Often the language used when referring to animals — both in the laws and in every day written and verbal communications — is objectionable. For example, the Queensland legislation Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 refers to animals as “personal property”. People who have a dog or cat in their household are “owners”. In every day parlance, we “buy” and “sell” or — worse — often “get rid of” an animal. Like the animal is an unwanted or useless or broken chair or toaster.
In this blog, when we are considering legislation, we use the words that the law uses, to avoid confusion. However, at CastleGate Law and CastleGate Animal Law Clinic we are firm believers that how we talk about animals, and particularly how we refer to them in or instruments of law, affects how we treat them. The objectionable language used in our conversation and legislation enforces the power dynamic where human beings are superior and animals mere objects, not deserving of understanding, protection and respect, able to be freely exploited, owned and discarded at our whim.
If nonhuman animals are to be given the protections and respect they deserve, there may be no better place to start than firstly changing our conversational usage of certain words and terms when referring to animals, something everyone in the community can do. Rather than saying we “got rid of the dog (or cat, or rooster)”, we change our language to “we re-homed Brandy (Fluffy, Foghorn)” (if re-homing is in fact something that needs to be done at all). A small step, a but a change that will eventually be mirrored in our legislation, leading to improved recognition and safeguards for all animals.