法例及规例

J. Berman, P. Bernstein, B. Julian, E. Maxwell, S. McLellan, C. Schiffries, B. Jacobson
{"title":"法例及规例","authors":"J. Berman, P. Bernstein, B. Julian, E. Maxwell, S. McLellan, C. Schiffries, B. Jacobson","doi":"10.1109/CCFP.1991.664759","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As reported previously in these pages (tnt j Stud Anim Prob 3(3):250, 1982), the Australian Standing Council on Agriculture (SCA) recently concocted a draft version of a new animal welfare code, comprised of four sections: 1. The Pig 2. The Domestic Fowl 3. Road Transport of Livestock 4. Rail Transport of Livestock Since the codes are the work of the SCA, a body made up of the state and federal ministers responsible for agriculture, the proposed codes will never officially come under the domain of the Australian federal government. Instead, they must be adopted by each of Australia's separate states. Nor, as Peter Singer noted in the Winter1982 edition of Ag, does there appear to be any mechanism for making a breach of the codes an automatic offense. \"At most,\" Singer observed, \"it seems that it [failure to comply with the codes] might be evidence tha_t could be used in a prosecution of cruelty.\" After perusing the actual content of the codes, Singer concluded that they were woefully inadequate, furnishing only a bare minimum of protection for the physical health of animals, while virtually ignoring their behavioral and other welfare-related needs and, among other things, acknowledging and condoning many of the practices that are now considered integral to maintaining a profitable factory farm operation. Writing for the Australian Federation of Animal Societies, Singer therefore prepared a detailed critique of the codes, suggesting modifications that would help to convert the codes into a practicable tool for ensuring that livestock have a better chance at a guaranteed minimum number of carefully defined rights.","PeriodicalId":167617,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings The First Conference on Computers, Freedom & Privacy","volume":"258 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Legislation & Regulation\",\"authors\":\"J. Berman, P. Bernstein, B. Julian, E. Maxwell, S. McLellan, C. Schiffries, B. Jacobson\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/CCFP.1991.664759\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"As reported previously in these pages (tnt j Stud Anim Prob 3(3):250, 1982), the Australian Standing Council on Agriculture (SCA) recently concocted a draft version of a new animal welfare code, comprised of four sections: 1. The Pig 2. The Domestic Fowl 3. Road Transport of Livestock 4. Rail Transport of Livestock Since the codes are the work of the SCA, a body made up of the state and federal ministers responsible for agriculture, the proposed codes will never officially come under the domain of the Australian federal government. Instead, they must be adopted by each of Australia's separate states. Nor, as Peter Singer noted in the Winter1982 edition of Ag, does there appear to be any mechanism for making a breach of the codes an automatic offense. \\\"At most,\\\" Singer observed, \\\"it seems that it [failure to comply with the codes] might be evidence tha_t could be used in a prosecution of cruelty.\\\" After perusing the actual content of the codes, Singer concluded that they were woefully inadequate, furnishing only a bare minimum of protection for the physical health of animals, while virtually ignoring their behavioral and other welfare-related needs and, among other things, acknowledging and condoning many of the practices that are now considered integral to maintaining a profitable factory farm operation. Writing for the Australian Federation of Animal Societies, Singer therefore prepared a detailed critique of the codes, suggesting modifications that would help to convert the codes into a practicable tool for ensuring that livestock have a better chance at a guaranteed minimum number of carefully defined rights.\",\"PeriodicalId\":167617,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings The First Conference on Computers, Freedom & Privacy\",\"volume\":\"258 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings The First Conference on Computers, Freedom & Privacy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/CCFP.1991.664759\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings The First Conference on Computers, Freedom & Privacy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/CCFP.1991.664759","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

正如本页之前报道的那样(tnt j Stud animm Prob 3(3):250, 1982),澳大利亚农业常务委员会(SCA)最近制定了一项新的动物福利法草案,由四个部分组成:1。猪2。家禽牲畜的公路运输牲畜铁路运输由于这些法规是由负责农业的州和联邦部长组成的SCA的工作,因此拟议的法规永远不会正式归入澳大利亚联邦政府的管辖范围。相反,它们必须由澳大利亚的每个州单独采用。正如彼得•辛格(Peter Singer)在1982年冬季版《农业》(Ag)中指出的那样,似乎也没有任何机制使违反这些准则的行为自动成为犯罪。“最多,”辛格观察到,“似乎[不遵守准则]可能是可以用来起诉残忍行为的证据。”在仔细阅读了这些规范的实际内容后,辛格得出结论,它们严重不足,只对动物的身体健康提供了最低限度的保护,而实际上忽视了它们的行为和其他与福利相关的需求,除此之外,承认和宽恕了许多现在被认为是维持一个有利可图的工厂化农场运作所不可或缺的做法。因此,辛格为澳大利亚动物协会联合会撰写了一份详细的法典评论,建议进行修改,以帮助将法典转化为一种切实可行的工具,以确保牲畜有更好的机会获得最少数量的精心定义的权利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Legislation & Regulation
As reported previously in these pages (tnt j Stud Anim Prob 3(3):250, 1982), the Australian Standing Council on Agriculture (SCA) recently concocted a draft version of a new animal welfare code, comprised of four sections: 1. The Pig 2. The Domestic Fowl 3. Road Transport of Livestock 4. Rail Transport of Livestock Since the codes are the work of the SCA, a body made up of the state and federal ministers responsible for agriculture, the proposed codes will never officially come under the domain of the Australian federal government. Instead, they must be adopted by each of Australia's separate states. Nor, as Peter Singer noted in the Winter1982 edition of Ag, does there appear to be any mechanism for making a breach of the codes an automatic offense. "At most," Singer observed, "it seems that it [failure to comply with the codes] might be evidence tha_t could be used in a prosecution of cruelty." After perusing the actual content of the codes, Singer concluded that they were woefully inadequate, furnishing only a bare minimum of protection for the physical health of animals, while virtually ignoring their behavioral and other welfare-related needs and, among other things, acknowledging and condoning many of the practices that are now considered integral to maintaining a profitable factory farm operation. Writing for the Australian Federation of Animal Societies, Singer therefore prepared a detailed critique of the codes, suggesting modifications that would help to convert the codes into a practicable tool for ensuring that livestock have a better chance at a guaranteed minimum number of carefully defined rights.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信