Sydney baboon escape fuels a redundant animal equality debate
Of course we should have respect for animals, great and small. But pretending as though they are equal to humans in all ways is a ridiculous and slippery slope, writes David Penberthy.
Rendezview
Don't miss out on the headlines from Rendezview. Followed categories will be added to My News.
It’s been a headline-grabbing week in the animal kingdom.
Blue-ringed octopuses have been rocking up uninvited at suburban South Australian beaches, and in Sydney, a bigamist baboon achieved global fame by going rogue en route to a vasectomy, making the understandable decision to dodge the snip by escaping with his two wives from Royal Prince Alfred Hospital.
It was also proposed this week that the relevant laws be changed so that dogs are allowed to travel on public transport.
We got a call after the radio show from a listener this week who, appropriately enough, was going apes s**t about the frivolous on-air discussion about the escaped baboon. The man said the conversation was disgraceful and treated the whole escape as a joke, showing no respect for the monkeys in question.
He had a point, I suppose, but if I could use the lamest defence of all, everyone else seemed to be laughing about it too.
And, while it is an unpleasant truth that these animals were being used in a breeding program for laboratory testing – not on frivolities such as cosmetics, but lifesaving mainstream medications that help people manage deadly conditions – logic would tell you that the alternative to this kind of animal testing is killing sick people by giving them untested drugs.
To which the animal-rights purists would say: so be it.
This school of thought holds that animal and human lives are 100 per cent equal in value. It is a popular one that is in part fuelling the popularity of veganism.
At its most ideologically pure, this sentiment found a cringe-worthy new expression last year courtesy of the animal-rights activists PETA, who coined the term “speciesism”, which it defines as “a bias in favour of one species, such as humans, over others – just as one particular set of humans may be biased against another.”
I have got nothing against animals, but that PETA term is quite an elevation. It raises anti-animal sentiment and action to the same plane as racism, sexism and homophobia. It puts the crutched sheep and the chimp on rollerskates right up there with the suffragettes, Sister Rosa Parks and the out-and-proud gay men who got beaten up by the NYPD in the Stonewall Riots.
The dogs on public transport idea is born out of this sense of animal/human equality. Advocates of the change point to Europe as leading the way.
RELATED: Queen’s Brian May condemns Adelaide’s proposed cat curfew
I have heard proponents of the idea argue this week that, in France, dogs are allowed to go virtually everywhere. Indeed they are. Paris is a great place to visit if you enjoy looking at art. It’s also worth the trip if you enjoy looking at dog turds.
Admittedly, you do come across the odd crystal meth fancier on public transport who could learn a thing or too from a crazed Lonsdale rescue dog when it comes to good behaviour.
But that’s no reason to throw open the doors of every bus, train and tram to animals that in many cases remain unpredictable in crowds, and which invariably think nothing of engaging in some pretty confrontational self-grooming.
I have two cavoodles and love them both, but one of them is clearly not the full quid. He is a delight to have around at home, great with young kids, but the moment he leaves the house, especially if he comes into contact with another dog – or worse, a group of dogs – he totally loses his mind.
We banned him from the dog park after he became so agitated when a bunch of dogs were barking that he charged at a pomeranian pup and picked it up in his mouth, mercifully doing no damage to the poor animal, other than scaring it witless.
All this madness came after he attended obedience classes, and was even subjected to several sessions with a noted dog whisperer, who did all he could, in vain, to steer this hapless beast on the path of common sense and righteousness.
The problem some dog owners have is their warped perspective of how well behaved their dog is. We have all seen those owners who blithely say: “Aww, Fluffy’s had a little accident”, as their hound leaves a giant steamer on the Persian rug you inherited from your great-grandmother.
Then there’s the feral dog owners who are scarier than their pets. When you see those stories on the TV where some deranged mixed-breed fighting dog has mauled a child, it often seems that it’s not so much the dog that needs a leash, but the owner.
I suspect most commuters don’t want to share their ride with either category of human, let alone dog.
The only vaguely convincing part of this idea is a class-based fairness one, in that it is difficult for poor people or the elderly who can’t drive to get their pet to the vet when it’s crook.
That’s a fair point, but it does bring with it the bracing prospect of sharing your morning commute with Fido, who’s come down with mange, and needs to be seen urgently as he is covered in parasitic mites.
Surely if we are going to achieve true animal equality, and avoid the “speciesism” PETA abhors, we cannot fairly draw the line at dogs on trains.
Cats deserve a spot too, as do rabbits, guinea pigs and axolotls. A lot of people keep chickens. Can I fit a cow in there? Coming through!
And let’s not draw up some arbitrary, indeed racist demarcation between domestic animals and their wild friends.
There is no reason why you shouldn’t be allowed to board a tram with a star-nosed mole, a giant egret or a Coles bag filled with eels.
To suggest otherwise would be a transparent display of human supremacy.
Originally published as Sydney baboon escape fuels a redundant animal equality debate