The Five Freedoms of Animal Welfare A Solid Foundation For An Equine Bill of Rights
04. Jul, 2009 
17 Comments
In my post Toward An Equine Bill of Rights, I asked if anyone had thoughts on what might comprise an acceptable enough standard of horse care to be called an Equine Bill of Rights.
Either no one read it, no one thought it was worth commenting on, or no one had any ideas. In lieu of interpreting silence as indifference, I’m assuming it was too big a ball of wax.
I was greatly encouraged today when I discovered a kindred spirit in Ethical Horsemanship, who speaks of the Five Freedoms of Animal Welfare as they might apply to competition horses. I wonder if these Five Freedoms were based upon Norman Rockwell’s famous Four Freedoms paintings which appeared in The Saturday Evening Post on February 20, 1943. (Lucky for me, in spite of an unhappily-upcoming birthday) I wasn’t around then, but those photos never fail to arouse a feeling of gratitude tinged with sadness. Particularly poignant is Freedom From Fear, which affected me deeply long before I even had a child I could not protect from pain.
If it was an intentional nod to the (sentimental) brilliance of Rockwell, The Farm Animal Welfare Council chose a solid platform to build their Five Freedoms on. If we love our animals, why not ensure that they enjoy the same benefits of living in the modern that we hope to provide for our loved ones? After all, when we assume the stewardship of an animal, we also take on the responsibility of treating it humanely. But I don’t want to limit this discussion to what is humane treatment and what is not. That’s a different ball of wax. There’s a lot of wax in this post, isn’t there?
The Farm Animal Welfare Council says nothing of Norman Rockwell on its web page. It’s probably just more anthropomorphizing on my part to make such a sentimental connection. Here’s what they have to say about the origins of the Five Freedoms:
The concept of Five Freedoms originated with the Report of the Technical Committee to Enquire into the Welfare of Animals kept under Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems, the Brambell Report, December 1965 (HMSO London, ISBN 0 10 850286 4). This stated that farm animals should have freedom “to stand up, lie down, turn around, groom themselves and stretch their limbs,” a list that is still sometimes referred to as Brambell’s Five Freedoms.
Clearly, this initial list might constitute humane treatment, but you’d have to go a long way before it gets close to freedom, or even a Bill of Rights. They went further:
1. Freedom from Hunger and Thirst – by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health and vigour.
2. Freedom from Discomfort – by providing an appropriate environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area.
3. Freedom from Pain, Injury or Disease – by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment.
4. Freedom to Express Normal Behaviour – by providing sufficient space, proper facilities and company of the animal’s own kind.
5. Freedom from Fear and Distress – by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering.
For a good look at whether competition horses might enjoy these freedoms, visit Ethical Horsemanship. It’s a good post. And the U.K. has made a good start. To see what kind of start the U.S. has made, start at the National Agriculture Library of the Animal Welfare Information Center.
There is enough material floating around out there to come up with a first draft of an Equine Bill of Rights without breaking a sweat. What do you think?
(and I didn’t even mention wax!)
Many many thanks to Ethical Horsemanship for taking this topic up and kicking me in the pants with a great post.
blogposts
I’ll have to check out those sites. I think it’s a good idea but the biggest question is who would really enforce it.
ghm
I think that if enough people start discussing the idea and word gets around, then the enforcement issue will be covered at a later date, decided upon by those with more power than a bunch of horse bloggers. My only thought here was to get the ball rolling.
Kaizen here (from Ethical Horsemanship)
Wonderful to see this being discussed here. Whilst enforcement at this stage is an issue – there needs to be a framework first. And before a framework, awareness.
If people can look with different eyes, and are prepared to ask questions, including of themselves, this is a great thing. For example, I was at a party where 2 of us coaches ended up facing each other discussing rein pressure and simulating rein tension on each other’s hands, with our eyes closed to see what pressures (a) we use and (b) whether it is appropriate, and (c) should something in our individual training methods be changed or considered further as a result of the discussion. We obviously coach others, so it has an impact there, there were people at the party as observers and commentators to our discussion, so there was impact there, and I think the same thing can occur with bloggers.
I think it is fantastic if people can sit down together and in an open-minded way discuss what these things really mean.
It is from these awarenesses, observations, feelings and discussions, that change can begin to occur, as Enlightened Horsemanship says.
A local judge told me recently that there was a position for a welfare officer in the national dressage competitions, but that no-one was appointed to the position – WHAT?!
