[Animal Law Simulation] Eating Soon-to-be-Euthanized Dogs?

It's pretty funny how things you hate the most usually being the thing that you end up paying attention the most. Like my experience with the animal law, the more subject I object, the more productive I write about that matter - even in fact those writings might be rebuttal.

We had an interesting simulation in one of the class: Dog for Livestock Bill debate simulation. Yes, what I mean by simulation was a FAKE bill, fake opponents and sure, fake proponents. I was acting as one of the proponents of this bill, specifically, my role was a dog meat consumer, and during our work we collected some interesting materials. I summed that up in a 5 minutes speech which I'll just post in here, but I recommend you to read some more interesting articles in here. Anyway, here is the fake bill:

And, here is my *evil* but *rationale* speech! ENJOY!

DISCLAIMER: Please bring in mind that this is an argument for a simulation. It does not represent my personal opinion about eating dog meats, and even I do LOVE dog meats, I eliminate health concerns in here since my role (which is fake) was to advocate the bill. Consuming dog meats in the US is highly related to the vaccines and medications received by the dogs, and very possibly unsafe for human consumption.

Let me begin this with one question: What is the most delicious meat that you ever taste? Pork? Beef? Chicken? Turkey? Lamb?

What about meat that is as fatty as pork that it has a little taste of bacon; juicy as beef but inherit the same unique texture as lamb, and capable of warming up your body like wine?

“After eating dog meats, beef seems tasteless” – Mark Wiens, a famous food blogger confessed. What he said has repeatedly been spoken by many people who dared to step outside of their culinary comfort zone and eat dogs.

Source: toughtcatalog.com (2013)

Dog meats are exotic delicacy. And it is exactly the central reason why legalizing abandoned dogs as livestock can be a promising solution of our overarching problem with dogs overpopulation, dogs euthanasia and disposal of euthanized dogs.

There are three reasons why we believe this law is important for Otagon society as a whole, and dog meat consumers in particular: (1) We have enormous problems related to abandoned dogs and their euthanasia, which require an innovative solution; (2) There is an increasing consumer demands over dog meats in Otagon, making dog meats business a promising market – and a solution; (3) The scheme offered in this bill will force dog meats market to ensure dog welfare and hygienic practice.

But before proceeding further, I need to ensure that everyone in here departs from the same page to see the practice of eating dogs with rational, rather than emotional, considerations. Looking at this issue, we tend to react emotionally from our cultural bias. But let us think about this: Is it acceptable for Moslems or Jewish folks pointing their finger to us and saying that we are immoral because we eat pork? And is it justified for Indians to believe that everyone who eat beef is less civilized than them? Then do we really have strong reason, aside from our own cultural bias, to put a social prejudice upon people who is performing his personal dietary choice? This country, since our Declaration of Independence, has put a solid foundation and eventually succeeded in building a society who respects personal choices.

And yet, as a dog-loving society, we have successfully abandoned 6 millions of dogs and sent them to animal shelter; and eventually killed 3-4 millions of them with a method we call humane. It happens every single year. Department of Agriculture’s data shows that even organizations like PETA has euthanized more than 95% of the animals it rescued. And about 2 billion dollars of public money are being spent every year to maintain the shelter operations, the euthanasia, and the disposal of our dear friends’ dead bodies. The disposal itself also troubles the ecology and poses an environmental justice problem to the low-income community. Our problem is not resolved – it evolved.

Ladies and gentlemen, as I mentioned in my second point, the creative solution that we’re looking for is always there. The market demand is growing. Dog meats are considered delicacy in many parts of the world, including China, Philippines, Vietnam, South Korea, some parts of Africa, even in Canada, and the list goes on. Top 5 countries of origin of the 17.3 millions of Asian Americans are actually dog-eating countries; and some of these folks brought their dietary culture with them, even influencing Americans to also try this delicacy. Overbrook, a town in Kansas, has been hosting more than 21 annual dog-eating festivals, a perfect example of American-Vietnam acculturation in terms of culinary preferences. As this bill is debated, at least one point of contact of every municipality in Otagon has let me know their support.

