The 30th anniversary of the ‘International Day of Older Persons’ was commemorated on 1 October 2020. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic the commemorations did not take place in large gatherings. If such gatherings were to take place the most vulnerable, due to their age are the older persons themselves.
Though there are laws in many countries around the world for the protection and the uplift of elderly people there is yet to be an International Convention (i.e. an international treaty) geared towards the protection and rights of older persons. Efforts have been made towards drafting an international convention regarding the rights of older persons but they have probably not passed, at best, beyond the drafting stage.
This lack of an international convention is, in contrast, to the existence and operation internationally of other related human rights treaties such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and Convention on the Rights of the Child .
To adopt an International Convention negotiations have to be conducted among countries of the world which take, generally and at a minimum, several years and at times several decades. Hence it would take time to adopt an international convention which is a multilateral treaty to protect and promotes the rights of ‘older persons’ or ‘the elderly’.
CEDAW has 189 State parties and Rights of the Child Convention has 192 State parties. Apparently among the United Nations members the only country in the world which is not a State Party to the Rights of the Child Convention is the United States.
The remaining parts of this article, however, is not to further discuss about ‘human rights’ (international convention) but a topic related to though not quite regarding animal rights. This writer would immediately add that regarding ‘animal rights’ protection there is the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). There are 182 State parties to CITES. CITES is drafted, adopted and approved for the protection of certain endangered animal species as well as plants (flora). It does not specifically or narrowly cover the philosophical rather than the legal concept of ‘speciesism’ as briefly explained below.
The Racial Discrimination Convention and CEDAW can be said to internationally and legalistically discouraging (in so few words) racism and sexism (among humans). Not only in international legal developments but also in modern philosophical, moral, ethical, discourse there seems to be in descending order of 'unacceptability' first racism and secondarily sexism in that the Racial Discrimination Convention came into force earlier in the year 1969 and the CEDAW only 12 years later in 1981.
One possible definition of the term 'speciesism’ (perhaps) is discrimination by humans against or between other animal species with the caveat added that it would probably not apply to what is (for want of better terms) arguably ‘lower (and harmful) animals’ like say, bugs or cockroaches but could apply to ‘higher animals’ like pigeons and whales. Perhaps in international and domestic legal discourse the critiques–indeed even discussions- of speciesism do not reach the same status (in terms of ethical, moral and legal 'censor') as racism or sexism (I emphasize that I am not discussing the protection of endangered animal species but speciesism as explained above) .
Philosopher Peter Singer (born 6 July 1946) in his 1975 book Animal Liberation defines speciesism as ‘a prejudice or bias in favor of the interests of one’s own species and against those members of other species’. However in this brief comment the writer would not put such an ambitious (or is it also unrealistic as well?) ‘definition’ but will adhere to the explanation this writer has stated above.
If the non-acceptability, so to speak, or the philosophical or moral compass of 'speciesism’ as ‘in non-discrimination by humans between animal species’ is applied reductio ad absurdum (to its illogical - not logical - conclusion) humans should not discriminate between say cats (or kittens) and dogs (which is not that illogical) but also between cats and bedbugs, and between cockroaches and iguanas!
Humans do discriminate even among the 'higher animals'. A primatologist like Jane Goodall (born 3 April 1934) may not discriminate, so to speak, between a gorilla and a monkey (and both are primates) but many people would discriminate even among the 'higher' animals say a rabbit and a rhinoceros or even between say crickets and crocodiles.
Perhaps animal rights activists and philosophers like Peter Singer may agree that even concerning (from a human perspective) the non-harmful and higher animals the non-discrimination, even equal concern and treatment principles may not, perhaps cannot apply.
In the human realm and as applied to humans, racism, sexism and ageism (discrimination and violation of the rights of racial groups, women, older persons respectively) can be morally (in the general sense of the words) blame worthy and – to the extent that is possible both internationally and domestically legally censured or discouraged.
But even on the theoretical level and in practical life as well speciesism as in ‘discrimination’ between (admittedly from a human perspective) of even ‘higher animals’ is arguably and even factually not possible to implement or practice.
Dr Myint Zan taught law and law related subjects including legal philosophy in nine Universities in Malaysia, Australia, the South Pacific and the United States between 1989 and 2016.
