02-02-2010, 03:01 PM
Today in the Netherlands the senate finally voted to forbid bestiality. The house of representatives did the same a while ago, so finally it will become illegal to make pornography with animals......something which apparantly was done a lot in the Netherlands because in many other countries this was illegal already.
As a strong supporter of animal rights I am of course happy with this, even though I also know that there are many other cases in which animals are treated bad as well (often even worse) and usually on a much larger scale.
The 'interesting thing' was that two parties voted against this new legislation..... CDA (the christian party) and VVD (the 'rich people's' party). Historically these two parties both more or less divide votes from people in and related to the agricultural business, so historically are the most reluctant to work on better animal rights because the know that is going to cost them votes.
The thing I am wondering is how they want to explain this voting to the public. Arguments they apparantly made is that this is 'symbol politics'.....so a very small problem (in numbers) and it is better to do something 'bigger'......I don't buy these arguments from them, because as I said before these two parties are the ones that are always blocking propositions about animal welfare. So again, how are the Christians and the business-people's parties going to explain that they want to keep bestiality legal?
I think they will try not to mention this ever and hope no-one will bring it up in election time.
As a strong supporter of animal rights I am of course happy with this, even though I also know that there are many other cases in which animals are treated bad as well (often even worse) and usually on a much larger scale.
The 'interesting thing' was that two parties voted against this new legislation..... CDA (the christian party) and VVD (the 'rich people's' party). Historically these two parties both more or less divide votes from people in and related to the agricultural business, so historically are the most reluctant to work on better animal rights because the know that is going to cost them votes.
The thing I am wondering is how they want to explain this voting to the public. Arguments they apparantly made is that this is 'symbol politics'.....so a very small problem (in numbers) and it is better to do something 'bigger'......I don't buy these arguments from them, because as I said before these two parties are the ones that are always blocking propositions about animal welfare. So again, how are the Christians and the business-people's parties going to explain that they want to keep bestiality legal?
I think they will try not to mention this ever and hope no-one will bring it up in election time.