Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by the Fédération Mondiale du Cirque
1. The Fédération Mondiale du Cirque is a non-profit organization under the patronage of H.S.H. Princess Stephanie of Monaco to promote and preserve Circus arts and culture worldwide. A federation of professional circus associations from Europe, Canada, Australia, South Africa, the United States and the Festival International du Cirque de Monte-Carlo, its membership now includes circus associations and organisations in Mexico, China, Japan and Afghanistan.
2. Contrary to what is implied by the draft Bill and explanatory notes, the very existence of the Festival International du Cirque de Monte-Carlo demonstrates the ongoing interest in and vitality of circus of all forms, including classical circuses featuring performing animals. Now preparing for its 38th season since its founding by Prince Rainier of Monaco in the early 1970’s, the Festival is the world’s preeminent international competition for circus arts, including the presentation of performing animals alongside traditional and contemporary human acts. Each of the past several years, the public has overwhelmingly voted for an animal performance as the top act. The more recent formation of the Federation (December 2008) and its growth in the last four years is more evidence of the continuing public support for all forms of circus. The recent celebration of the Fourth annual World Circus Day saw celebrations by circuses and circus enthusiasts in 47 countries, including open animal training sessions and other animal-focused events. Even youth and social circuses, which focus exclusively or predominantly on performance by humans, sometimes work with animals. As one social circus founder and teacher has explained: working with an animal in the circus setting may be the only opportunity for some (disadvantaged) children to have a positive interaction with an animal.
3. As stated by the Government on 1 March 2012, “The 2007 Radford report on circus animals concluded that there was insufficient scientific evidence to demonstrate that travelling circuses are unable to meet the welfare needs of wild animals presently being used in the United Kingdom. That position has not changed. Consequently, we are now looking at the means by which a ban could be introduced on ethical grounds.”i
4. It is noted that “ethics” are not referenced anywhere in the draft Bill or accompanying texts. With no evidence of welfare concerns and apparently lacking any definable “ethical” grounds, the basis for the draft Bill appears to have been downgraded to opinions and platitudes.
5. In fact, most of the “arguments” advanced to support the draft Bill concern animal welfare: eg, performance is “unbefitting their wildness and potentially harmful”; “loss of their ability to behave naturally as a wild animal”; “not naturally suited to travelling circuses”; “may suffer as a result of being unable to fulfil their instinctive natural behaviour”; and “implications for their treatment”. Draft Bill, paras. 16–19. Each one of these arguments can therefore be set aside as deficient as a basis for the draft Bill in light of the Government’s concession and position that “there is currently insufficient evidence of irredeemable welfare problems in traveling circuses with wild animals to justify a ban on welfare grounds.” Draft Bill, para. 6.
6. One could equally point out that the very topic of the draft Bill—traveling circuses—demonstrates the inherent lack of a justification for the legislation. The Radford report, the conclusion of which the Government accepts, also addressed potential welfare implications of travel. It concluded: “[A]lthough circus animals are transported regularly, there is no evidence that this, of its own nature, causes the animals’ welfare to be adversely affected.” Radford Report, para. 5.4.3. Is it travel that makes it unethical for animals to perform?
7. Once the welfare arguments are set aside, what remains as the legal and factual basis for the Bill is very thin: that it is “not necessary” to use wild animals in the circus to experience the circus; that performing animals represent an outdated view; that performance is “unbefitting to their wildness”; and that performance provides little or no benefit of any kind.
8. The suggestion that performing animals in the circus is a “traditional, but outdated” view (draft Bill, para. 15) is nothing more than an ideological or personal opinion held by some. That many hold a different opinion is clear. The number one question asked by visitors to one of the world’s most famous circus museums, the John and Mable Ringling Museum of Art, is “where can I visit a circus?” The most frequent inquiry at box offices when the circus comes to town is “which species of animals are in the program?” According to an analysis in 2006, traditional circuses in Australia attracted approximately 1.3 million paid visits in one year, a larger numbers of paying patrons than opera or rugby.ii A 2006 survey by the Irish Arts Council found that more Irish visit the circus than ballet, opera and contemporary dance combined.iii Independent market research by a German firm (GfK) in 2008 found that 6.4 million Germans visited a circus performance in 2007 or 2006. The survey found that 86% of randomly selected persons surveyed believe that animals are an essential part of the circus.
9. That countries across Europe and elsewhere continue to regulate, not ban, animals in the circus shows governmental respect for the training and presentation of animals in a circus setting and reflects the ongoing appeal of the classical circus to the public. Even in the United Kingdom, which has been plagued by decades of prominent and well-funded campaigns created by activists and PR firms to turn the public against classical circus, the English, the Welsh, the Scots and the Irish continue to make their way to the Big Top to enjoy and experience circus complete with performing animals and visits to circus animal menageries.
10. Like France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland and other countries, England and Wales now have specific legislation for travelling circuses requiring proof of qualifications, licensing, inspection of facilities, husbandry, recordkeeping and other aspects. Effective only as of this year, it took longer to develop the licensing system than the circuses—only just licensed—will be permitted to use their animals under the draft Bill.
11. The existence of the new licensing system which can and will address any welfare concerns that may remain in the minds of the public or policymakers raises a serious question as to the need for any new Bill at all. Its only apparent purpose is to create a legal barricade to stop those who—being uninformed that their views are outdated and that it is no longer necessary to have animals to “experience” the circus—have a high opinion of circus and value the opportunity to see well cared for performing animals in the classical circus from doing so. Its effect would be to put English trainers and presenters out of business; result in the export from the UK of the last remnants of the cultural heritage that Philip Astley invented in London in 1768; and block professional trainers and presenters from other Member States from exercising their legal rights to live and carry out their trade throughout the European Union. To prohibit licensed exhibitors from conducting their performance with any animal, just because some portion of society prefers a different form of entertainment is nothing less than censorship of those who do not subscribe to a certain philosophy. The public has the right to decide for itself whether it thinks classical circus, built on the three traditional pillars of acrobatics, animals and clowns, has value to them and whether they want to see human/animal interaction—particularly in places where such interaction may be hard to find. The decision as to whether to attend a circus should rest with the public, not be made for them by a government prohibition that has nothing to do with animal welfare.
12. In 2005, the European Parliament adopted a resolution in which it noted that it “would be desirable for it to be recognised that the classical circus, including the presentation of animals, forms part of European culture” and urged “the Member States who have not already done so to recognise the circus as part of European culture.”iv Now that it has appropriate animal welfare and licensing regulations in place, it would behoove the Government to look to protect its cultural heritage rather than destroying it on the basis of what comes down to personal taste.
May 2013
References
i Hansard 1 March 2012 Column 41WS.
ii Australian Leisure Management, “Animal Circuses More Popular than Rugby and Ballet,” 8 Jul 2009.
iii Irish Arts Council, The Public and the Arts 2006, Ch. 5, figure 5.1.
iv European Parliament resolution on new challenges for the circus as part of European culture, P6_TA(2005)0386