But as I mentioned in my third point, the current situation of the emerging dog meat market is terrible – both for the dogs and for the consumers. We might not know – but it’s there. Just like Philadelphia case, Otagon dog butchers using the available legal loophole, behind their closed doors – breeding, raising, and slaughtering dogs. It’s legal to do so, without any standards available, without any provisions to prosecute, without any inspections. I’ve been observing for 15 years how the sanitary standard is lacking, and how the traditional method of killing the dog is far behind our standard of ‘humane’. By having no inspected processor, the consumers lack certainty and information of safety level of the dog meat, posing themselves with the risk of trichinellosis or excessive level of chemicals within the dog’s flesh. By having no inspected processor, we let more dogs beaten to death under the silence of the law. The most suitable answer for this is law and regulation.

“Life’s most persistent and urgent question is ‘What are you doing for others?’ - Martin Luther King, Jr. said. We, the dog meat consumers, are offering to voluntarily bear the social stigma of eating dog meats so that it can compensate society’s burden caused by America’s excessive abandonment of our lovely friends. Think about it”

Some other interesting sources:

1. Slate, Wok the Dog (2002)
2. Earth Island, Why Environmentalists Should Care about Pet Euthanasia (2012)
3. CNN, The Argument of Eating Dogs (2014)
4. Mark Wiends, What Does Dog and Cats Meats Taste Like (2013)

In the matter of Answering "I Don't Know"

The deeper I know about a matter, the more I realized I have addressed many wrong questions in the past - which has been answered in a really wrong sense. Yap, I'm talking about those questions which sounds smart and challenging that the person who's been asked have no idea that that questions contained serious flaws. And they, in the light of their expertise, will rather pretending to be able to answer that 'wrong questions' than honestly answer 'I have no idea' or 'I must look it up first'.

This is one of the most true example of how many people will answer wrong questions:

"What do you think about the new rules issued by Ministry of Transportation to impose different gas prince for people based on their monthly income?" SMART! Beside the fact that I just made that issue up, the more important flaw is that there is NO Ministry of Transportation in Indonesia. And yet, people keep answering.

It makes me remember of one of the questions addressed by an interviewer during my Fulbright interview back home. When I mentioned how I wanted to learn more about EPA, and when I mentioned some amazing programs EPA administered and how I want to research about possibility of applying that in Indonesia, he asked me:

"Do you know that EPA will be dissolved soon?"

I thought hard if I ever heard of that before, and innocently answered "Really?" with a super dumb face. I decided pretending to know will possibly more risky because I really had no idea whether he's asking a true question or he merely tricked me. Later on after I started my courses in the US, his question made more sense to me. He probably was referring to the war on coal, of which the republicans started highlight more and more EPA's costly programs and policies, and framing EPA as 'killing capitalism'. And it become clear to me that such question is inherently wrong, and it could be really good test on how well a person knows, or pretend to know, EPA. If I were at the state of my knowledge right now, the most possible answer was "I know that Republicans have tried so hard to frame that for years - yet to my knowledge, there is no success effort in dissolving it. EPA has successfully nailed Republican efforts to stay away from US' duty in climate change so far"

Be careful with experts. Sometimes they don't realize that intentional mislead is a big academic sin.

Travel SOS: Trapped in Remote Island

Trouble loves me so, so much; and it seems to entail me anywhere I go - some of them can be totally hilarious if you have the right attitude, but knowing objective facts on the practical solutions are always helpful no matter how low your EQ is. Please be aware that some things are written in local perspective and might be different in one place and another.

I always love Flores. I love its scenery, I love the way people smile at me, I love the drunk grandmothers, I love their spirituality, and so on. But traveling in Indonesia, you have to be aware that this is the land of surprise. And now, it's Flores turn to remind me that anything can happen in this land. Yes, I mean, something like THIS.

I stole the image from Daily Mail, by the way. Hint: volcano eruption (SURE!)

