A STORY OF A HUMAN RIGHT TO DEFEND ANIMALS
Her Majesty The Queen VS Anita Krajnc
On a hot summer day with the broiling sun
covering shoulders in blistery
there were some who felt the need to protest,
and to challenge the discourse of the history.
This one trailer has stopped on the Appleby lane
(once again, nothing’s new in the setting),
protestors have gathered to see many pigs tightly crammed,
with full knowledge where they were all heading.
Just some meters away where the slaughter will take place,
and the pigs will be killed only ten minutes later.
But for now, they were eye-to-eye with the protestors
Who, were attempting to make this day better
They gave water to pigs
(attempting to show their compassion)
but the man at the wheel reacted in what
could be called in an unusual fashion.
He undid his seatbelt and bolted towards the protestors of ‘Save’,
and threw the insults at the woman with water,
told her to “stop that” and to get through her head:
that pigs are just animals - as the sun blistered hotter.
There was nothing that signalled the beginning of war
till she heard the bell ring from the kitchen.
She came up to the door and the officer said:
“You are charged with the criminal mischief”.
The driver, Eric Van Boekel, filed a report with police
as a crime against his corporation.
As a farmer, he claimed that Culprit Anita Krajnc
interfered with his operation.
His business was legal and surely, he thought,
he is entitled to certain protections!
Pigs are his property, they are just livestock.
Keep you hands off! Or face his objections.
On the day of the trial the courtroom was filled
with spectators and media members.
Giving water to pigs? We call that a crime?
And if yes, what’ll become of offenders!?
An Ontario judge was delighted to see
Such excitement in public reaction.
“What a shame”! — he said, “that more serious crimes
are not treated with similar passion”.
The offence of mischief is five elements strong,
each must to obtain a conviction.
First, it must be determined if pigs fall within
The term “property” — key point of friction.
On the part of defence the expert argued that
pigs are sentient beings, and persons.
Sentimental, perhaps, but misleading how no law in Canada that yet exists
to support this conclusion. It’s nonsense!
Prosecutor has claimed that endangerment occurred,
what if it was not the water in the bottle?
What would happen if the slaughterhouse refused the pig shipment?
The farm would incur loss of cattle.
While possible loss could and might have occurred
if the stock was at risk of denial,
there has been no history of such a move.
And the driver refused to test water prior to trial.
Ms. Anita Krajnc had the right to protest
and to publicly express her opinion
but high social value or morality claim
cannot challenge the law’s dominion.
The defence also mentioned a few famous names,
no doubt, judge said, for the public
they are due to be dismissed,
for this circumstance it is clear that Ms. Krajnc is not Ghandi.
Business interests played an imperative role in the trial
protection of property
is a major and founding theme of the law
which can’t be put into jeopardy.
It is clear to all that in law’s current state
human supremacy drives the result.
the right to protest is sacred and safe;
but the animals?
They are still left to fate.
If a change was to come as this case demonstrates,
it would have to be parliament- driven.
Judges cannot make the law, but the public does not
have to accept status quo as a given.
credit to Maria Lyubchenko , J.D. Candidate, 2018
