Korea Passes Law Banning Dog Meat Trade

[Ann Yong-Geun]

  Legislation Prohibiting the Eating of Dog Meat

  On January 9, 2024, the National Assembly passed the "Prohibition of Dog Eating Act (Special Act on Ending the Breeding, Slaughter, and Distribution of Dogs for Food purposes)" and prohibited the breeding, slaughter, distribution, and sale of dogs for eating purposes.

  The law takes effect six months after promulgation, and provides a three-year grace period for existing restaurants and farms.

  After three years of law enforcement, if dogs are slaughtered for eating purposes, the person involved will be sentenced to under three years in prison or fined to under 30 million won, and if dogs are raised, proliferated, or distributed, the person connected will be sentenced to under two years in prison or fined to under 20 million won.

  It does not contain the compensation for such victims as edible dog breeding farmers engaged in this field.

  The law suppresses the edible dog industry by giving animal organizations unprecedented control and police power. As a result, the moneymaking of animal organizations are maximized.

  The Law of Dog Eating Ban is Unconstitutional

  The National Assembly said that as dogs are family due to the global trend, and Korea's pet population and awareness of it have increased, it is against the world's trend and public consciousness to allow dog eating as an old custom.

  If a dog is a family, does it mean that a person is a dog?

  In constitution, there is no basis that the actions and freedoms of the people should be restricted by law. Article 37 (2) of the Constitution states that the freedom of the people can only be restricted for the case of national security, order maintenance, and public welfare. And even in such a restriction, it should not violate the essential contents of freedom and rights. Is edible dog a violation of national security, order maintenance, and public welfare?

  Prohibition of dog meat eating violates the people's freedom to eat and choose jobs. Prohibiting national food, cutting off the livelihood of edible dog farmers, and not compensating properly violate the people's right to pursue happiness for food stipulated in Article 10 of the Constitution, their freedom of choice of profession stipulated in Article 15, and the guarantee of property rights stipulated in Article 23.

  This is something that can not be done even in the communist or dictatorship state, but only be done in religious countries where dogs are worshiped as gods. And yet that happened in Korea, a democratic country.

  At any rate, if Christians hate Buddhism, they can ban Buddhism, or if Buddhists hate Christianity, they can ban Christianity. A law banning pork consumption should be enacted for those who dislike pork, and a law banning beef consumption should be enacted for those who dislike beef. The state should not impose religion or eating habits on its people. Animal groups say that dog meat should not be eaten because there is plenty of food and other meat.

  This is the same as arguing that you should eat only bread in stead of eating others because you have become rich in food, or that doctors and pharmacists are not necessary because medical and pharmaceutical developments have reduced deaths from diseases and increased lifespan.

  Is there a place in the world that says we should eat this, or not that, or we should get rid of this tradition and let that tradition go?

  If it is natural not to eat dog meat, you can force someone who does not eat dog meat to "eat dog meat too."

What food to eat is a matter of personal freedom.

  The National Assembly said that as many people (20 percent, but 11 percent, actually) have a pet dog, they ban dog eating. However, it is a sham from the point that democracy is the principle of majority rule, for less than 50 percent of people have a pet dog. It is said that the reason that a small number of people (20 percent) suppress the majority (80 percent) is that there are many people in favor of it, but opinion polls cannot be trusted. It is because opinion polls are designed to give the answer that people want.

  First Lady Kim Gun-Hee Fueled Population Cliffs

  Korea's population growth rate is the lowest in the world. It is because many people have pets without having children.

  The cause for it is due to the Animal Protection Act. It is because government has turned pet dogs into human-levels and sanctified them by raising the level of punishment for people, while claiming the ethics and rights of animals,

  As a result, they are being encouraged to have dogs instead of having their children, which has deepened the demographic cliff, leading to more sales of dog strollers than those of human strollers.

  In addition, First Lady Kim Gun-Hee came out with her pet dog, deepening the problem. First Lady Kim Gun-hee should give a message to the people on having a baby by hugging one, not a dog. That is the right patriotism and inner support as the First Lady.

  Is the dog meat issue such a national task that the First Lady has to tackle? And is it so big problem as to destroy farmers for the sake of dogs, trampling on their human rights and right to live? Is it more important than the birth rate?

  Lawmakers banned the eating dog meat in order to get votes, beguiled by the saying that there is a large population of pets.

  How weak is their political base? Even they do rely on dog.

  Cutting Off the Livelihood of People and Making Them Criminals

  The law cuts the livelihood of millions of edible dog farmers, merchants, dog meat restaurants, and workers who work in the related industries. However, there is no countermeasure as follows.