It was a long holiday in May 2014, where we had too many national holidays in a row (sometimes Indonesian holidays are completely nonsense) that I only need to take a three days leave from my office to obtain a total 10 days vacation. And I was alone, a lucky soloist with no itinerary and ended up alone in Ende, waiting for my flight back to Kupang for a night transit to Jakarta.

Everything went so smooth, there was a nice carnival at the town and I arrived on time at the airport, checked in, dropped my baggage, and sat nicely waiting for my boarding call.

By then, I already got a message from my friend in Labuan Bajo that they couldn't flew due to a volcano eruption, Mt. Sangeang, an island near Bima, which just happened to erupt that day. But hey, the airport and everyone in there was so chill that I worry nothing will actually happen. I even asked some airport officials whether the flight will be cancelled, and they confidently answered that no, it is on schedule. And there the announcement speaker bring the jinx... It says something like this (of course in polite version)

"Dude, your flight is cancelled due to the volcano eruption. If you dropped your baggage, take it back from the baggage counter. You can clarify what's going on and what's next in our office" and the office further clarified, "Dude, we're screwed. There's no way we can fly today and I have no idea when we can resume. We have two solutions for your tickets, we'll reimburse it completely, including your connecting flights; or, you can stay in our waitlist to keep flying with us, which the fastest is about 4 days from now, and we have no idea what the worst scenario can be"

Okay. So, if it's ever happen to you, DON'T PANIC. Even if you're completely remote and geographically impossible to get out by anything other than plane, don't panic. Even if you have no idea when you can get a seat, don't panic! Here are some tips:

ONE: Find people who are suffering the same fate with you.

Unless you're traveling to super off-the beaten path places, there's a huge possibility that you're not the only one who wants to go home soon. I ended up meet 13 new amazing friends in Flores and I found people are really valuable resources in solving your case. Why are people useful? (1) You're looking for solution of the same problem. In my Flores case, we shared information about available flights, price comparison, possible alternative route, other possible means of transportation, etc; (2) You'll probably stay overnight for an unknown period, means you'll need cheapest (but humane) accommodation; (3) Companion! You'll need cool people to stay with and keep you sane. And usually, random travelers are the best sources!

Here's the gang:

TWO: Don't be in the waitlist.

Being in waitlist during disaster is a BIG bet. It's tricky and risky, and you don't have active control on your own fate. The best you can do is asking the airline about your waitlist progress. DON'T.

THREE: Just take your reimbursement, and know the trick!

Small cities like Ende won't have much ready cash in their office. There's a huge possibility that they will offer you wire transfer - which will come within 2 weeks at maximum (if it's not stuck somewhere). It can be a problem if you don't have money left to buy another ticket. You can try to demand cash reimbursement, but it can be tricky too. Right after the flight cancellation, the small office will be really crowded. By this time, the officer will definitely say that they have limited cash and they will try to reimburse everyone by wire transfer. They even can say that their cash is dried already. Negotiating anything at this point will less likely success. So, you can wait until everyone is done with their business - but don't wait to be the last person! When it's 4-5 people left, check if the officer still actually have cash. If they do (I bet!), you can take your cash reimbursement when everyone else get wire transfer. In my Flores case, I didn't get in the line (not for the reimbursement reason, I had no idea of this by then) and among the last persons to get reimbursed. People who get their reimbursement before me just got envious with the result.

FOUR: Search for another flight (or, another route - if possible)

This is the most difficult part, and totally case by case. I can only suggest: (1) Know the other available airlines in that city and in cities nearby; (2) Know the stuck point of the cancelled airlines and understand the causation (where do your flight comes from? why is it stuck? is there any other routes?); (3) Get updates from another accessible cities (which one have normal air traffic, etc); (4) Survey the alternative airlines! Ask them when is the next available flight, and how many seats left. Take a note of it. Make a comparison.

This process takes a long time - we spent the whole evening just figuring out our situation and surveying the alternatives.