@Enlightened Horsemanship – (myself being a mere ‘newbie’ to blogging), don’t be too dismissive of the power of the blogger. Here at least, bloggers are sometimes referred to by the news media and their points noted. I don’t know if this is particular to New Zealand, but it hasis is an immense power, if a blogger is a suitable commentator on an issue. Food for thought!
“A local judge told me recently that there was a position for a welfare officer in the national dressage competitions, but that no-one was appointed to the position – WHAT?!”
I agree–WHAT????!!! If properly qualified for such a position, I would jump at it. It’s SO important.
I didn’t try to be dismissive of the role bloggers can play in changing things, but this issue has found little traction here in my own blog, on Twitter and Facebook, so I’m assuming that I won’t find it elsewhere. I can only keep trying.
Greetings Enlightened Horsemanship:
It is gratifying to learn of your & your daughter’s recovery & return to “action.”
To be blunt (& this is NOT an ad hominem broadside): Your posts on developing an “equine bill of rights” strike me as distressingly familiar &, frankly, ploddingly incremental–& fail to comprehend first principles.
I have indicated that, unlike you & others posting to your & perhaps related blogs, I believe in direct action. You queried me whether by “direct action” I also intended activities such as PETA’s (what I regard as brilliant) by-now passé actions of throwing paint on the non-human animal skins & furs being worn by so-called “innocent” humans (I would argue that there is no such thing as an “innocent” human who is complicit in the murder of non-human animals).
I indicated that I believe PETA (which is both a non-human animal rights & welfare organization) & similar organizations (certainly those organizations dedicated to non-human animal WELFARE) does not go far enough in what it has done & continues to do.
I also indicated my unqualified support of the Animal Liberation Front (see: http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/) —& ALL of its direct actions & activities.
By direct action I intend an all-out campaign, using every means available, against the financial interests & real property of those individuals & organizations that use non-human animals in any way or who inflict pain, & suffering on them or who murder them for any reason–be it for human consumption (of any kind).
And I also regard those who consume non-human animals or any of their body parts or derivatives of their bodies and/or body parts, to be COMPLICIT in the murder of those non-human animals.
How I go about my life—at the present, to live out my beliefs is that I am 99% vegan (currently, I do consume cream when I drink coffee and/or tea)–& I lend moral support to those who take direct action against the exploiters & murderers of non-human animals. Furthermore, I do engage–on occasion, in debate (although I believe such efforts to be pointless; after a hundred years of debate, nothing of substance has changed in terms of the moral status of non–human animals in the phenomenal world in which sentient life lives.
In the future, I may well do more than live a vegan life, lend moral support to the ALF & other organizations like it, & engage in debate & advocate on behalf of non-human animals in policy & other forums.
Regarding, once again, the project (I am reminded of what Alasdair MacIntyre terms the “failed Enlightenment Project” in his landmark philosophical tome, “After Virtue”) to develop an equine “bill of rights, here’s what I have posted elsewhere (on your blog) on the subject (what I regard as the first principles)–& I suggest that it is decidedly speciesistic to select equus caballus (however much I love the species &, in particular the OTTB I have rescued & adopted) in lieu of addressing all non-human animal species in terms of what I assert as their inherent (deontological) moral status, their right to exist, & their right to live according to what is best for their particular species-specific condition, & their right to be free of being instrumentalized by homo sapiens sapiens for any reason in any circumstance.
Here’s what I posted elsewhere (with minor modifications) on your blog—& I believe it bears repeating:
“Education, outreach, & appeals to “compassion” will never achieve what I & a burgeoning world-wide group of individuals believe is necessary & imminent: Formal recognition & implementation of laws & regulations recognizing non-human animals as “persons” (or as Tom Regan terms it “subjects-of-a-life”) who should enjoy the basic right never to be treated merely as means to the ends of others (this includes the right to be treated with respect & the right not be harmed).
Direct action is necessary, we believe, because all other methods & attempts to stop the murder & exploitation of non-human animals have failed.
Speciesism lies at the heart of the rabid bigotry, prejudice, & arrogance that authorizes the murder & exploitation.
Speciesism, we believe, is a virulent form of bigotry & is as morally reprehensible as racism & sexism.
Richard Ryder coined the term “speciesism” to describe “the widespread discrimination that is practiced by (humans) against other species. Speciesism & racism both overlook or underestimate the similarities between the discriminator & those discriminated against.”
Genomic science increasingly reveals that homo sapiens sapiens is astonishingly genetically similar to all other animal species in Kingdom Animalia. This is not mere opinion but empirical truth.
There is no rationally or objectively justifiable basis for asserting that homo sapiens sapiens is more deserving of a privileged moral status than any other animal species.
