Dr Pablo Lerner has studied law in Argentina (Advocate – University of Buenos Aires) and in Israel ( PH. D- University of Jerusalem). He is a Senior Lecturer at the Ramat Gan School of Law (Israel)  and teaches introduction to legal systems, enforcement of judgments and animal law.
 
His course about animal law deals not only with fundamental questions regarding animal rights and their protection but addresses a number of private law questions such as damage caused by animals and legal ways to create a trust in order to transfer property to animals.  Dr Lerner has published several articles regarding the legal status of animals. These include “About Debtors and Animals: The Attachment of Pet Animals”   4 Alei Mishpat, 2005, pp. 205-244 (in Hebrew);  "Considerations about the Feeding of Stray Cats”, 9 HaMishpat (2004) pp. 407- 425 (in Hebrew); “Taking Account of the Interest of Pet-Animals in Family Disputes”, 11 HaMishpat (2007) pp. 357-380 (in Hebrew); "Animals and Family Law: about the meaning of 'the interest of the animal'", Animals and Society (2007) pp. 48-55 (in Hebrew); “Ritual Slaughtering ( Kosher and Hallal) and the Freedom of Religion of Minorities in Europe”, (in collaboration with A. M. Rabello) Journal of Law and Religion (2007) pp. 101-162.

our interview with Dr Pablo Lerner
1. How did you become involved in the field of animal law?
I have always loved animals. I have been teaching comparative law and enforcement of judgments in Israel for a long time. Seven years ago I read an article in an American newspaper about animal law and its teaching in American institutions. I thought why not? And then I began to develop the course in Israel and also began to research the subject.

2. You are a senior lecturer at the Ramat Gan School of Law in Israel teaching, among other subjects, animal law. 
a. What are some of the major themes in your course?
My course deals with a range of subjects such as the evolution of animal law, different approaches to animal protection (religious approaches, Kant’s approach, utilitarianism, the ideas of Peter Singer and Tom Regan, and so on). We deal with the question of animal welfare in Israel analysing the Animal Welfare (Protection) Law and the Animal Welfare (Experimentation) Law. Particular questions like the use of animals in agriculture or protection of endangered species are given greater attention. The last part of the course includes an analysis of private law oriented subjects like the attachment of animals by creditors, the problem of torts (damages caused by or to animals) and the ownership of a pet animal in case of divorce.

b. What do you hope your students will take away from your course?
My lessons are informative and first of all the aim is for the students to learn different aspects of the legal status of animals. Nevertheless I also expect they will finish the course understanding why we should not refer to animals as movable property and what should be done to find the balance between animal welfare and human interests.

3. You recently wrote an article with Alfredo Mordechai Rabello entitled “The Prohibition of Ritual Slaughtering and Freedom of Religion of Minorities.” (Journal of Law & Religion, Vol. XXII, No 1, 2006-07).
a. Can you explain what ritual slaughter is for the benefit of our members who might not be familiar with the terminology?
Ritual slaughtering is the slaughtering carried out according to rules originating from ancient religious law, relating primarily to Jewish ( kosher) or Muslim (halal) slaughter. Kosher and Halal slaughtering are done without stunning. There are those who think that it produces unnecessary suffering in the animal and we try to show why this idea should be carefully scrutinized.

b. What inspired you to write this piece?
As a fact the idea was provided by my mentor and colleague Prof.  Alfredo M.  Rabello whose expertise is among others fields, in Jewish law. He received the 2003 Report of the Italian Commission for Bioethics dealing with the problem of the ritual slaughtering in Italy. He showed the report to me and proposed that we write about the subject.

4. You state in your article, “We believe that it is important not to neglect the suffering of animals but it is clear that the prohibition of ritual slaughter impinges upon the freedom of religion” (at 43). What, in your opinion should be done to balance the concerns on both sides of the argument?
It should be borne in mind that there are veterinarians who argue that ritual slaughter does not effectively cause more suffering to the animal and that the difference between the kosher and halal slaughtering on one hand and the slaughtering via stunning on the other hand, is not so significant. Certainly there are those who think this approach is not right (the discussion is particularly regarding the time span the animal is conscious. The difference is a question of seconds). In any case in our view since the protection of animals is always based on taking into account human interest (including in countries where the ritual slaughtering is prohibited), the prohibition of ritual slaughtering  involves a clear limitation of freedom of religion, not to easy to be justified. A catch all prohibition of ritual slaughtering may be even be at odds with the need of achieving a broad consensus between peoples as to the need of protect animals. The fact that a Jew or a Muslim in Europe could think that the prohibition of ritual slaughtering is not aimed at protecting animals but is an attack on the freedom of religion, does not contribute to the fight in favour of animal welfare or animal rights.

5. Have your views on animal protection been influenced by particular individuals? If so, who are they?
Well, I certainly have read literature about animals rights and animal status, and my understanding of the problems is now more complete than when I took my first steps in the area. Nevertheless I should admit that I began as a "welfarist" and have not shifted to other "radical" positions, notwithstanding my interest in the doctrine arguing for recognition of animal rights.

6. In 2003, the Supreme Court of Israel (sitting as the High Court of Israel) ‘made history’ in animal law by banning the production of foie gras, a common agricultural practice in Israel. (ref: http://www.animallaw.info/policy/poisraelmaterials.htm )
a. What are you views on that case?
I think that this is a very important decision and well elaborated – including the use of comparative law to balance correctly the interest and preferring the interest of geese to those of the farmers. It may serve as precedent for other necessary changes in farm practices in Israel, and also as example for other countries where the production of foie grass continue being an accepted practice.

b. Are there other practices that you consider involve unnecessary cruelty to animals which take place in Israel, for example, factory farming?
The whole agriculture practice as to animals is problematic. Now there are some pallid changes (as the rearing of calves and regarding transportation of animals), but it is necessary to do much more.  It is clear the animal welfare is not a topic which receives central attention in Israel. By the way, I do not think that vegetarianism should be the only standpoint to combat outrageous agricultural practices.

7. Do you have any words of wisdom to share with Australia’s budding animal lawyers?
As a scholar who deals with comparative law I think that every interchange of ideas is very important, and comparative law may afford interesting standpoints in animal law questions. The care of animals is certainly a subject which may afford a basis for dialogue between lawyers from different legal traditions. Moreover, we should understand that some of the questions (like how to protect endangered species) need to be answered at a transnational level.