Could wording in the Hong-Kong Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance be used to ban rodeo in BC? The Honk-Kong law specifies that being “infuriated” and “terrified” are against the law. Rodeo animals are “infuriated” and “terrified” into performing by the use of goads such as chinches, electric prods, and spurs. The BC Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act’s definition of distress (cruelty) does not specify “infuriated” or “terrified”. If it did, could it be used to shut down rodeos in BC?
Hong-Kong Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance Section: 3
(1) Any person who-
(a) cruelly beats, kicks, ill-treats, over-rides, over-drives, overloads, tortures, infuriates, or terrifies any animal, or causes or procures or, being the owner, permits any animal to be so used, or, by wantonly or unreasonably doing or omitting to do any act, causes any unnecessary suffering or, being the owner, permits any unnecessary suffering to be so caused to any animal.
All the Hong-Kong definitions of cruelty, even “infuriates” and “terrifies”, are generally covered in the BC Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act under its definitions of distress, specifically “suffering” and “abused”. (http://www.spca.bc.ca/assets/documents/cruelty/pca-act.pdf):
BC PCA Act:(2) For the purposes of this Act, an animal is in distress if it is
(a) deprived of adequate food, water, shelter, ventilation, light, space, exercise, care or veterinary
(a.1) kept in conditions that are unsanitary,
(a.2) not protected from excessive heat or cold,
(b) injured, sick, in pain or suffering, or
(c) abused or neglected.
But “infuriates” and “terrifies” may be hard to prove as “distress” in a BC court. Animal Advocates Society would like to see “infuriates” and “terrifies” added to the above definitions of distress in the BC PCA Act.
Hong-Kong Penalties ….shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of $200,000 and to imprisonment for 3 years.
BC’s summary conviction penalties are $75,000 and/or 2 years.
~ Judy Stone, Vancouver BC