Korekty

The law adopted on 28th January 2015 could be criticized because it appears clearly that it is linked with domestic animals (pets), but what about wild animals or farm, like cow farm, chicken farm, fish... ?

With this law, it seems that all animals are sensitives.

« Sensitive » means that they feel pain when you strike them.

So, what impact this law could have regarding to animals that we eat everyday ?

Logically, we should never kill any animal and not eating meat, everyone should be vegetarian.

But it is impossible because we need protein, and the food chain has placed human on top, it's life !

Moreover, french culture is made like this : we eat a lot of meat.

The UMP political party criticized this law because it could be dangerous for future of farming.

Indeed, people who defend animal rights hope a change of mentalities because of this law, but this change could be arrived to the detriment of humans, of farmers, who could'nt survive.

Of course, in a perfect and naive world, a life (here animal life) can appear most important than money : but in reality some animals are dependent on humans so, when humans haven't enough money to give foods to treat them when they are sick, humans decide to kill them because there isn't solution.

So, animals and money are really linked.

It is important to highlight the fact that you would not have the same reaction if now, I'm killing a naughty wild boar or a chicken, a fish.. or if I'm killing a cute and little baby cat.

However, they are animals alike, isn't it ?

So, we think that this new law is only based of affection for pets, is really biased because it will invoked only for a kind of animals.

The goal is to matching public opinion who is shocked when a pet is killed, and law, but without reflecting on the fact that it makes no sense on reality!

Moreover, if animals are sensitive, why hunting is allowed ?

A lot of hunters kill animals for pleasure, because they loved this activity.

So, if animals feel feelings, they feel fear when an hunter shoot to kill them.

This law would give birth to a lot of paradox.

Indeed, hunting is efficient to avoid overpopulation of some kind of animal, so it is necessary to not push it on extreme.

The sensitivity of animals is really difficult to understand : would the animals have a consciousness of themselves, of their facts?

If we say “yes”, that implied that we can remove responsability for things on the civil Code, animals have the responsability of themselves so they could assume their acts and a stag could be convicted to cause an accident... Stupid, right?