The topic of banning circus animals splits the State Duma

State Duma deputies continue to discuss the initiative to ban circuses with animals. “Zero readings” of the relevant bill were held on Tuesday by its authors from the New People (NL) faction together with the Public Chamber. The invited animal rights activists warmly supported the party’s plan, especially since this time they were in a clear numerical majority.

October “pre-zero” round of circus discussion; supporters of animal spectacles won almost dry: the voices of animal rights activists were drowned in the chorus of industry participants and deputies who trashed the NL project. “Judging by the way colleagues from different factions and the majority of participants spoke, I am sure that the idea will not pass,” stated the organizer of the hearings, deputy Dmitry Gusev (A Just Russia – For Truth, SRZP).

The rematch was announced by NL leader Alexey Nechaev. According to the organizers, on November 14, the representation of the parties should have been equal. “Unfortunately, United Russia was holding a working meeting, but why the other participants who were confirmed yesterday didn’t come, I don’t know,” Mr. Nechaev complained, looking around at the empty chairs reserved for United Russia deputy Timofey Bazhenov and trainers the Zapashny brothers and other guests.

So the numerical superiority remained with the opponents of animal spectacles. Alexey Nechaev again pointed out the declining attendance figures for circuses and recalled 2 billion rubles for them. government subsidies and called for humane coexistence with nature in accordance with the spirit of the 21st century: “In the world, 45 countries have completely or partially banned animals in the circus – this is a process that is gaining momentum.” The politician is sure that these rates “should be told to the trainers,” on whose understanding the IP still seems to be counting: “We are not against circuses, and this topic is not black and white, there are 20, 30, or even and all 50 shades of gray.”

The invited animal rights activists thanked the IP for billcriticized the training and living conditions of the animals and insisted that animal shows are dubious entertainment in general.

“I’m very glad that the bill is sharp and radical, because it addresses the most important issue: is it acceptable today to use animals for entertainment purposes?” — argued animal rights activist Alexander Starostin.

He called on the experts not to “get personal,” emphasizing that he was confident in the integrity of the masters Zapashny or Kuklachev: “It’s a pity that we will lose this part of history, but many traditions have died – let’s remember the lamplighters!”

The letter of apology for the Zapashnys themselves was read by the moderator, head of the Public Chamber’s commission on ecology and environmental protection, Svetlana Sharoykina. “We are considering a ban (proposed.— “Kommersant”) as part of the informational and psychological struggle against Russian circus art,” the tamers wrote. “The circus performs educational and educational functions, and this art should be under the protection of the state.”

The circus supporters present also reproached the NL for bias and even populism.

“When teachers mistreat children in kindergartens, we do not ban kindergartens, but regulate it within the legal framework, with circuses in the same way,” pointed out the representative of the Russian State Circus, Daria Kostyuk, emphasizing that the artists themselves are “only happy” with any inspections . “We experienced from our own experience a radical wave of animal protection when people attacked our theater, claiming that our animals live no more than two years, and we shock them,” complained Dmitry Kuklachev, emphasizing that the NL project was “in smithereens “broke” by representative of the Ministry of Natural Resources Irina Makanova.

Ms. Makanova’s review was indeed critical. She pointed out that the explanation to the amendments needs serious improvement, references to non-compliance with sanitary standards do not contain justification, the socio-economic consequences (in the form of a reduction in artists and staff) were not taken into account by the authors, and the “forcible removal of animals from nature” generally refers to other legislation . “To implement this law, a whole program is required, which must be described in an explanatory note, with an economic justification,” a representative of the Ministry of Natural Resources warned the deputies.

Alexey Nechaev’s remarks were not intimidating, and he promised to work on them.

But the accusations of populism clearly hurt the party member: “When we attribute populism to deputies, let’s somehow filter what we say. The deputies are busy with what people came to them with.”

Despite the declared opposition from at least two Duma factions (United Russia and SRZP), the NL leader does not intend to give up, because “someone supports the archaic, someone supports the future, and we are for the future.” And there seems to be no compromise between these two forces in sight. “Compromise (possible— “Kommersant”) in how the process of transition from one state to another will go,” Mr. Nechaev explained to Kommersant. “Many countries have already followed this path: some went elegantly, others went rudely, and animals and people suffered. We need to do it elegantly.”

However, Elena Sharoykina, on behalf of the Public Chamber, spoke in favor of continuing the dialogue. “We call some deputies “knackers,” and deputies often call us “zooschiza,” but we are not against even such a radical dialogue,” the social activist concluded, defining the dispute over animal rights as “a discussion between the liberal and traditional world.”

Grigory Leiba