Only religion (primarily what Gore Vidal terms the “Sky God” religions of Judaism, Christianity, & Islam), the speciesism that religion has spawned, & humans’ wildly successful ability to kill & dominate other species can be reckoned as justifications for the assertion that homo sapiens sapiens is “superior” to & deserving of a privileged moral status that affords it the prerogative to instrumentalize other animal species (in its service).
All animals–human & non-human alike– have inherent rights & there is no rationally defensible basis for assigning non-human animals a lesser (moral) value because of a perceived lack of rationality, while (at the same time) assigning a higher value to the human infants & the humans who are the mentally impaired solely on the grounds of their being members of the supposedly superior human species.
As Richard Dawkins writes in his breathtaking exegesis “The Blind Watchmaker:”
“Such is the breathtaking speciesism of our Christian-inspired attitudes, the abortion of a single human zygote (most of them are destined to be spontaneously aborted anyway) can arouse more moral solicitude and righteous indignation than the vivisection of any number of intelligent adult chimpanzees! [...] The only reason we can be comfortable with such a double standard is that the intermediates between humans and chimps are all dead.”
Writing this, I realize, is futile–as history has shown. PETA, AAVS, IDA, & all the other organizations that eschew direct action have utterly failed to stop The Holocaust of Non-Human Animals, what some has termed “Eternal Treblinka.”
I close with this:
“Let me say it openly: we are surrounded by an enterprise of degradation, cruelty, and killing which rivals anything the Third Reich was capable of, indeed dwarfs it, in that ours is an enterprise without end, self-regenerating, bringing rabbits, rats, poultry, livestock ceaselessly into the world for the purpose of killing them.”
~ J.M. Cotzee”
And by the way, I heartily encourage you & all your readers to visit the Web site of a movement of which I am proud to be a part of–& I invite you consider joining me & others.
Fulfillment of this movement’s long-term goal(s) would obviate the need for an equine–or any other human or non-human animal’s, “bill of rights:”
The movement is known as
“The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement & here is the URL to our Web site:
http://www.vhemt.org/
Here’s a little about this movement:
VHEMT (pronounced vehement) is a movement not an organization. It’s a movement advanced by people who care about life on planet Earth. We’re not just a bunch of misanthropes and anti-social, Malthusian misfits, taking morbid delight whenever disaster strikes humans. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Voluntary human extinction is the humanitarian alternative to human disasters.
We don’t carry on about how the human race has shown itself to be a greedy, amoral parasite on the once-healthy face of this planet. That type of negativity offers no solution to the inexorable horrors which human activity is causing.
Rather, The Movement presents an encouraging alternative to the callous exploitation and wholesale destruction of Earth’s ecology.
As VHEMT Volunteers know, the hopeful alternative to the extinction of millions of species of plants and animals is the voluntary extinction of one species: Homo sapiens… us.
Each time another one of us decides to not add another one of us to the burgeoning billions already squatting on this ravaged planet, another ray of hope shines through the gloom.
When every human chooses to stop breeding, Earth’s biosphere will be allowed to return to its former glory, and all remaining creatures will be free to live, die, evolve (if they believe in evolution), and will perhaps pass away, as so many of Nature’s “experiments” have done throughout the eons.
It’s going to take all of us going.
Q: Are you really serious?
We’re really vehement.
Many see humor in The Movement and think we can’t be serious about voluntary human extinction, but in spite of the seriousness of both situation and movement, there’s room for humor. In fact, without humor, Earth’s condition gets unbearably depressing — a little levity eases the gravity.
True, wildlife rapidly going extinct and 40,000 children dying each day are not laughing matters, but neither laughing nor bemoaning will change what’s happening. We may as well have some fun as we work and play toward a better world.
Besides, returning Earth to its natural splendor and ending needless suffering of humanity are happy thoughts — no sense moping around in gloom and doom.
Q: Do Volunteers expect to be successful?
VHEMT Volunteers are realistic. We know we’ll never see the day there are no human beings on the planet. Ours is a long-range goal.
It has been suggested that there are only two chances of everyone volunteering to stop breeding: slim and none. The odds may be against preserving life on Earth, but the decision to stop reproducing is still the morally correct one. Indeed, the likelihood of our failure to avoid the massive die off which humanity is engineering is a very good reason to not sentence another of us to life. The future isn’t what it used to be.
Even if our chances of succeeding were only one in a hundred, we would have to try. Giving up and allowing humanity to take its course is unconscionable. There is far too much at stake.
