Of hamsters and Nellie McClung

For most of my life I didn't particularly like dogs, cats or most pets. That began to change when my son and daughter-in-law purchased, first, a Himalayan cat (Reilly), and then a chocolate lab (Cody). My wife's and my initial reaction was that they were welcome to their pets as long as they didn't bring them along to our house for visits. Gradually that broke down--first visits, then some infrequent baby-sitting (not much actual sitting in the case of the dog), and for a time, the animals actually living in our home as our kids sorted out domiciles and careers.

It astonishes me to say that I actually like the animals now, and while I would still never have a pet, I have greater appreciation for how a dog or cat could worm their way into a person's heart (not that I am advocating worms as pets).

Therefore, I was not unsympathetic to Ellen DeGeneres' breakdown on television this week when she pleaded with a dog rescue agency to change their minds about seizing a pet to which Ellen had become very attached, although I would recommend that Ellen learn not to sniff so noisily into a microphone--most off-putting!

But let's take this whole animal love thing to an even higher level. I did a quick Internet check of which animals are protected by law from being killed. No one would be surprised to learn that this list includes the great apes, seals, dolphins and whales, or even wolves and eagles. But do you know that in the state of Maryland one cannot kill a snake without a proper licence? In Germany, a homeless animal cannot be done away with unless a team of veterinarians agrees in writing that the animal was beyond medical recovery.

And then there are hamsters. The National Post reported this week (October 15, 2007, p. A6) that a 24-year old Kamloops, BC man pleaded guilty to killing two of his girlfriend's hamsters. He will be sentenced next month. In the words of the manager of the Kamloops SPCA, "All animals deserve our respect, especially if we have made them pets. Hamsters are beings who experience pain, too."

In fact, the Canadian Criminal Code contains a number of provisions to protect animals. It is a criminal offense to:

* Wilfully or recklessly cause unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal by any means;
* Neglect to provide an animal adequate food, water, shelter or care;
* Wilfully and without lawful excuse kill, cattle or other animals that are kept for a lawful purpose;
* Engage in various specific acts, such as baiting an animal, participating in animal fighting, or causing pain to an animal by transporting it in an unsafe manner.

I am trying to think of a clever segue from what I have said above to what I plan to say next. You see, these revelations (at least to me) about animals came on the same day as a. my brother's birthday (Don, the card is in the mail), and b. the 80th anniversary of the Persons Case. In my (I like to say) creative mind, animals and personhood became one. Here's why.

In 1929 five heroic Alberta women appealed to England's Privy Council a decision taken by the Canadian Supreme Court in 1928 not to recognize women as "qualified persons" for appointment to the Senate. On October 18, 1929 the Privy Council reversed that decision and humankind took a great step forward. Lord Sankey's declaration should be memorized by all my fellow citizens:

The exclusion of women from all public offices is a relic of days more barbarous than ours.

Initial momentum slowed pretty abruptly for women after that time. For instance, it was only in 1940 that the last province (Quebec) gave women the right to vote. The introduction of Prime Minister Diefenbaker's Canadian Bill of Rights (1960) and, later, Prime Minister Trudeau's Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) allowed more headway. Women are still fighting for full equality, but the right on which all else rests, personhood, is theirs--and thank God for it.

But humankind has another step to take. Animals in Canada and many other countries are at this point treated better than are unborn babies.

Keep in mind that animals are not legal persons. Yet the Kamloops man will be sentenced for killing two hamsters. Compare this with a case out of Winnipeg where a 24-year old woman was beaten to death by her 17-year old boyfriend for refusing to have an abortion. Because the young man falls under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, he will be sentenced to a maximum of ten years for murdering the woman he got pregnant in the first place, but no additional time for the dead baby. That baby does not have the legal right to personhood for which Nellie McClung and her Alberta colleagues fought so hard.

The fetus would have been better off if it had been a hamster--protection would then have been provided under the Criminal Code.

A growing number of Canadians believe that our present government, as timorous as it is about abortion-related issues, could safely bring unborn babies at least up to the animal level. They are urging parliamentarians to consider legislation similar to that enacted in the U.S. that addresses deaths of fetuses that are unrelated to a woman's right to choose.

Signed into law in 2004, it is called the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. It's also known as Laci and Conner's Law, for the pregnant Laci Peterson who was murdered by her husband.

That law makes it a crime to harm a fetus during an assault on a pregnant woman. It gives a "child in utero" status as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed – intentionally or not – during a crime of violence. But the law explicitly excludes the prosecution of any provider of consensual abortion, those attempting to treat a pregnant woman, and the woman herself.

In my lifetime I have had two hamsters and two babies. The hamsters were very nice, but.....