Forget human rights.  I want animal rights!

Humans can be convicted of animal abuse if they inflict "mild discomfort" upon un-humans.  So say justicecrats in Washington State.  Prosecutors were having trouble proving that a pair of ponies actually suffered pain, so the state Court of Appeals in Tacoma helpfully redefined creature discomfort for them.  Animal anguish, it declared, not only includes "mild discomfort" but also "mental uneasiness," "dull distress" and "unbearable agony."

My neighbor's neglected yard gives me mild discomfort, idiot drivers cause me mental uneasiness, my job sometimes fills me with dull distress, and politicians almost always give me unbearable agony.  Horse sense tells me that I should be able to convict my tormenters of second-degree animal cruelty, the going penalty for such torment.  But, no.  While my animal rights have certainly been violated under Washington State's recently concocted critter codes, my human rights haven't been despoiled one bit.

As one animal rights advocate put it, the court's decision "will guard against psychic pain as well as physical discomfort."

Psychic pain?  Does that mean instigating animal angst is also outlawed?

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer article, my sole source for this unfolding folderol, makes it all eminently unclear.  Consider this quote: "That law makes it a misdemeanor to knowingly or negligently cause 'unnecessary' pain in an animal."  Does this mean it would be okay to knowingly or negligently cause "necessary" pain?  

But consider the finer points of jurisprudence.  The case hangs not on the issue of "necessary" vs "unnecessary" pain but upon the esoteric point of law defined as "imagined pain."

As the Post-Intelligencer intelligently posted: "McLean [defense attorney Brian, advocating straight from the horse owner's mouth] argued that, although Hagerman [veterinarian Linda, testifying for the state] said she 'imagined' that an underfed horse would feel hunger, there was no evidence that the two horses actually were miserable, malnourished, sick or in pain."

Ergo, (which is legalistic Latin lingo meaning, "just wait till you hear this one") the herbivorous quadrupeds felt pain because a human "imagined" that they felt pain.

But let's untangle this mess before we get completely de-horsed.  The chronology gallops along like this: Vern and Katonya Zawistowski were collared for horse abuse and a District Court jury convicted them of second-degree animal cruelty.  But a Superior Court judge threw out those convictions, saying there was not enough evidence that the horses suffered pain.  After Prosecutor Alicia Burton lamented, "How do we ever prove these cases?" unnamed Appeals Court judges developed mental Charlie horses and obligingly invented their new definitions so another jury could reconvict the Zawistowskis.

At this point the story ceases being silly because (a) nag neglect is not nice, and (b) the whole thing smells suspiciously like ex post facto horsecrap, which is legalistic Latin lingo meaning, "We'll gladly convict you today for something you did legally yesterday."  The definition of animal cruelty didn't exist when the Zawistowskis were charged – it existed only when they were convicted the second time.

We are just not supposed to be creating ex post facto anything in this country.  (Reference: U.S. Constitution, Article I: "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.")

The judges, of course, didn't pass any law – pre, post or otherwise de facto.  They simply invented new rules after the horserace had already begun.  While that's an equine of a slightly dissimilar hue, it's still horsing around with our laws.

Worst of all, it sets a precedent.  And we all know what a precedent means to a judge.  A precedent, no matter how bad, becomes a concrete block on which to stack block after block of yet more bad legal decisions until nobody ever looks at or even remembers Reference: U.S. Constitution, Article I: "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

Abuse of a horse, of course, is coarse, but so is harming a human.  What looks like an insignificant horsefly's bite today could be the Trojan Horse that finally destroys all human rights tomorrow.

So be very, very careful when you take Poochie on his nightly tree-sniffing lawn-fertilizing hydrant-marking excursions.  If you yank too hard on his municipally mandated leash or snap at him louder than he snaps at you, you may be guilty of inflicting physical, spiritual, psychic or extrasensory pain.  His PETA-appointed lawyercrat might sue you for divorce, with Poochie getting your house and alimony payments.

Helluva thing when animals end up with more rights than humans have.  Can Vegetable Rights be far behind?