Charges dropped against animal “rights” activist who watered pigs

Charges have been dropped against a Toronto animal rights activist who gave water to pigs on a truck transporting the animals to an Ontario abattoir during June of 2015. The woman named Anita Krjnc was charged with criminal mischief after giving water to the pigs despite commands from the driver not to do so.

According to Canadian Television (CTV):

Despite the Crown’s argument that Krajnc gave the pigs an “unknown substance,” potentially contaminating the food supply, there was no evidence she gave them anything but water or that the slaughterhouse was concerned about such a risk, [Judge David] Harris said.

But the judge rejected a defence argument that Krajnc should be cleared because she was acting in the greater good, and suggested she may have been motivated in part by the prospect of drawing attention to her cause.

Consequently, the judge found Anita Krjnc not guilty. Shortly after the verdict Krjnc told the press she hoped that her act would inspire others to do the same. Now a Canadian court has set a bad precedent by placing the welfare of animals over the property rights of the slaughterhouse owner. Now there is probably little anyone can do to stop activists who seek to give animals food or drink over the wishes of a truck driver or slaughterhouse owner.

Fortunately, the judge rejected Krjnc’s defense that she acted for the greater good and, hopefully, some good can come out of the verdict. The trucker who had the hogs under his care at the time of this incident had every right to stop Anita Krajnc. For all he knew, the water she had could have been poisoned, rendering his cargo unusable.

Individual rights are ethical principles drawn from reality that are applicable to beings with the capacity of deliberation and choice. It is mankind’s ability to think and reason that makes humans nature’s favored species. Animals lack any rational faculties in which their primary means of survival is predatory instincts and sensory perception. While cruelty toward animals should be condemned, but what is contemptable are efforts on the part of animal rights groups seeking to give animals the same rights as humans. However, so-called animal rights groups’ definition of cruelty just like their views on when rights apply and activities like litigating cases like this is only geared to destroy individual rights with the end goal of obliterating human existence.