The Movement may be considered a success each time one more of us volunteers to breed no more.
Q: Does VHEMT have any enemies?
After we’ve seen a few hundred TV dramas where the good guy kicks the bad guy’s butt, it’s tempting to look at the real world with this same knee jerk, zero-sum mentality. We might look for an enemy to attack when championing our righteous cause, but in reality our enemy doesn’t have a butt to kick.
In the end, the real “enemies” are human greed, ignorance, and oppression. We can achieve more by promoting generosity, awareness, and freedom than we can by vainly kicking at a buttless foe.
Great progress will be made toward improving the quality of life on Earth by countering greed with responsibility, ignorance with education, and oppression with freedom.
Instead of meeting the bad guys in the street at high noon and shooting it out, why not invite them into the saloon to work things out?
Examples of unity.
Q: What is the official position of VHEMT?
Since the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement isn’t alive with a brain or a mouth, it can’t take positions or have opinions. It can’t get into arguments, tell people what to do and think, nor get punched for doing so.
Voluntary human extinction is simply a concept to be added to existing belief systems, not a complex code of behavior to live by. No committee of Movement shakers decides what position everyone else should take.
Most Volunteers subscribe to the philosophy embodied in the motto: “May we live long and die out,” but if someone doesn’t want to live long that’s their business. Really, the only action required for becoming a VHEMT Volunteer or Supporter is not adding another human being to the population. A couple could conceivably be expecting and decide to become VHEMT. That new human would be the last one they produced. VHEMT Supporters are not necessarily in favor of human extinction, but agree that no more of us should be created at this time.
Volunteers are so diverse in religious, political, and philosophical views that it would be divisive to begin formulating official Movement positions. Beware of dogmas. We speak with our own voices.
Q: When and how did VHEMT start?
Roots of VHEMT run as deep as human history. Potential for a voluntary human extinction movement has been around for as long as humans have.
When Ice Age humans hunted animals to extinction, at least one of the Neanderdunces among them must have grunted in bewilderment. As the Fertile Crescent became a barren desert, and the Cedars of Lebanon were sacrificed for temples, someone must have thought, “this bodes ill.” When Romans fueled their empire by extracting resources from near and far, surely someone remarked, “Humanus non gratis,” or words to that effect. Someone had to get the idea that the planet would be better off without this busy horde.
Someone, that is, besides the middle-eastern god, Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah. Tradition tells how, in prehistoric times, this creator-god realized his mistake in making humans and was going to flush us from the system, but in a weak moment he spared one breeding family. Oops! (Genesis 6: 1-22).
The Story of Atrahasis, an earlier Sumerian myth recorded in Babylonian text, tells of multiple gods conspiring to rid Earth of the bothersome creatures they had molded out of clay. One sneaky god warns a human to build a boat before the flood, and the rest is our history.
We call The Movement VHEMT, but it’s undoubtedly been given other names throughout history. None have been recorded, as far as we know.
There must be millions of people around the world who are independently arriving at the same conclusion. A large portion of today’s Volunteers were vehement extinctionists before they learned of the title “VHEMT”.
The true origins of The Movement can be found in the natural abundance of love and logic within each one of us. Our in-born sense of justice guides us to make the responsible choice.
Q: Who is the founder?
No one person is the founder of VHEMT. Les U. Knight gave the name “Voluntary Human Extinction Movement” to a philosophy or worldview which has existed for as long as humans have been sapient. It’s an awareness which has been arrived at independently in many places throughout history, but had become lost amid societies’ pronatalism.
Like millions of other people, Les followed a simple train of logic, guided by love, and arrived at the conclusion that Gaia would be better off without humans. He could be considered the finder, having identified The Movement by giving it a name, though each of us finds the truth for ourselves.
Although Les has become known internationally as a spokesperson for The Movement, no one can speak for all VHEMT Volunteers. There is no official position on issues beyond what is implied in the name of The Movement.
Q: We have children. Can we still join?
Today’s children are tomorrow’s destiny. Our children have the potential for achieving the awareness needed to reverse civilization’s direction and begin restoring Earth’s biosphere. Most could use our help in realizing their full potentials
Naturally. You won’t be alone. When people gain the VHEMT perspective, they decide to add no more to the existing human family. They don’t pressure their children to give them grandchildren and might encourage them to make a responsible choice with their fertility.
There is no reason to feel guilty about the past. Guilt doesn’t lead to positive solutions. Being VHEMT has nothing to do with the past. It’s the future of life on Earth that Volunteers want to preserve.
Q: Are some people opposed to VHEMT?
