In these somewhat unsettled times, one looks for signs that people have not lost or are losing their sense of proportion. Browsing the news happens to be not as reassuring as one might wish. Just one example: the law on the protection of animals is again being discussed in the Legislative Assembly. Making it is proving to be a very protracted and difficult delivery. Curiously enough, currently the protection of the said animals from mistreatment by their human fellows seems to have lost topicality. The major subject under discussion now is, so the media report, the protection of humans. Therefore, all dogs in public spaces must be muzzled! We might think that is a subject better dealt with by other legal frames, including but not limited by those concerning the civil responsibility of all citizens, which covers, one presumes, the behaviour of their pets. The legislators seem, implicitly, to disagree. As a consequence, some suggested and we are reassured, the government has already acquiesced to that rule. An earlier proposal applied the rule only to dogs over 23 kilos. Why 23 kilos, no more, no less, no explanation could be found even after some research. But it is (was) such an important threshold that one might expect to find a clarification easily, somewhere. No such chance! Maybe it just happens the original idea was thought of using imperial units, and this is no more than the rough conversion to kilos of a round 50 pounds figure still unexplained though. Nonetheless, one might ask: was it justified because there is a neat alteration in aggressiveness associated with dogs over that specific weight? Do we expect that weight to correspond to some standard dog size from a reference breed? How will we deal with smaller but obese animals, or bigger but skinny dogs? It was not clear! At any rate, these did not seem to be the driving concerns behind the extension of the muzzle to all kinds and size of dogs. (So far, other categories of pet seem exempt). The big reason, that one, was for once explained and made all the previous questions irrelevant on the spot. The question was: how could someone complain that a dog had no muzzle unless the animal could be weighed? Which as I presume was in the mind of the proponents the dog, the owner, or both, might object. So, hey presto! All dogs must be muzzled. Problem solved. All citizens can now complain by a mere and even distant observation. For my part, I know I will not need to keep my cool any more any time I come across a muzzled Chihuahua or Miniature Pinscher. Nowhere, it appears, has the proportionality, convenience or feasibility of the rule been assessed. And now What was the law truly about?
Top Stories
RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR
【時事評論】困境未盡 艱難前行
一場新冠疫情,令2020成為人類百年一遇的世紀疫年,8千多萬人感染、逾182萬人死亡; 封城之下,環球經濟大衰退,苦不堪言。儘管疫苗已面世,但距全球有效防疫的目標仍然遙遠。展望2021仍是個艱難年頭,對澳門而言挑戰大過機遇,各位宜有心理準備,保持鬥志,做好防守。
OPINION – Soft figures
The ongoing economic slump has visible implications in casino revenues, visitor flows, and hotel occupation....
【主編前言】諮詢的作用
早前特區政府就南灣湖C區兩份興建司法機關的規劃條件圖作公示,及後在城規會聽取城規會議上交委員討論,並獲大部分委員支持。該兩份規劃圖是關於在現有初院刑事大樓、終審法院及中級法院大樓旁邊,分別興建法院及檢察院、法院設施。近初級法院院的大樓可建最高五十點八米。公示期間兩份規劃圖收到百三份反對意見,主要擔心樓高影響歷史城區,冀降低建築高度。
【總監之言】極具建設性
批判性思維是否值得鼓勵?初步答案似乎明顯“是”,但在《澳門青年政策(2021-2030)》諮詢文件中,這變成了一個相當微不足道的問題。上一個十年(2012-2020年)的藍圖確切地描述了培養具有“批判思維和獨立思考能力”的年輕一代的重要性;然而,在新提出的《政策》版本中,則以“較輕”的態度描述這些特質,因收集所得意見的偏好而捨棄了有關措辭,選擇用“審辨思維”描述“審視和辨識的能力”。根據社會文化司司長的解釋,導致改變用詞的背後原因是之前文件所使用的表述“批判”具有某種貶義或負面含義;她強調,歡迎持批評態度,但應該具有建設性。