"I call for humans to have at least equal rights with animals"

In an anti-abortion letter in The Times of Malta of July 29, Gerry Cowie somehow thought he would serve his anti-abortion agenda by saying absurdities such as "I call for humans to have at least equal rights with animals. For too long they have come a poor second!".

My reply was the following:

If Gerry Cowie were to reverse that statement, this would necessitate compulsory veganism.

No, Mr Cowie, non-human animals do not have it that good. "Animals" are not just cats and dogs.

Millions of non-human animals are killed every year for food, and not only do few people complain, people actually pay others to kill these millions of animals.

And to put things in their proper perspective, while abortion is illegal in Malta (so what's the point of the letter?), the killing of millions of sentient animals for food or clothing is not.

Humans clearly do not come out as a "clear second". Humans are not considered legal property.

Dismiss this as extremist if you wish, but I am only stating facts without even making any moral judgement on the issue. People who think non-humans have it better than humans in Malta are simply deluded.

To the above, Gerry Cowie chose to reply as follows:

"Mr Kenneth Cassar has totally missed my point about rights and twisted it rather badly! My rather tongue-in-cheek comment about equal rights is merely an extension of my parallel between how we treat humans as opposed to animals".

A self-defeating loaded short comment full of misrepresentation and incomprehension, to which I replied:

How have I missed your point? And how have I twisted anything? All I mentioned was facts which you conveniently evaded.

Your "tongue-in-cheek" remark is completely off the mark, as I have demonstrated. Of course, you can always say that human life is more important (though one should ask...more important to whom? Certainly not to the non-human animals themselves).

Perhaps you should also note that the abortion of non-human foetuses is legal in Malta. So is the killing of any pet for whatever reason, provided it is done by a vet. So how exactly do non-humans have it better?

People are expected to do a little research before making wild and unsubstantiated claims. Tongue-in-cheek comments where the killing of innocent sentient beings is concerned, are certainly not appreciated, even when done to serve another agenda. I am sure you would not appreciate a tongue-in-cheek comment where it concerns the killing of innocent sentient human lives.

You may once again say that I'm missing and twisting the point about rights if you wish. You clearly have no idea about moral and legal rights, as well as the difference between the two. Don't meddle in topics you don't understand.

It would also help if you indicate to whom you were referring when you mentioned "sarcasm from those who oppose human life". I see neither sarcasm nor "opposition" to human life here. As JJ Meli has said (but of course, with different people in mind), "many of us start to comment against a person without actually reading properly what would have been said in his letter. At least we must admit that some of us are always ready to blog our idea's which could be bad. My advice is read it again and then comment". You would do well to heed JJ Meli's remark.

"My rather tongue-in-cheek comment about equal rights is merely an extension of my parallel between how we treat humans as opposed to animals".

The above quote from your comment shows very clearly that you did not even try to understand mine before 'shooting it down'. Your tongue-in-cheek comment about equal rights is completely off the mark precisely because it 'is merely an extension of (your) parallel between how we treat humans as opposed to animals'.

Just in case you have not got it yet, here is how we treat non-human animals: We abort their foetuses legally if we wish to do so; we kill them legally whenever we wish to (at the vet's); we force many of them to work for us, and kill them when they cannot work any more; we conduct painful terminal experiments on millions of them; we lock millions of them in cages for life; and these are just some of the legal things we do to them.

Do you still believe that your "parallel" helps in any way? I don't think so. Only a tiny minority of lucky non-humans live a life close enough to what most of us would take for-granted.

To which, Mr Cowie replied:

"Humans are not animals. You do not seem to want to accept the point I am trying to make here.

Human beings are often badly treated! Sadly many humans cannot 'take life for granted' since it is so easily (and 'legally') taken from them. Humans must come before animals. Those who believe otherwise truly are quite simply deluded.

Sadly society often places animals before people! So, back to my original point, which you do not appear prepared to accept:- It is high time we gave humankind the importance that some extreme animal lovers are prepared to give to animals!

I think your angry response serves only to add weight to my argument. I think you too would do well to read Mr Meli's other remarks since he clearly puts human beings first. If you value human life above animal life then please say so!

Perhaps you should make your point more clearly in future if you don't want what you say to be misinterpreted, if that is your issue here.

