In January 1941, speaking to Americans about the meaning of the world war that then engulfed the globe, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to explain the purpose of waging such a destructive conflict. The terrible struggle was necessary, FDR said, to preserve four freedoms for mankind: freedom of speech and expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear.
I think there is general agreement that those are four pretty good freedoms. But only four? Shouldn't we all be a bit free-er than that?
As such, I can understand Newsweek columnist George Will's recent outbreak of freedom envy. After all, as Will notes, a new regulation from Britain's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will proclaim that British house pets have not four, but five freedoms. Those freedoms, which I relay in all their Orwellian glory, are: freedom of an appropriate diet; freedom of suitable living conditions; freedom of companionship or solitude (as appropriate); freedom of monitoring for abnormal behavior and protection from pain; and freedom from suffering, injury and disease.
I can understand why Will feels a little jealous. After all, I hate to sound species-ist, but it doesn't seem right to me that British house pets deserve a full 25 percent more freedom than I do.
The freedoms entitled to British pets will be very well documented, too. According to The Times of London, the "Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will inform the owners of Britain's ten million cats, eight million dogs and one million rabbits of their new obligations in a series of pamphlets distributed to vets, pet shops, kennels and over the internet." The first such pamphlet drafted, an 18-page manifesto about proper cat care, contains the following guidelines for implementing pet freedom:
a) "Dogs should be introduced to cats very carefully. The dog should be on a lead at first so that it cannot chase the cat;"
b) "Owners of 'sociable' pets should provide them with playmates;"
c) "Pets must have 'mental stimulation' sufficient to ward off boredom and frustration;"
d) And, my personal favorite, a nine-point guide about the proper positioning of the litter box (to ensure privacy, of course).
To protect these pet freedoms, a squad of "pet police" -- as the British newspapers have already nicknamed the new regulatory force -- will be empowered to enter homes, conduct examinations and seize animals. Pet owners who are found to be repressing their pet's freedoms may be fined up to 5,000 or sentenced to jail.
To help the pet police enforce the law, activists have suggested that pet owners "should keep all vets' bills and other documentation to prove that they were looking after the animal properly." Pet shops themselves may be required to keep registers of all pets sold, and to collect signatures of buyers to prove that they are over 16 and have been properly briefed about the requirements for proper care.
The Times further notes that the present regulation "applies to all vertebrates, but a code of conduct for invertebrates, such as lobsters, may follow." I can think of a few other freedoms that lobsters might be interested in lobbying for, such as freedom from being dunked in boiling water. That seems like it might be a bit more salient than the freedom of companionship or solitude (as appropriate), for example, but far be it from me to speak for lobsters.
Also, don't get me wrong. I'm not against pet freedom. After all, I own a cat who exercises quite a good deal of freedom when it comes to her interactions with the human members of my family. Nor do I wish to imply that I have a problem with the prevention of cruelty to animals. Such behavior is unjustifiable, and reflects poorly on our attempts to create a humane society. That's why we have laws against the gross mistreatment of animals. But I also believe that defining a nine-point guide to proper litter box locations is not the proper purpose of government, which at some level is supposed to protect the freedoms of its human subjects as well as its pets. And, lest this seem like a uniquely British phenomenon, Will notes that some American cities have shown the same disturbing penchant for needlessly detailed regulation. San Francisco, for example, requires that "a dog's water must be changed at least once a day, and must be served in a non-tipping bowl." The rest of us should have it so good, as anyone who drinks Hanover water should know.
Will suggested that we humans lobby for a new freedom of our own: "Freedom from government attempts to codify and supervise every transaction between people, let alone those between people and their hamsters and turtles and tropical fish." I'd agree that seems like it would be the humane thing to do.
