Animal Voice:

Would you agree that in terms of the law, we need to remove the legal status of animals as our ‘property’ (which makes them vulnerable to wide-scale abuse, exploitation and harm) and give them legal recognition as beings with intrinsic value in their own right, deserving of a respectful and dignified association with us, as humans?​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

​Animal Voice:

The world has come a long way since the time of Henry Salt, the British social reformer who is credited with having written the first book in this field, titled Animals’ Rights, back in 1892. Yet, when I consider that HET has fought vigorously against one of the epitomes of animal abuse – namely battery cages for laying hens – for all of 35 years, and yet more than 25 million laying hens are still incarcerated in South Africa in the most horrendous misery, one can’t help but feel stymied, to say the least! ​

Amy P Wilson:

I think the issue of ‘animal rights’, is one that many people are confused about. Our legal system is structured in such a way that one is either a legal subject (or rights holder), or a legal object (or a thing or property). As long as animals and Nature fall into the category of the latter, they will always receive less legal recognition and protection and be exploited. In my view, in order to align with what many of us already know and understand – namely that animals are sentient beings with intrinsic value – they need to receive legal recognition as rights holders. Of course, this comes with many nuances, and considerations, but until such fundamental status changes, it will be very difficult to give animals the protections they need and deserve.

Another important recognition is that human rights and animal rights are fundamentally and inextricably interconnected and intertwined and there are many opportunities to build on these synergies to ensure flourishing for all.

​

​

​Amy P Wilson:

I am sure that it can feel that way after working on these issues for so long, and seeing what feels like such little progress. But what we are trying to do in some cases is completely overhaul the foundations of our society – which takes time.

​

In the span of only 10 years, we have seen the highest court in the country acknowledge that animals are sentient beings with intrinsic value, we have seen several courts recognise that human rights and animal protection are fundamentally linked, we have had animal law introduced into two different universities in the country, including at a master’s level for the first time ever. This doesn’t even include all the exciting things that have happened internationally – in the animal rights or rights of Nature movement. As Nelson Mandela said: “[t]here is no easy walk to freedom” and while it may be long and difficult, we must take it step by step. ​

Animal Voice:

The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) has recognized the harmful and lifelong impact on young lives of witnessing violence. In 2023, the CRC decreed that no child may be exposed to violence, including violence against an animal (GC26: See Section G paragraph 35). Please give us your thoughts on this historic development.

​

​​Amy P Wilson:

Violence – whether it is against animals or humans, is an atrocity that must be eliminated from our society. South Africa is one of the most violent countries in the world, yet our own Constitution recognises a specific right to be free from violence. This international development is critical because it reaffirms that we need to take every possible measure to move towards non-violence and that the protection of human (children) and animal interests (both vulnerable groups) are interlinked.

​

Animal Voice:

In support of GC26:35, The Humane Education Trust has developed a module for South Africa’s senior phase learners that is somewhat different from our modules for younger learners. It focuses rather on the psychological and lifelong harm done to ourselves, as humans, when we experience or participate in abuse and violence, including violence against animals. The module is designed so that learners understand why GC26:35 squarely places animal welfare into the domain of child rights.

​

Amy P Wilson:

It is important work to link the protection of animals and children, including situating it within children’s rights, as well as to bring these issues into education early on. More work needs to be done in South Africa to understand the links between violence against animals and other vulnerable groups, as well as using existing human rights to advocate for animal protection. There is some important research investigating this relating to slaughterhouse workers in the country, as well as in the home through situations of domestic violence. When we understand these links more clearly, we can advocate in a more holistic way so that the rights of all are ensured.

​

Animal Voice:

In terms of GC26:35, one of the concluding observations of the UNCRC was a call for a ban on persons under the age of 18 participating in trophy hunting. Is this something Animal Law Reform South Africa will take up?

​

Amy P Wilson:

ALRSA has done significant work relating to trophy hunting, including advocating for certain bans and stronger regulations, but we haven’t yet focused on these issues in the context of children specifically. While we have also referenced the resolution in submissions made to government to highlight the links, I think there is a strong argument that could be made in favour of advocating for a ban on minors participating particularly because of our own Constitution’s commitment to freedom from violence.

And as for the hens – we absolutely need to work towards a legislative ban on battery cages, something we are actively working on. In the meantime, we have been working with corporations to go cage free (specifically free-range), and have had seven commitments in the last few months alone. While these are incremental steps, they all get us closer to the end goal – freedom, justice and flourishing for ALL!

​​Animal Voice:

South Africa is planning a significant move towards fish farming. This coincides with a study just released by the Welfare Footprint Institute that rainbow trout, for example, endure an average of 10 minutes of intense and excruciating pain during air asphyxia.

​

Because fishes do not have facial expressions or make sounds that we recognise as evidencing emotion of any kind, they need legal protection desperately. Please give us your thoughts on the way forward, in legal terms, for fishes.

​

​

Amy P Wilson:

I absolutely agree that fishes and aquatic beings receive less attention and protection than other animals, as I have written before, and even more recently and also why I thought to create World Aquatic Animal Day (now a global movement) together with Dean Kathy Hessler). ​