*** Just so you understand the travel complication in my case, I'll give you a map. Flores is quite a remote area in the eastern part of Indonesia, and only three airlines fly to and from Ende (Garuda, Lion / Wings Air, Trans Nusa), and the flight route of each airlines are different. Each airlines basically fly once a day. My airline, Lion, had to fly from Denpasar, Bali (green route); which means passing by the thick dust of Sangeang madness and stop by Labuan Bajo, Ende, and Maumere before departing to Kupang. So when the plane stuck in Bali, there's no way subsequent flights can happen. All flights from Ende had similar problem. So we looked to other big cities, and the closest one is Maumere, three hours away. After surveying some time, we found out that Sriwijaya Air were operating normally because of the route and the flight altitude, so we decided to leave Ende and took our flight from Maumere.

Green line: my cancelled flight route. Yellow line: the 'solution' flight route.

FIVE: Be patient, don't buy your ticket replacement during the 'panic time'

So you got the itinerary that you want, and the only thing that you want to do is securing it. Normal people will possibly book it really quick, and pay it right away. But from my Flores experience, waiting and gambling a bit can give you way cheaper price. I booked and paid my ticket about three hours after the cancellation happened. That was the 'panic time' - the time when everyone book the ticket, but haven't really paid it yet. By that time (about 1-12 hours after the cancellation, presumably), the seats are very competitive, causing the price getting so high. And people actually can book more than one flight, but certainly ended up buying only one. After several hours, the unpaid tickets will be available again - this is the cool down period. Best bet: wake up at 3am in the morning and keep checking. Some seats will magically available, with a much, much lower price! (My friends who didn't get the ticket during the day woke up at three and bought their tickets half price of mine)

SIX: You're set!

Okay, ready for some disaster? :)

 

Tips Membaca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi

Mungkin buat anak hukum yang kuliah di Indonesia, baca putusan itu sesuatu yang jarang-jarang kadang lah ya. Kalau diwajibkan baca buat keperluan tugas, ya hayok (dengan catatan tugas FH di Indonesia senantiasa terlalu sedikit, apa lagi tugas bacaannya). Kalau nggak diwajibkan, ah kerajinan lo liat-liat putusan!

Namun, sebenarnya skill mencari dan membaca putusan ini merupakan skill yang penting ketika sudah beranjak ke dunia kerja, atau sekedar tambahan pengetahuan deh sebagai jurist. Apalagi, sekarang putusan pengadilan sudah jauh lebih mudah diakses, baik melalui website putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi maupun Mahkamah Agung. Tapi, kalau teman-teman pernah baca putusan MK maupun MA, rata-rata langsung malas dan komplain "Putusannya panjang banget, bok! Ratusan halaman!". Yap, memang! Misalnya, putusan judicial review UU Sumber Daya Air (2005) berjumlah 523 halaman; putusan UU Migas (2003) berjumlah 233 halaman; pengujian hutan adat di UU Kehutanan (2013) 188 halaman. Walaupun spasinya ganda dan hurufnya gede-gede, tetep aja sih bacanya bikin malas.

Nah, sebenarnya, nggak segitunya kok! Asal tahu tips dan triknya, kita bias menghemat waktu untuk mengambil inti sari putusan dan signifikansinya. Untuk kali ini, kita bahas putusan MK dulu ya.

1. Cari tahu garis besar kasusnya lewat berita

Sekalipun putusan sudah di tangan, langsung membaca putusan tanpa tahu garis besarnya bisa membuat kita ribet sendiri. Dari berita, kita bisa memahami: (1) Pihak yang menggugat; (2) Inti dari pasal-pasal yang diujikan; (3) Prioritas pasal-pasal yang diujikan (mana yang dianggap paling signifikan); (4) Kaleidoskop kasusnya (kapan dimasukkan, kapan diputus); (5) Inti putusan hakim. Kalau putusan belum di tangan, berita juga bisa menginformasikan nomor putusan, yang akan sangat berguna dalam pencarian di website MK (jangan kira urusan cari putusan gampang ya buat beginner). Untuk satu UU, bisa jadi pengujiannya lebih dari 1 perkara. Misalnya, pengujian UU Pilkada (UU No. 22/2014 sejauh ini sudah menghasilkan 10 putusan, semuanya diajukan oleh pihak yang berbeda dan menguji pasal yang berbeda-beda. Pastikan putusan yang kita baca memang putusan untuk perkara dimaksud, untuk pengujian pasal yang dimaksud.