At first glance, some people assume that VHEMT Volunteers and Supporters must hate people and that we want everyone to commit suicide or become victims of mass murder. It’s easy to forget that another way to bring about a reduction in our numbers is to simply stop making more of us. Making babies seems to be a blind spot in our outlooks on life.
The idea of all of us voluntarily refraining from procreation is often dismissed without much consideration. These examples are considered elsewhere at this site:
* “People are going to have sex, you can’t stop that.”
* “It’s a human instinct to breed.”
* “But I just love babies.”
* “Some of us should reproduce because we’re better than others.”
* “Humans are a part of Nature.”
* And so on.
However, if any of us thinks about the situation long enough, and makes the effort to work through those socially-instilled blocks to clear thinking, we will arrive at virtually the same conclusion: we should voluntarily phase ourselves out for the good of humanity and planet.
VHEMT is naturally in opposition to involuntary extinction of any species, as well as any efforts encouraging human extermination. There are presently concerted efforts supporting both of these horrors. For example:
* Production and use of weapons.
* Toxin production, such as petrochemical and nuclear.
* Exploitation of natural and human resources.
* Promotion of reproductive fascism.
* And so on.
The above could be called the Terrorist Human Extermination Movement (THEM), but that’s labeling and encourages a “Them or Us” attitude.
VHEMT is opposed to what these people are doing, but it’s doubtful any would bother to return the favor. Really, there isn’t much point in opposing a voluntary movement which harms none and benefits all.
I think voluntary human extinction is misguided or worse.
Q: How do I join?
Being VHEMT is a state of mind. All you have to do to join is make the choice to refrain from further reproduction. For some, this is an easy decision to make. For others, it’s a moot issue. But for many, joining The Movement means making a monumental personal sacrifice.
The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement is not an organization, so no membership dues go to officials in offices. We are millions of individuals, each doing what we feel is best. Join with other VHEMT Volunteers and Supporters.
Shoshin
NOW we’re talkin’!
I’m really glad you responded to this post, and I have some replies to your comments.
Firstly, I don’t believe I ever said that those who wear fur or commit any other transgression against non-human animals were “innocent.” Perhaps other have, but I doubt very seriously you will find that word here in this blog. No one who sports the forcibly-removed skin of another animal for vanity is innocent.
I chose horses for my Bill of Rights idea because this is an equine-related blog and there are already other efforts in place for companion animals and livestock. Given that there is a community of horse owners (and I know that you object to the use of that word) who often take direct action, I hoped that appealing directly to them in a specific manner might start something. It is not my intention to give the cold shoulder to all other animals.
I feel a subtle shift of consciousness. I sincerely believe that if activist would pause for a moment, stop shouting and listen to the pulse of the earth, they might feel it too. The earth and her inhabitants are changing: compassion and education work. Incremental approaches work. Maybe not fast enough for activist, but the Treblinka you mention did not take shape immediately and will not end in a heartbeat either.
Stop and listen! And join me if you feel you can. One step at a time.
For those who eat meat & think that sentients such as cattle & horses do not agonize in terror in their final desperate moments, I challenge you to open your eyes & hearts to their suffering & watch these short videos to their ends–which are not a graphic portrayals of the bloody deaths & butchering to which they are ultimately subjected. Rather, they are studies of quiet desperation, agony, & suffering.
“As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields.” ~ Tolstoy
And we trifle over whether to use the term “owner” vs. “guardian?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUkHkyy4uqw&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fanimalrights%2Echange%2Eorg%2Fblog%2Fview%2Ffor%5Fvegetarians%5Fand%5Fmeat%2Deaters%5Fthe%5Fcalm%5Fnature%5Fof%5Fslaughter&feature=player_embedded
and
http://s147271628.onlinehome.us/HorseSlaughter.wmv
Shoshin
Where were you when I tried to start a conversation about the choice for vegetarianism?
Kudos to you for your efforts to protect these noble beasts. I think it all boils down to the same rights identified and guaranteed in the Constitution to us humans: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It’s not just about survival. We forget too easily about the down side of domestication: the assembly line slaughter houses, the cruelty and indifference and the ungodly accommodations faced by too many. Horses need room to be horses, to graze, to roll, to socialize with others of their species and to play. They are not simply machines to do our bidding. They are living, breathing, thinking and feeling creatures that deserve the life they were created to enjoy.
Hello Anne! I like your site, the equestrian corner very much! I think I’ve ordered from you before.
You said it so well when you referred to our own constitutional rights: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Please come back and visit again soon.