  First, I have never heard of discussing the circumstances with related industries such as edible dog farms. It was suddenly enacted.

  Second, it is compulsory to take away the property and occupation of the people, so their damage must be compensated. There was a 'fair compensation' item, but the government removed it from the law. It is because it has no intention of making fair compensation.

  Third, hundreds of millions to billions of won was invested in accordance with the Livestock Act, the Livestock Products Sanitation Control Act, the Livestock Excreta Act, and the Environmental Management Act, making their legally operated farms illegal in a short time. Violators are severely punished with two years and three years in prison.

  Are farmers raising edible dogs violent criminals and murderers? Is it a normal country to punish people as criminals in order to protect dogs?

  Since traditional eating habits do not change overnight, and dog meat is the best for a weak or sick person, the ban on eating dog meat does not mean not eating it. So, mass production of criminals connected and those punished will resent and ignore the regime that bans dog meat.

  3 Trillion Won for Killing of Foot-and-mouth Disease and No Compensation for Edible Dog Farmers

  In case that livestock are infected with first-class livestock infectious diseases such as cattle disease, waste disease, foot-and-mouth disease, swine fever, African swine fever, and highly pathogenic avian influenza, they are forcibly buried alive under Article 20 of the Livestock Infectious Diseases Prevention Act. Even livestock surrounding the area that have not been infected with infectious diseases are buried alive. About 80 percent of the market price is paid to livestock farmers.

  In 2011, the government killed 3.48 million cattle and pigs, and spent 3 trillion won (3.5 billion U.S. dollars). FMD is not an infectious disease to humans. Nevertheless, the entire nation went into chaos and buried livestock alive in pits. Nothing could be more cruel than this.

  Since foot-and-mouth disease is not contagious to humans, it is okay if livestock are boiled and eaten. The government is known to have done so in order to maintain its image as a clean country for livestock infectious diseases, not disrupting meat exports.

  Not only edible dogs will not get sick from livestock epidemics, but they also treat slaughterhouse waste and food waste to prevent environmental pollution, and they contribute to the national economy by producing meat. Therefore, edible dog farming should be rather encouraged. However, the government has exterminated the edible dog industry, being led by an animal group that claims that only the slaughter of dogs should be cruel.

  The government distributed 3 trillion won (3 billion U.S. dollars) to cattle, pig and chicken farmers under the pretext of an epidemic that does not even affect humans. But the government is not willing to compensate for the forced closure of edible dog farmers. Although they are the same livestock, government only makes edible dog farmers starve to death.

  Dog eating Prohibition Act Kills 500,000 Edible Dogs

  Since raising an edible dog is a job of breeding and saving dogs, it is ecologically protecting dogs.

  Animal groups have been collecting donations on the pretext of rescuing edible dogs from farms. They claimed that there should be no separate dog for edible and a pet dog, and that the rescued edible dog should be a pet dog.

  Under the law, since more than 500,000 edible dogs cannot be raised in livestock farms, the rest of them are to be slaughtered. This is the result of animal protection pursued by animal groups. Animal groups claim that edible dogs should be pets, and that their goal and duty should be to rescue and protect edible dogs, and also that all of the edible dogs be brought into life by animal groups.

  Unless the edible dogs are rescued, their animal protection activities will be false, and they should not kill even one out of 500,000 edible dogs. Under the pretext of these, the animal groups should not run a business to receive money from government.

  Donations received by animal groups should be provided to farmers, merchants and restaurants that lose their livelihoods because of the closure of businesses. It should be used to save people, not animals.

  Nevertheless, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs is forcing livestock farmers to dispose of 500,000 edible dogs.

  Ill-Advised Jurisdiction of the Animal Protection Act

  The Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act (Cabinet Act) was transferred from the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs to the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety. The Ministry of Food and Drug Safety entrusts it to the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, and the Animal Protection Act is managed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, which is in charge of livestock.

  The Animal Protection Act aims to protect animals, but it also regulates livestock managed by the Livestock Act or the Livestock Products Sanitation Control Act. It is a double regulation.

  Therefore, the animal protection law should be abolished, or jurisdiction should be transferred from the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs to the Ministry of Environment. The animal protection law should be in charge of only wild animals, and livestock should be regulated only by the livestock law.

  Though animal protection law should only cover endangered animals,

it claims protecting mainly the dogs that are so numerous as to be abandoned, with the regulation mainly on livestock, which leads the animal groups to fill their own bellies.