“For Arendt, the private sphere is the realm of necessity where life in the household and family life, sustained by labour, production and consumption, take the centre. In contrast, the public sphere is the realm of freedom and action, with its focus on the world rather than life; it is the realm of public discourse preserved for individuality achieved through excellence, creating memory and thereby culture. It is the public political realm that stabilizes the world, preserves worldliness through friendship of discourse among citizens. Technical issues such as “poverty” are mattes for the experts, whereas politics is about determining what form of government we need to have.
Arendt has observed that the moderns misunderstand and equate the polis, or the political ream with the social realm, whereas in the understanding of the ancients, the private sphere, the realm of household and family and the maintenance of life, was clearly distinct from the public sphere, the polis, the political realm that attends to the affairs of the common world. The ‘emergence of the social realm, which is neither private nor public, occurs with the emergence of the modern age which lasted from the seventeenth century to the early twentieth century which found its political form in the nation State (Arendt, 1958: 28).”
Continue reading Hannah Arendt’s political thought and its relevance to understanding “Development” and Public Policy – Kumudu Kusum Kumara
“till the Animal Welfare Act is passed, Weerakkody thinks the amendments proposed to the Registration of the Dogs Ordinance (of 1902) is the other alternative available for providing some solace to the community dogs. These amendments have sought to prevent the community dogs from being pounded without reason. Also they will prevent the dogs from being killed unless it is confirmed by a veterinary surgeon that the dogs have contracted rabies.
Animal rights activist Attorney-at-law Lalani Perera reiterated the need for amending the two Acts, the Registration of the Dogs Ordinance (of 1902) and the Rabies Ordinance (of 1907). She also serves in the advisory committee set forth by the Local Government and Provincial Councils minister Faizer Mustapha in this regard.
Perera observed that the over hundred years old statutes are not keeping with the current thinking on the subject of animal welfare as both these legislations recommend dog destruction. Dog destruction, even in the name of rabies control, is neither accepted nor scientifically sound method anymore. Thus she sees the importance of statutory recognition for sterilization and vaccination of dogs, which is expected to be a prime objective of the amendments proposed.”
Continue reading Dog Holocaust at University of Sri Jayewardenepura – Dr. Prasanna Cooray