Swiss Review 2/2021

Swiss Review / April 2021 / No.2 22 Society “Damage to property” According to University of Berne law professor Peter V. Kunz, animals are regarded as property under Swiss law: “Hence, whenwe kill an animal, this does not constitute kill- ing in the legal sense, but damage to property.” It would be a paradigm shift if fundamental rights for primates were enshrined in the constitution, Kunz says, because non-hu- manswould be recognised as legal entities for the first time. Giving primates fundamental rights is an idea that is rejected by those who believe that it undermines animal testing in the pharmaceutical industry as well as primate captivity at Basel Zoo. The primate initiativewas launched by Sentience Politics, a “political organisation that fights for the rights of non-human animals”, as its executive di- rector Silvano Lieger puts it. The animal rights NGO also campaigns for a better choice of vegetarian and vegan food in public-sector canteens in Swiss cities and was responsi- ble for a federal popular initiative to abolish factory farm- ing. By advocating constitutional rights for primates, Sen- tience Politics has taken up a cause first championed by such figures as the Australian philosopher and ethicist Peter Singer, who wrote the 1975 bestseller “Animal Liber- ation”. No direct consequences for zoos or the pharmaceutical sector The cantonal parliament of Basel-Stadt ruled the primate initiative unacceptable because it feared the initiative would contravene federal law if enacted into the cantonal constitution. However, the Federal Supreme Court cor- rected Basel-Stadt on this point in autumn 2020 and de- cided to give the canton’s electorate the opportunity to vote on the contentious issue – with one important ca- veat: only the canton’s public organisations and institu- tions would be bound by the resultant amendment to the cantonal constitution if the initiativewas accepted. A yes vote would therefore only have indirect consequences for private entities, such as pharmaceutical companies or Basel Zoo. Does this mean granting primates fundamental rights simply boils down to semantics and has no tangible impact? “The initiative hasmore than just symbolic value,” counters renowned animal and climate law specialist Charlotte Blat- tner, who is a senior researcher at the Institute of Public Law of the University of Berne. Blattner has been studying the ethical and legal aspects of the primate initiative for a num- ber of years. “The key issue is whether society manages to find a means of truly respecting and safeguarding the fun- damental interests of animals, i.e. their right to life and to physical and psychological integrity,” she says. Animal use instead of animal protection? In 1992, Switzerland became the first country in the world to enshrine the notion of animal dignity in its constitution. Its Animal Welfare Act is strict compared to similar legis- lation in other countries. However, statistics show only around 2,000 violations being punished each year, mostly with fines of up to a few hundred francs. Blattner believes that animal welfare in Switzerland is only at a superficial level, because human interests are ultimately always given precedence over animal interests. For example, federal acts and ordinances define the permittedmethods of killing an- imals in minute detail. “Basically, the Animal Welfare Act could also be referred to as the Animal Use Act,” she says. Therefore, Blattner regards the primate initiative as the first step towards a wider social debate about a more equi- table relationship between humans and animals – includ- ing animals less similar to humans. “What about pigs?” she asks. “They also want to live and not feel pain.” Blattner is at pains to stress that granting animals fundamental rights will not result in fewer fundamental rights for humans. On the contrary. “Animal welfare standards are commonly poor in places where humans are also treated badly,” she adds. Take factory farms, where working conditions are of- ten difficult. Conversely, newstudies have shown that coun- tries promoting animal rights also treat their citizens bet- ter and are committed to improving the lives of vulnerable people. The real challenge ariseswhenwe take a long-termview. Will we reach a tipping point where fundamental rights for animals spell the end of animal use as we know it? Will ve- ganism become the only possible alternative? This is the subject of heated academic debate, says Blattner, although the majority of her colleagues endorse the vegan option. Professor Markus Wild, who specialises in animal philos- ophy, has taken the issue further and applied it to climate change. Given the dramatic decline in biodiversity, humans have no other option but to rethink their relationshipwith animals if they are to save themselves, he argues. In this re- spect, the primate initiative could prove to be a meaning- ful beginning. sentience-politics.org JÜRG STEINER WORKS AS A JOURNAL IST AND EDI TOR FOR THE “BERNER ZEI TUNG”