Animal Advocates Watchdog

Why Bill S-203 needs to be rejected

Why Bill S-203 needs to be rejected:
• it only covers animals that are “property”; therefore, “unowned” animals, such as strays and wildlife will not be protected. Animal cruelty provisions should protect all animals not just “those kept for a lawful purpose”
• it does not include a clear and concise definition of “animal”
• it does not criminalize individuals who train or organize animals to fight other animals or those who bet on animal fights

• its proposed penalties are weak
• it does not make it an offence to kill an animal with brutal and/or vicious intent, whether or not the animal dies immediately
• it makes it virtually impossible to prosecute cases of neglect

The danger of Bill S-203 is that it could create an illusion that strong action has been taken, when it has not. ANIMAL ABUSE AND CRUELTY WILL CONTINUE TO GO UNPUNISHED!

Time is running out to tell Members of Parliament that Bill S-203 does not go far enough to stop animal cruelty. A free vote (meaning MPs are not bound by their party) is being held in the House of Commons in a few weeks. To date, the Conservatives, the Liberals and the Bloc have supported Bill S-203. Even though more than 145,000 people have signed petitions recently opposing S-203 and supporting C-373, the Government continues to ignore our wishes!

http://groups.msn.com/StopAnimalCrueltyBillC373

Messages In This Thread

Protest Bill S-203 at Robson Square, March 30: a sham, promoted by politicians to placate while avoiding meaningful change
Special to Globe and Mail: Scarce improvement for animals
Write your MP and the party leaders
Why Bill S-203 needs to be rejected
Bear cub - No law against beating, and driving over with jet-ski
Assertion that the criminal code doesn't protect wild animals from acts of animal cruelty is not correct

Share