“Swiss to vote on lawyers for animals”

by Walter Olson on February 22, 2010

“Fish don’t get much sympathy,” laments attorney Antoine F. Goetschel about one of his recent clients. Zurich prosecutors went after an angler whose ten-minute battle with a pike, they said, was unfair to the pike. [AP]

{ 2 trackbacks }

Token Conservative · Laugh it off!
02.24.10 at 11:44 am
Swiss vote down lawyers-for-animals proposal
03.07.10 at 9:51 pm

{ 12 comments }

1 SmartDude 02.22.10 at 11:09 am

The Swiss just lost their reputaion for sober, sane, obsessive reliable folks.

This is pure insanity. Not to mention overlawyering to a new dimension.

2 Doug 02.22.10 at 11:46 am

Absurd. Just plain absurd. The result would be fewer domesticated animals being kept. The lawyer regrets the amount of attention his fish case received. I am sure he is. Guess he maybe went to far. Its one thing to bring charges about dog fighting, ala Vick, but this is absurd.

3 Monty 02.22.10 at 1:07 pm

I agree this is absurd… The fish case represents exactly why its wrong, you appoint a bunch of animal prosecutors, whats the likelyhood they are anything but extremist animal lovers, who would love nothing more then to force us all into vegatarianism/veganism?

I’d like to see PETS provided greater protection and treated as more then mere property, but not if the price is prosecutions for normal fishing, hunting, and raising livestock.

4 Dennis 02.22.10 at 2:04 pm

Another reason to avoild entangling ourselves in the European legal system. This is lunatic, simply lunatic.

5 Ed 02.22.10 at 2:30 pm

Rights for pets….. almost a good idea.

What happens if you have to give your pet away. Petamony payments? We have seen dumber things.

6 Todd Rogers 02.22.10 at 3:19 pm

Somewhere there’s a person (or persons) who’s really proud of this turn of event…probably forwarded to friends with a caption relating to “see, all my hard work has paid off!”

7 kimsch 02.22.10 at 7:12 pm

Shouldn’t we also be able to sue the grizzly bear that slaps the noble salmon right out of the river when said salmon is on his way to spawn? When said grizzly, after slapping the salmon out of the water may, just may, hit it on a rock killing it or rendering it unconscious before eating it?

I mean, talk about cruel…

:)

8 kimsch 02.22.10 at 7:14 pm

Ah, that’s right – grizzlies have no money. But they could if the gubmint would just pony up to pay the lawyers of the poor salmon. And they’d have to pay the defense too…

9 TC 02.23.10 at 12:16 am

Great idea, finally found an attorney willing to accept a pile of dung for their services!

10 Peter Malinchoc 02.23.10 at 8:41 am

If animals have the right to sue, then shouldn’t they also have the right to vote for the judges that may hear their cases.

11 NLP 02.23.10 at 10:59 am

There’s actually worse news. The Swiss have decided that plants have rights.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/05/bill-of-rights-for-plants.php

I have no idea what they’re allowed to eat over there.

12 mojo 02.23.10 at 11:22 am

Is it possible to have an entire country declared non compos mentis?

Comments on this entry are closed.