2. Pastikan kamu tahu apa yang kamu cari

Fokus! Sebagian besar perkara MK adalah pengujian UU terhadap UUD, jadi langkah pertama, kamu harus tahu persis pasal mana di UUD yang sedang kamu cari tahu tafsirnya. Langkah kedua, langsung saja loncat ke bagian pasal-pasal yang diujikan dan periksalah pasal-pasal mana saja dalam permohonan pengujian tersebut yang relevan dengan tafsir pasal yang sedang kamu cari.

Misalnya, kamu sedang mencari tahu tafsir atas pasal 33 ayat (3) UUD 1945, pastikan kamu tahu pasal-pasal mana saja yang diujikan dan kira-kira relevan dengan batu ujinya. Jadi, nantinya ketika kamu membaca lebih lanjut, hal-hal yang tidak relevan cukup dibaca cepat.

3. Langsung cari bagian 'PERTIMBANGAN HUKUM'

Ini tips yang paling penting. Dari sekian ratus halaman yang ada, sebenarnya substansi putusannya paling hanya 10-20% bagian akhir dari keseluruhan dokumen. Selalu ingat bahwa postur putusan adalah: (1) Para pihak; (2) Duduk perkara (fakta-fakta); (3) Dalil-dalil para pihak (termasuk eksepsi, jawab-menjawab dan pembuktian) dan pada akhirnya (4) Putusan (pertimbangan hakim dan amar putusan).

Pertimbangan hakim hanya akan ditemukan di bagian keempat. Jadi, hal pertama yang sebaiknya dilihat dari putusan justru adalah bagian terakhirnya. Pertama, lihat amar putusan (apa yang diputus). Kedua, baru baca substansi pertimbangan hakim. Ketika membaca substansi pertimbangan hakim, pastikan kembali merujuk pada 'apa yang kamu cari' (Poin 2)

4. Kalau masih punya waktu, baru baca dari awal. Tapi, skimming aja!

Jangan habiskan waktu untuk membaca secara teliti dan bersungguh-sungguh hal yang sebenarnya belum berguna. Memahami konteks itu penting. Tahu apa yang didalilkan penggugat dan tergugat itu keharusan. Tapi, biasanya intisarinya sudah termuat di pertimbangan hukum. Jadi, membaca 80% bagian awal putusan sebenarnya bukan prioritas.

Oke deh, selamat mencoba! Kalau ada sanggahan atau tips yang lebih praktis, silakan loh! :)

Zuckenberg's "Only Eat what I Killed", Animal Rights v. Animal Welfare

Getting too bored with too many Indonesian cases (and too few high-quality opinions from the Court), I decided to browse around and somehow suddenly stumbled with this interesting random article: Mark Zuckerberg's new challenge: Eating only what he kills (and yes, we do mean literally...)

 

Within seconds, I can't hold my brain to relate what he thinks with my recent reading assignment from Animal Law class - four articles, on an ethical and philosophical approach of that movement, which have a really, really important significance in shaping and draw the direction of what can be done through the legal means.

My first impression of Animal Law class has not been good. In the first meeting, a girl in my class suggested veganism as the solution of animal cruelty problems in the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO). Put simply, CAFOs are huge, capitalistic corporation version of farms, which mainly supply daily meats for Americans. CAFOs are so well-structured, usually monopolizing all related meat business, including slaughter house and distribution - excluding smaller farms from the preference list of the meat supply chain. Driven by profit, they do whatever most efficient in producing those meats, consequently care almost nothing about how bad they treat the animals. If you type CAFO in Google, you can experience the horrible image yourself - many, way too many animals with way too little space.

