The good news is that Bill S-203, which originated more than three years ago, cleared the Senate last week. It still has to be approved by the elected House of Commons. If passed, it will end the practice of keeping cetaceans – whales, dolphins and porpoises – in captivity, with rare exceptions to the benefit of the animals. There are only two Canadian facilities that actually do keep captive cetaceans. I’ve recently written about one, Marineland, most familiar to me even though I’ve visited it only twice in over thirty years. That’s because I hate to see animals kept under the conditions I recently described (see: here and here).
But, as if studying the tactics of U.S. President Donald Trump, opponents of the bill have avoided the issue by attacking, with lies, those of us in favor of the bill. For example, Marineland claims:
Compassion for others, whatever race, religion, gender orientation, or even species, can be “emotional” and incomprehensible to those lacking such emotions, as empathy drives compassion, but, in fact, there has been a significant amount of science-based analysis of the negative effects of confinement on cetaceans presented in defense of the bill and its predecessor, Bill S-230, now greatly weakened from that original version. But, guess what; I’m Canadian, as are the former Marineland trainers decrying the way cetaceans are kept at Marineland, as is the Toronto Star, which wrote a series of articles about Marineland, as is Zoocheck, which commissioned scientists over 20 years ago to investigate animal care at Marineland, and as is even Suzie McNeil, whose Marineland jingle used to so irritate me when it was relentlessly pumped over the airwaves, with its decidedly untrue refrain, “Everyone loves Marineland.” No, not everyone does. “Radical” does not fit either the description of the Senator (believe me, Canadian Senators couldn’t be less “radical”) Wilfred Moore, now age 75 and retired from the Senate and a lawyer and former city councillor, or, for that matter, me. There is nothing “radical” about compassion for animals. It’s like calling a rag-tag band of Central American legal refugees an invasive force infiltrated by would-be terrorists. Huh?“The bill and debate around it has been highly emotional, lacking in fact-based or science-based analysis and mired in unnecessary conflict incited by radical animal rights groups from the United States.”
I reference President Trump not to be political, but to make the point that when truth can’t be countered by truth, we should not let lies sway opinion.
As for the “animal rights” label, what exactly is meant? The term is so overused as to be useless. We’re all animals but “rights” are a construct, an invention, serving to define civilization. I seek to confer, through law, the “right” of cetaceans to not be confined in aquariums primarily in service, in Marineland’s case, of profiteering through the provision of entertainment. Period, full stop.
Keep Wildlife in the Wild,
Barry