders will solve the problem or that this is an appropriate strategy for combating hoarding. With regard to the needs of the community, it is difficult to see how these by-laws benefit anyone at all. They certainly do not benefit the animals, since we have already established that the likely consequence is that there will be more strays, more animals in shelters, and therefore more animals euthanized. Furthermore, they do not benefit the public, since reducing the numbers will not reduce noise or strays, and will result in more health hazards and noise nuisances. Add to that the personal trauma of the people who would have to give up their personal companions, animals they regard as friends and family, and it is difficult to see who wins here. The only people who benefit are petty people who dislike animals, and it is debatable whether these people should be pandered to.

These By-Laws do not benefit anybody. They’re ill-conceived, irrational and are already having the consequences we predicted at the start of this campaign. People are being targeted using the by-laws as an excuse, and the Health personnel are already making unilateral decisions without conducting inspections, as was the case last week when a permit was refused because a neighbour had objected. This is not only contrary to the process as it was explained to us, since it necessitated an inspection, but contrary to common sense. An objection does not constitute evidence.

We asked, near the end of this meeting, to be provided with details concerning the permit process, the inspection criteria, and the appeal process, so that we could inform the public and set people’s minds at rest that the process was not vindictive. We were given the undertaking that we would have this information within 48 hours, and yet here we are, two weeks later, and not only do we not have the promised information, but our emails to the parties concerned have been ignored.

Since Council has shown that they have little regard for their public, and since they do not even have respect sufficient to keep to their promises or answer emails, we believe it is time to show disrespect for these ridiculous, ill-conceived, impractical and irrational by-laws.

Unless the Council come to you, don’t go to them. The by-laws are unconstitutional and illogical, and bring no social benefit whatsoever. Let’s see if they are willing to arrest people or take away animals by force because you have more animals than your arbitrarily-allocated quota. A society that tolerates a government doing such things is not worthy of its own respect.

It’s important that you ask for evidence at EVERY POINT in the process.

When they say you have been guilty of a noise nuisance, they must furnish proof that this is the case. ‘Proof’ cannot be a single instance; it must be shown to be occurring over time. They would necessarily have to do multiple observations.

From Noise Control Regulations (1999) “noise nuisance” means any sound which disturbs or impairs or may disturb or impair the convenience or peace of any person.

Keep a record of EVERY communication.

Ask for WRITTEN reasons for every decision. This is your RIGHT.

You have a right to be informed of the legal process in a clear and predictable manner.

The law may not be applied retrospectively. This means that if you were legal before the laws were enacted, you cannot be found in contravention of the law merely because a new law has been enacted. The law cannot change a previously legal status into an illegal one.

Lastly in both international law and South African law you have the right to privacy and family, of which your companion animals are a part. They simply have no right to remove them.

Keep us informed by emailing me at the address below if you think you are being treated unfairly or if you think your rights are being disregarded.

Failing communication from Council after our email today, we will let you know how you can help get the message across that we will not tolerate this disregard of our rights.

Derek

derek@hopeful.ws

The Hopeful Initiative

Bookmark this post:

Tags: animal law, animal welfare

This entry was posted by Derek on Thursday, July 15th, 2010 at 3:43 am and is filed under Animal legislation, animal welfare. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.