To my Indonesian brain, it has nothing to do with veganism. It is a problem of big corporations being too greedy for profit, casting away small farms from the market, and using the consumer demands to legitimize their cruelty action. I had no idea how this girl conclude that telling everyone that they must be vegan because the meats they eat are produced cruelly can possibly be a practical solution - since some comments from vegan fellow just make me feeling totally antipathy to them. Majority of that class, instead of discussing how a legal solution can be achieved for CAFOs, got really distracted with sharing one another how they feel about their vegan life. Another girl even says, "I feel environmental advocates who still eats meats are no more than hypocrite"; and another one says, "While I was younger and more naïve, I feel like everyone would easily stop eating meats when they know this kind of truth, but those stupid, horrible people does not..." Honestly, I can't remember that we reached any conclusion about that.

One important lesson I learn from that discussion: If you want to advocate something and persuade people to be on your side, do not make people hate you at the first sight.

The four articles I mentioned in the beginning of this post came weeks later after that first horrible class. Those articles turns to give explanation for me to understand that veganism as a solution is not a new idea - someone named Francione had proposed it before, and thank God, the girl who mentioned veganism as CAFOs cruelty solution now amend her opinion - strongly oppose Francione's veganism proposal. But, well, I'm trying not to be biased: Francione attacked so many successful legal cases as false conception of victory. Winning legal battle in court, passing a legislation in humane treatment of animals, influencing regulations to increase their standards animal welfare - in his opinion, these were never victories, but merely compromise which draws the ultimate goal of respecting animal's intrinsic rights further. He offered a fascinating (though flawed) and revolutionary theory on how animals should be respected for their own sake - not for human's sake, and how 'unnecessary killings' (including eating their meats) must be abolished. This first approach called abolitionist. And my Professor, with most of the other famous animal organizations, stands in a different approach - a slow and compromise, but have real impact in creating tangible changes. They criticize the abolitionist approach, by using sharp words, saying that it offers no more than revolutionary idea - and while failed to realizing it, more and more animals died of cruel treatment. This approach known as welfarist. The more popular one: sure, the welfarist. And what's the abolitionist doing? Well, there are some non-violent approach which is basically telling people to go vegan; but to the extreme, there even some groups categorized as terrorists - for example, Animal Liberation Front. By the end of that class, we reach the conclusion that most people feel more comfortable in pursuing career with the welfarist school of taught.

By the way, you might be questioning "So why did you mention Zuckenberg? Where are you going?". Well, as a meat eater, it's easy for me to put myself in a position of common people who categorize animal rights / animal welfare advocates outside my normal sphere. One of my objection is that vegan advocates usually put too much objection in killings. Killing is killing and it can't be right - they say. But, hey, isn't killing supposedly be an inseparable part of our nature in survival of the fittest? The mess that we've seen today is not caused by people killing animals - it is because too many people are alienated from that killing process - yet still be able to enjoy the benefit. We put the burden to kill only to very few percentage of people who work in the slaughter houses, which unfortunately usually targeted by animal rights advocacy group, and again, victimized by their action. And it is absolutely true of what Zuckenberg says: we need to fully understand how our meals is actually at cost of other's life by confronting the horror of killing. Both approaches, abolitionist and welfarist, have failed to recognize this fact. Welfarist, demanding 'humane' treatment of slaughter, only drawing people further from the natural process of survival - and strengthen the huge corporations who already dominating the meat market. The more 'humane' treatment it demands (using anesthetic and complicated tools), the less possibility smaller farms can afford it. Abolitionist create nothing more than hatred, it is nothing more than religious extremist for me - forcing other people to belief precisely what they believe as the truth.

In the end, no ideal solution is complete if it is not seen holistically within the context of human-nature relation. The devil is in our economic system and artificial life, and the furthest we can get will always be compromise. So, eat meats! Eat happy and healthy meats.

PS. One day I'll try this Zuckenberg's goal.