Swiss TV: Voters reject animal lawyers proposal
07-03-2010 By FRANK JORDANS (AP), The Associated Press
GENEVA — Projections show Swiss voters have rejected a plan to appoint special lawyers for animals that have been abused by humans, Swiss national television reported Sunday.
Projections by political polling organization gfs.bern indicate 71 percent of voters cast their ballot against the proposal by animal rights activists to extend nationwide a system already in place in Zurich since 1992, SF1 reported.
FILE - In this Jan. 20, 2010 file photo, an abandoned cat sits at the animal home Winkel in Kloten in the canton of Zurich, Switzerland. Projections show Swiss voters have rejected a plan to appoint special lawyers for animals that have been abused by humans, Swiss national television reported Sunday, March, 7, 2010. (AP Photo/Keystone/Gaetan Bally, File)
"The Swiss people have clearly said our animal protection laws are so good we don't need animal lawyers," said Jakob Buechler, a lawmaker for the centrist Christian People's Party.
Switzerland tightened its animal protection laws two years ago and now has among the strictest rules anywhere when it comes to caring for pets and farm animals. Pigs, budgies, goldfish and other social animals cannot be kept alone; horses and cows must have regular exercise outside their stalls; and dog owners have to take a training course to learn how to properly look after their pets.
Tiana Angelina Moser, a lawmaker for the Green Liberal Party, said animal rights campaigners would now be looking for other ways to make sure laws against animal abuse are properly applied and those who hurt them receive appropriate punishment.
According to the country's only animal lawyer, Antoine F. Goetschel, public prosecutors are often unsure about the new law and shy away from pursuing marginal cases even if there is clear evidence of abuse.
Goetschel said he represents about 150-200 animals annually in Zurich, while in other cantons (states) only a handful of cases go to court each year.
Opponents, including the government, had argued that existing laws are sufficient and appointing lawyers for animals would incur unnecessary costs for taxpayers, who have to foot the bill.
(Bron & foto: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hVH6I6jWPHpiqPaF-v1T-P80HrCAD9E9QNP04)
No comments:
Post a Comment