The other – the point of the original post – is whether such prejudices, rational or not, should be overriden by WTO regulations. That’s a lot tougher question. If you answer yes then people like the French are gonna find all sorts of ways of introducing unfair and economically very harmful practices aimed at protecting domestic vested interests. But if you don’t then – as the post points out – you may endanger the whole WTO agreements.

As an Atlantic Canadian, I heartily approve of the ban.

The seal cull isn’t necessary to restore the fisheries. For that matter, while blaming foreigners like Europeans for the collapse of the fisheries might make said Atlantic Canadians feel better, it is not the truth. Sadly, it is the greed of Atlantic Canadian fishers—remember the days of a fish plant in every major community back in the 1980s—that is responsible for the disappearance of the cod, and the ecological changes that has made it certain that the cod will not come back. The seals serve as scapegoats for people who have been left behind by the times.

As for the fact that seals are cute, I do not see how that affects things. The first animal-protection legislation was directed towards household pets like dogs and cats, animals which appealed to human on the grounds of—wait for it—their cuteness. Does that fact disqualify them from protection? I wonder.

It wouldn’t surprise me if a majority of the EU parliament (the institution responsible for this ban) would like to ban bull fighting. Almost everybody here shares your views on bull fighting. Unfortunately the Parliament doesn’t have the authority to ban bullfighting as it is an internal matter while they do have the partial power to regulate imports. The council could ban Bullfighting but as Spain has a veto there it’s clear that it’s not going to happen.

And as an aside I believe that if Canada was to increase the tariff on foie gras it would be seen as an extra if unintended benefit and quite popular with the general populace over here. Props to Canada if they take this route.

But this assumes that there is no standard at all for what constitutes an admissible claim of animal cruelty, that if such exceptions are allowed at all they will be allowed completely indiscriminately. I don’t think this is how the world works. Anyway, it is certainly not the lesson of this case—there is a reason why this discussion is happening wrt bludgeoning seals, a practice that appears exceptionally cruel, both because of the animal and the method of killing it.

More likely, allowing exceptions for animal cruelty will strengthen the economic gradient between more and less cruel animal-rearing practices. It will create incentives to specialize in less emotionally appealing animals and to treat them in less obviously inhumane ways. Of course these incentives may not be all that strong, as Scott M. points out in 34, and of course the definition of cruelty that emerges from the political process won’t match up precisely with what you or I might prefer. But they won’t be completely uncorrelated—it will be easier to make the political and legal case for genuinely cruel practices.

I mean, it’s not as tho bans on genetically-modified organisms have opened the floodgate to agricultural protection of all kinds, even though in some abstract, legalistic sense you would be correct to say that all crops have been genetically modified.

But as a club to beat the WTO to death with, it does seem like pretty small potatoes. I’m not even sure it’s going to make any meaningful difference to the ruling Conservatives in Canada. I mean, if they rule for the EU the actual impact on the Canadian seal trade is fairly small. Norway is the major external consumer of Canadian seals anyway – primarily for processing and then re-export to Russia and Asia – and it is unaffected.

Besides, the US has banned all marine mammal products for years. I should think whatever excuse the US gets away with would be a viable defense for Brussels.

And if the WTO rules against the EU, does anyone really think you can build a successful anti-WTO movement on top of baby seals?!? Look at the lack of success of the anti-EU movement in the UK - the EU is widely unpopular in Britain and the things the EU regulates are far, far closer to home for the public than seal products and they still can’t score any meaningful influence on policy.

Trade liberalization may be set back by the global crisis. But this is barely a bullet point in an election manifesto, and an ineffective one at that since all parties in Canada support the seal hunt, and no parties in the EU oppose the ban.

In general, I’m always a little puzzled by the idea that it’s somehow illegitimate for a political movement to present its goals in the most favorable light, to meet people where they are rather than demanding everything at once, or to take advantage of the self-interest of elected officials.

So what are some examples of social reforms or regulations that did not begin with a limited set of particularly egregious or politically feasible cases?

Didn’t the US already lose this case?

Maybe, but I’d not be sure. Often things like this, especially when done in relation to the practices of others, allow people to feel less bad about their own bad practices. “We care about animals, after all, we banned the (apparently non-existent*) clubbing of baby seals!” So, no need to worry about our own practices, which are necessary/part of our culture/produce something delicious, etc. I don’t mean to pick out the EU in particular there, but this sort of action seems pretty common among humans.

*I take it that seals are killed, but it seems that “baby” ones of the sort pictured here are not killed, or at least not in any cases that would be stopped by the EU law. As far as I can tell the EU law applies to seals of whatever age.

Why “but”? Surely bans on baby-seal-clubbing make future regulation of other cruel forms of animal husbandry more likely, not less likely, no?