There are so many new "rights" being alleged these days that it's hard to keep up. One of the latest is the "right" of animals to have privacy. One Dr. Brett Mills, at the University of East Anglia (darn, that place sounds so familiar) claims that while wildlife documentaries can be important in educating people, they inevitably deny many species the right to privacy.
Obviously, the right to privacy is incredibly important for most species of animals, and is something that for decades, people have fought for and died to preserve.
Yet, questions do remain. It seems odd that a professor at an organization that has been shown to be corrupt in regard to the AGW controversy would choose to declare that documentary filming in some way violates the "rights" of animals to "privacy". It is even more interesting when considered in light of the fact that the U.K. ranks slightly behind Russia and China in terms of governmental intrusion and citizen surveillance. Humans in the U.K. should have no expectation of privacy, yet it is apparently a "right" that should be accorded to animals.
If the animals being filmed do not give their consent, is the filming ethical?
Only a university professor could come up with something like this, when caught on camera perhaps fifty times while walking to get a cup of tea from a vendor.
