Page 40

Nov Advocate 2017

838 THE ADVOCATE VOL. 75 PART 6 NOVEMBER 2017 billions of animals enduring suffering in conditions that most Americans overwhelmingly oppose. He suggests that we have a greater likelihood and societal support on addressing those conditions at present rather than the lives of the animals themselves. He ends by asking: if you were in the animal’s place, would you be screaming at your lawyer to get you out of a gestation crate now, or urging your lawyer to explore theories for radically reordering the legal system through a paradigm shift that has classified animals as property for centuries? CONCLUSION The Krajnc Toronto Pig Save trial was a resounding success on many levels and generated substantial publicity educating the public about the horrific plight of food animals. It was a brave and principled effort by Ms. Krajnc and her dedicated lawyers. Many arguments presented meet the standard of being clever combatants—especially the arguments of mercy, following the golden rule, and comparing food animals to our beloved companion animals. By sticking to those societally popular arguments, the legal outcome would have been the same, publicity would have been generated and the wider public would have been further educated and possibly brought closer into the fold of compassion. However, by introducing the provocative arguments of personhood, bacon eating as child abuse, veganism and Holocaust comparisons, the opportunity was somewhat squandered in that the legal system recoiled, many in society may have been offended and animal advocacy may have been brought further outside the mainstream. Any future legal effort to advance a personhood argument needs to overcome the emphatic statement by the judge that not only pigs but also dogs, cats and other pets are property—strong language that did not need to be part of the opinion if those issues were not raised at that time in that forum. ENDNOTES 1. Clare Dyer, “Libel Law Review over McDonald‘s Ruling”, The Guardian (16 February 2005), cited in Bruce A Wagman, Sonia S Waisman & Pamela D Frasch, Animal Law: Cases and Materials, 4th ed (Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 2009) at 478. 2. “The Verdict Is in: Compassion Is Not a Crime”, Canadians for the Ethical Treatment of Farmed Animals e-mail to supporters dated May 4, 2017. 3. R v Krajnc, 2017 ONCJ 281 at para 35 Krajnc. 4. Ibid. 5. Caitlin Dewey, “Why Americans Are Eating More Pork Now Than in Decades”, Washington Post (26 May 2017). 6. Transcript of Anita Krajnc trial testimony at 55. 7. Ibid at 30. 8. Ibid at 21. 9. Krajnc, supra note 3 at para 124. 10. Jonathan R Lovvorn, “Animal Law in Action: The Law, Public Perception, and the Limits of Animal Rights Theory as a Basis for Legal Reform” (2006) 12:2 Animal L 133. t t t t t


Nov Advocate 2017
To see the actual publication please follow the link above