By This post is also available in: ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΑ (GREEK) TÜRKÇE (TURKISH)
Human beings are preparing their own end thanks to the consumption-oriented and unsustainable system they have created. Generally speaking, the problems we face due to the climate change are growing on a daily basis and destroying the beauties of nature. Who is responsible for all of this? People, that is, us, all of us, our insatiable sense of greed.
This system leads us to such selfishness that we think we have rights over the rights of all living beings. However, we are all part of a cycle. We insist on ignoring this fact. We have normalized the exposure of animals to violence to such an extent that we marginalize those who question this and render their fight meaningless.
Of course, I am trying to avoid generalizations, but I think it would be good for all of us to look in the mirror a little bit. Thus, I would like those who oppose the text of the Penal (Amendment) Law, which is on the agenda of the Legal and Political Affairs Committee of the Parliament, to rethink what they serve and what they reject with their votes. In this process, we as a society need to be vigilant against manipulations.
***
The amendment to the Penal Code, which appeared on the agenda last week as the ‘cockfighting issue’ but was actually prepared for the protection of animals against violence, caused tension in the Parliament. As a result of committee meetings held with the participation of non-governmental organizations—the Cyprus Turkish Bar Association Animal Rights Committee in particular—we are talking about a legislative amendment that UBP and CTP deputies unanimously referred to the General Assembly. In other words, this is a text that everyone agrees on.
Due to speeches made from the rostrum of the parliament, almost foaming at the mouth, the issue fell on the news agenda like a bombshell.
***
Let us take a closer look at which legislation is opposed. The Criminal (Amendment) Law firstly recognises that animals are not commodities, but living beings. It defines the word animal as a living creature with a spine and nervous system. Additionally, it provides a specific definition of exotic and wild animals. It also emphasises the importance of protecting endangered animals.
Under the heading of ‘Crimes Against Animals’, articles with respect to killing an animal; raping an animal; causing the death of an animal by negligence; injuring or harming an animal; threatening to harm an animal; animal smuggling; kidnapping an animal; imprisoning an animal; abandoning an animal, and animal fights are regulated. The legislation, which has been reduced to the issue of animal fighting, thanks to the management of perceptions, actually aims to protect life and bodily integrity, which is a highly valuable right. Hunting activities and practices of pest control are excluded from the scope of the article on killing animals.
***
While some of the articles I have tried to cite already exist in the penal code (e.g. animal rape is absurdly labelled as sexual intercourse with animals), many other acts already exist in the Animal Welfare Act. For example, the recently sensationalized issue of animal fighting (organising, participating, involving animals in such actions), abandoning animals, betting on animals—offering animals as a prize, bonus and gift has already been banned and criminalised since 2013. Fines and imprisonment penalties have also been defined for acts of similar kind.
Although the legislation is within this given framework, the proposed law was transferred from the General Assembly to the Committee for reconsideration due to the chaos created. Following the discussions and negotiations there, the article on Animal Fighting, which was already criminalised in the Animal Welfare Law, was unanimously removed from the text. However, this was not enough! Upon the request of the deputies representing the government, the amendment proposal was sent to the UBP group.
So is this what we need to understand from all of this: Are the MPs of the DP and YDP, especially the UBP, opposing the rape, killing, injuring, negligence, abandonment, torture, harming, kidnapping of animals, and their subjection to threats and acts of captivity? If yes, let’s hear it clearly, so that we all know…
The real reason for the opposition to the law is tried to be concealed with non-genuine reasonings. The fact that the article on animal fighting, which was already criminalised, is made a matter of life and death, as if it is being included in the legislation for the first time, strengthens the view that illegal profits made through these acts are being protected. Unfortunately, this is the truth. As a result, blatant acts of violence, which have been criminalized since 2013, are legitimized with concerns regarding the loss of incomes made through illegal betting.
This article was originally published on 21.01.2025
Kaynak: ‘COCKFIGHTING IS CULTURE’ AS A ‘PURELY EMOTIONAL’ VIEW
