I’ve encountered this in the Canadian criminal code and in some other contexts. Sometimes, fish and especially birds are distinguished from animals.
I know that according to the prevailing categorization, they are part of the animal kingdom and obviously not vegetal or mineral.
So where does this idea of fish and birds not being animals come from? Is it based on Old English categories or something else? How does that categorization work?
I’ve only ever heard the distinction in a culinary context (as in “meat burger” and “chicken burger”)
I think far too many people confuse the words “animal” and “mammal.”
They do kind of sound alike.
Some people sometimes use “animals” to men, pretty much, mammals. I should think this arises from the fact that children first learn the word “animal” in connection with warm, furry things such as dogs and cats, and horses and cows. In my experience, it is not particularly uncommon for people, in informal conversation, to distinguish between animals (i.e., mammals, or sometimes birds and mammals) and fish, insects, etc., however, I am a bit surprised to hear that the distinction has found its way into the laws of a modern state.
The now old-fashioned word “beasts”, which has now been mostly replaced by “animals”, also seems to have meant mammals as distinct from other kinds of animal (and from humans), and some of its connotations may have passed over to “animals” as “beasts” fell into obsolescence.
I once had a (university undergraduate) student who was surprised to hear that humans are animals, although she knew quite well that we are mammals. I did not find out what she thought about fish or insects. (My daughter was also surprised when I told her that people are animals, but she was only three years old at the time.)
Also, my wife has told me that when she was majoring in biology at UCLA in the 1970s, she had a professor who was of the opinion that insects (perhaps all arthropods) ought to be classified in a “kingdom” unto themselves, separate from the animalia. Obviously this idea did not catch on amongst the majority of taxonomists, but it does suggest that even an accredited expert, at a major university, could take the idea that insects are not animals seriously only a few decades ago.
WAG: It’s in the Canadian criminal code that way due to reasons of Hunting, fishing, shooting etc.
Keep in mind the OP was talking about a criminal code. I think most people would see the reasoning for “animals” having a narrower legal definition than a biological one. Unless you’re a Jain, most people wouldn’t want anti-cruelty laws that protected mosquitoes for example.
As an example, the Moosewood is a well-known vegetarian restaurant. I’ve eaten there several times and enjoyed their seafood meals.
I’ve heard of the distinction in other contexts but to give more details about the legal aspect, here are some of the relevant sections. Pardon the length but the CCC is wordy:
Causing unnecessary suffering
445.1 (1) Every one commits an offence who
(a) wilfully causes or, being the owner, wilfully permits to be caused unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal or a bird;
(b) in any manner encourages, aids or assists at the fighting or baiting of animals or birds;
© wilfully, without reasonable excuse, administers a poisonous or an injurious drug or substance to a domestic animal or bird or an animal or a bird wild by nature that is kept in captivity or, being the owner of such an animal or a bird, wilfully permits a poisonous or an injurious drug or substance to be administered to it;
(d) promotes, arranges, conducts, assists in, receives money for or takes part in any meeting, competition, exhibition, pastime, practice, display or event at or in the course of which captive birds are liberated by hand, trap, contrivance or any other means for the purpose of being shot when they are liberated; or
[…]
Marginal note:Failure to exercise reasonable care as evidence
(3) For the purposes of proceedings under paragraph (1)(a), evidence that a person failed to exercise reasonable care or supervision of an animal or a bird thereby causing it pain, suffering or injury is, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, proof that the pain, suffering or injury was caused or was permitted to be caused wilfully, as the case may be.
Marginal note:Presence at baiting as evidence
(4) For the purpose of proceedings under paragraph (1)(b), evidence that an accused was present at the fighting or baiting of animals or birds is, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, proof that he or she encouraged, aided or assisted at the fighting or baiting.
Causing damage or injury
(a) by wilful neglect causes damage or injury to animals or birds while they are being driven or conveyed; or
(b) being the owner or the person having the custody or control of a domestic animal or a bird or an animal or a bird wild by nature that is in captivity, abandons it in distress or wilfully neglects or fails to provide suitable and adequate food, water, shelter and care for it.
[…]
Marginal note:Failure to exercise reasonable care as evidence
(3) For the purposes of proceedings under paragraph (1)(a), evidence that a person failed to exercise reasonable care or supervision of an animal or a bird thereby causing it damage or injury is, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, proof that the damage or injury was caused by wilful neglect.
Order of prohibition or restitution
447.1 (1) The court may, in addition to any other sentence that it may impose under subsection 444(2), 445(2), 445.1(2), 446(2) or 447(2),
(a) make an order prohibiting the accused from owning, having the custody or control of or residing in the same premises as an animal or a bird during any period that the court considers appropriate but, in the case of a second or subsequent offence, for a minimum of five years; and
(b) on application of the Attorney General or on its own motion, order that the accused pay to a person or an organization that has taken care of an animal or a bird as a result of the commission of the offence the reasonable costs that the person or organization incurred in respect of the animal or bird, if the costs are readily ascertainable.
Uttering threats
264.1 (1) Every one commits an offence who, in any manner, knowingly utters, conveys or causes any person to receive a threat
[…]
© to kill, poison or injure an animal or bird that is the property of any person.
Sounds the way you might refer to categories of pets, which could figure into laws about sales, cruelty, importing or exporting, etc. In that case, you might break it down to animals, birds, fish and reptiles, all of which are, of course, animals.
I found this in the Canadian criminal code: “cattle” (bétail) means neat cattle or an animal of the bovine species by whatever technical or familiar name it is known, and includes any horse, mule, ass, pig, sheep or goat.
So Canadian law regards horses as a form of cattle? Maybe Canadian law degrees need a Zoology 101 pre-req.
Given how much we Canadians enjoy our seafood, I can definitely understand separating fish out from other animals in the criminal code. For example, take that section about causing damage or injury “by wilful neglect (…) to animals or birds while they are being driven or conveyed”. I’d hardly expect the police to stand outside grocery stores and inspect the cars of people bringing home live lobster. You may need to be licensed to catch your own fish and seafood, but I believe those laws are intended to promote conservation rather than prevent cruelty.
PS For Little Nemo: We do sell horsemeat in stores, especially in Quebec. That’s probably why.
I asked a related question in 2004. A lot of the answers referred to differences in folk understanding of the terms. Which sounds a bit strange to me, as the OP and my earlier question were occasioned by legislation, the terminology of which should not need to accomodate folk understanding but only needs to reference well-defined zoological terms.
Not necessarily. You want legislation, particularly criminal laws, to be understood by the average citizen, so you may use terms in a common understanding, rather than a technical scientific meaning
At a guess, I’d say that’s why the CrimCode uses “animal or bird” - to make it clear that birds are included in the offenses, possible popular meanings of “animals” notwithstanding.
Whether legislation needs to accommodate common usage of words today, you’d definitely want it to take into account common usage in the past. You wouldn’t want to write a law using the term “animal” only to have some smart-ass lawyer come up with an 1830 court case in which a judge ruled that birds/fish were not animals.
The was case that had to rule whether whales were fish (because of fish oil needed inspection, did whale oil also need inspection?)
The court ruled that whales were fish though later the legislature rewrote the law.
Brian
I think this may have much to do with it. Criminal law is typically interpreted narrowly* so any understanding of “animal” which excludes fish and birds could be argued by a defendant. Criminal law will often be very specific and really go out of its way to include a lot. The Firearms Act is a good example.
I do still wonder if there was a time when adults of average intelligence thought of animals and birds as being different or when the term “animal” was used to to exclude birds in a way that isn’t simply sloppy thinking.
*In case of ambiguity, you side with the defendant.