Swiss Animals, Lawyers and Fools

Yesterday, the Swiss put to a vote whether the government should assign lawyers to all the animals residing in Switzerland.  The Wall Street Journal noted this in a piece headlined Scales of Justice: In Zurich, Even Fish Have a Lawyer.  Though the Swiss did reject this foolish legislation, and though I am not licensed attorney, further commentary on this subject is required.

The WSJ’s piece provides us with an example of how, exactly, one could have expected such a Swiss animal attorney to ply their trade.

Last month, Antoine Goetschel went to court here in defense of an unusual client: a 22-pound pike that had fought a fisherman for 10 minutes before surrendering.

Mr. Goetschel is the official animal lawyer for the Swiss canton of Zurich, a sort of public defender who represents the interests of pets, farm animals and wildlife. He wound up with the pike as a client when animal-welfare groups filed a complaint alleging animal cruelty in the fish’s epic battle with an amateur angler.

So this Mr. Goetschel actually represented a dead fish, albeit a fine speciman of a 22 pound pike, in a Swiss court of law.  Though Goetschel lost the case, the fact that such nonsense made it into a court of law exemplifies the foolishness of the overly zealous animal rights activists.

In an attempt to actually apply rationality to the above, I’m wondering how actual sentient beings, rational human beings, could reciprocally apply for damages under the law if they are damaged by an animal.  For example, say a group of Swiss chamois stampede a poor Swiss hiker off a cliff causing permanent disability, or a rogue Swiss marmot pillaged a storehouse of Swiss cheese.  Would human beings be able sue these wild, unruly critters in the Swiss courts for damages?  No, rational human beings would not be able to do this, and if they could, would the chamois or the marmot recompense the humans, if the humans succesfully sued and were awarded damages, with their first born young, some unprocessed cud, in the case of the chamois, or a store of berries, lichens, or roots in the case of the marmot?

The fact that the above examples I concocted are utterly ridiculous perfectly illustrates the depth of foolishness within the pea brained mind of the collective masses.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 03/08 at 01:04 PM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: Census 2010 Question 9 Symbolic Protest

Previous entry: The Folly of Working Through Channels

<< Back to main