Animal welfare in the constitution is ‘madness’ according to Van Quickenborne

Parliament will vote on Thursday evening on the protection of animal welfare through the constitution. “This is more deadly for our farmers than any nitrogen decree,” warns Open VLD MP Vincent Van Quickenborne.

After his party colleague Patrick Dewael (Open VLD) had already warned the parliamentarians in the Constitution committee of the House to think carefully about the proposal to include ‘the welfare of animals as sentient beings’ in the Belgian constitution, now also Former Minister of Justice Vincent Van Quickenborne sounded the alarm. “It’s crazy and dangerous.”

“I am in favor of animal welfare and my party has supported the new Animal Welfare codex in the committee in the Flemish Parliament,” says Van Quickenborne. ‘But it is something completely different to write the protection of animal welfare into the constitution. The Constitution is not a piece of paper.’ Van Quickenborne refers to constitutional specialist Quinten Jacobs, who noted in an opinion contribution in De Tijd that parliament thus paves the way for judicial activism.

If the protection of animal welfare is included in the constitution, there may be a standstill obligation. This already exists for social, economic and cultural rights and is contained in Article 23 of the Constitution. It means that the government may never lower the level of animal protection again, unless there is a compelling reason for doing so in the public interest, writes Jacobs.

According to Van Quickenborne, this principle for animal welfare means that soon no companies will be licensed if they have an impact on animals. ‘Vlaams Belang puts signs everywhere saying ‘Save our farmers’. But this constitutional article is more deadly than any nitrogen decree.’ He also fears activist judges. ‘This opens the door for activism: soon we will no longer be allowed to eat meat, fishing will be doomed and the tradition of finch setting will be made impossible.’

Van Quickenborne points out that in the Netherlands – where the protection of animal welfare is also on the table in the constitution – there is discussion about whether you should still be allowed to kill a mosquito or not. According to Erwin Vermeulen, the Dutch spokesperson for the animal rights organization Animal Rights, that depends: ‘In the case of a tiger mosquito or yellow fever mosquito, which can spread deadly diseases, killing may be justified, but of course you can also kill the Dutch domestic mosquito. just drive away.’

Animal rights in the Netherlands are included in the Animals Act, which has been in force since January 1, 2013. That law recognizes ‘the inherent value of animals, being sentient beings’. It states that violations of the integrity or welfare of animals, beyond what is reasonably necessary, must be prevented. In concrete terms, this means that animals may not suffer hunger, pain or stress and that they may not be restricted in their natural behavior, ‘as far as this can reasonably be required’.

An animal welfare code has also been drawn up in Brussels. The political discussion is mainly about the legality of slaughter without stunning, but as soon as the code comes into force, it will become a criminal offense, for example, not to provide help to animals in need. And that to the point of absurdity. For example, it will become a criminal offense if a pigeon is hit on the street and no help is provided, confirmed Pauline Lorbat, the spokeswoman for the responsible minister Bernard Clerfayt (DéFI).

It remains to be seen how the vote in the House will turn out. A few weeks ago, the House Constitution Committee gave the green light to include the protection of animals in the constitution. With the exception of abstentions from the PS, CD&V and Open VLD, everyone agreed on this. It must now be decided whether the constitutional standstill principle will also apply to animal rights.