Saving the orcas from slavery

Peta's latest court action could change the US constitution to "We, the people and animals …"

An orca at SeaWorld, photo Getty Images

• The best story of the week has to be the news that animal rights group Peta went to court in San Diego seeking a declaration that five orcas at SeaWorld are slaves and therefore their rights under the 13th Amendment of the American Constitution, which outlaws slavery, are being breached. “Slavery is slavery and it does not depend on the species of the slave any more than it depends on gender, race or religion,” Peta lawyer Jeffrey Kerr says. “For the first time in our nation’s history, a federal court heard arguments as to whether living, breathing, feeling beings have rights and can be enslaved simply because they happen to not have been born human.”

You’d have to think the “happen to not have been born human” are the crunch words. Should the judge rule in Peta’s favour – and who knows whether that is the same thing as ruling in the orcas’ favour, because presumably the killer whales have had difficulty enforcing their constitutional right to be heard – it will be a remarkable day even in the annals of the American justice system, which is saying something.

It is possible to foresee many problems if Peta wins. For a start, if animals are to be protected by the 13th Amendment, then presumably it would be a breach of their rights for the rest of the Constitution not to apply, too, meaning that either the famous opening words “We, the people …” need to become “We, the people and animals …”, or Americans have to consider themselves no more special than animals, which, ironically, was the thinking that prevailed when slavery existed. Well, for some humans, at least. Also, it would then, presumably, be against the rights of other animals not to have the same rights as orcas – the most obvious one requiring a new amendment to the Constitution to enshrine the right not to be eaten.

• It is farcical that a few seconds of footage of Piri Weepu bottle-feeding his baby daughter was cut from an anti-smoking ad apparently because the images conflict with the promotion of breastfeeding. I’m a great fan of breastfeeding and, in fact, of all takeaway food, since it provides instant gratification and no dishes. But bottle-feeding has considerable merit, too. As a simple method of preventing babies starving when they are not breastfed, for example, it is unparalleled. Mothers may also bottle-feed to leave their babies for longer than four hours at a stretch, or just because the mother damn well wants to.

When I was expecting my first child, a woman at my antenatal class who was either terribly brave or terribly foolish (I never worked out which) asked the midwife what would happen if, after our respective babies were born, any of us were unable to breastfeed. The reply: “It is this hospital’s policy to promote breastfeeding, so we don’t discuss other possibilities.” There’s reassurance for you.

It might not be anyone’s policy but sometimes mothers are unable to breastfeed. Most would if they could, because all the evidence shows it’s best for the baby, and even if the evidence didn’t show that, it is a damn sight more convenient than sterilising, filling, warming and carrying around bottles. Lots of parents do both bottles and breast because that allows someone else – especially fathers such as Piri Weepu – to feed their baby.

The censoring of an image of a baby being given a bottle by her own father is beyond political correctness. It is ludicrous. Weepu’s wife could be forgiven if she felt tempted to post online a photo of herself breastfeeding with a cigarette in one hand and a can of beer in the other and caption it: “Happy now?”

• If being seen kissing babies is good for politicians’ ratings at election time, what effect does being photographed with Titewhai Harawira on Waitangi Day have on a politician’s popularity? Nothing good, you’d imagine. It’s difficult to compare the Clintons in the US to the Harawiras in Godzone, but there is certainly that inescapable feeling that, like it or not, voters get two for the price of one.