'Don't meddle in topics you don't understand!' Animals and humans - two different things. Your own parallel is sadly out of kilter with mine!".

Incredible. So much confusion and ignorance of basic facts of biology and evolution, to say nothing of the (I cannot put it more kindly) silliness of the belief that non-humans have it better than humans and that humans put non-human animals before other humans. So I could not help but reply in the following way:

You claim that humans are not animals. That explains a lot. Further debate with someone who doesn't know that Homo Sapiens is an animal species, would be a waste of time. But I'll answer your points anyway because they once again misrepresent (intentionally or otherwise) what I actually said.

1. True, humans are often badly treated. So are non-human animals.

2. True, many humans cannot 'take life for-granted'. So do much more non-human animals.

3. Humans cannot come before animals because humans are animals.

4. I am not an animal lover (whatever that means).

5. My response was not at all angry. It only exposed your lack of knowledge on the issue of animal rights and the treatment of non-human animals.

6. Every individual (and species) values its life above others (except for extreme altruists).

7. You have ignored and failed to address the proof I gave that we treat non-human animals much worse than we do humans.

8. Your 'argument', put simply, was that we treat 'animals' better than humans. I gave you enough evidence that the opposite is the case. The onus is on you to prove me wrong. You haven't even tried yet.

I expect more nonsense from Mr Cowie, but I am still undecided whether I will bother to reply. How can one conduct an intelligent debate with someone who still believes that humans "are not animals"?

On hate, moral cowardice, tolerance and priorities

Following last Wednesday's entry entitled "Hate campaigns and tarnished reputations", and my comments on The Times online's report entitled "Hunters call for end to 'hate' campaign", Sylvana Zarb Darmanin's further replies confirmed my deep suspicion that two major stumbling blocks preventing the comprehension of animal rights theory are usually a lack of grasp of ethics and moral philosophy, and sometimes a lack of comprehension of language. Ms Zarb Darmanin unfortunately seems to exhibit both, for how would one otherwise explain her latest comments?

For instance, Ms Zarb Darmanin writes:

"Mr. Cassar, I was glad to read that you have finally confirmed to all and sundry that you are an extremist. Indeed you are tarnishing the reputation of the law-abiding hunters.

As implied, these individuals practice something which is LEGAL whatever way you try to put it.

You mention that you have a right to expose injustice - WHERE IS THIS INJUSTICE?

Remember, there are laws regulating this activity which the law-abiding hunters respect. You have a right to your opinion, however you cannot consider yourself to be superior and impose your opinion on others.

I also have my opinion on various injustices committed, however, I am not that presumptuous to expect that I get my way on such things and neither show hatred towards other human-beings.

Going through your various comments to date, I find it rather hard to understand how you harbour such love towards birds, yet show such hatred and disrespect towards fellow human beings.

Honestly, Mr. Cassar, I just cannot comprehend this!!!".

Well, first of all, I never confirmed that I am an extremist. All that I said was that I am viewed by animal abusers as an extremist.

Ms Zarb Darmanin insist I am tarnishing the reputation of law-abiding hunters. All I am saying is that all hunters needlessly kill animals. I never said that legal hunting is illegal. I only believe it should be. If Ms Zarb Darmanin insists that I am tarnishing reputations by telling the truth, there is not much more I can say, and will let the readers judge for themselves.

Ms Zarb Darmanin asks where is the injustice. The injustice is in the practice of unnecessarily killing animals. That she does not see a problem with this does not make the practice just.

Regarding imposing opinions, anyone who understands basic science, knows that opinions cannot be imposed. One cannot force beliefs or opinions into anyone's mind. To be influenced (which is the most a campaigner can hope for), one needs to be at least receptive to new ideas.

Ms Zarb Darmanin says that she also has her opinion on various injustices committed, but says that she is not that "presumptuous" to expect that she gets her way on such things. Being morally convinced of an injustice and doing nothing about it, is usually called moral cowardice.

As for hate, I do not harbour hate against anyone. I only harbour hate against unjust practices.

I would have expected Ms Zarb Darmanin to understand, and recognize her mistake, particularly in her claim that she would tolerate injustice, and her calling "presumptuous" anyone who would expose or challenge injustice. Alas, the opposite is the case.

Ms Zarb Darmanin writes:

"Please, Please, Mr. Cassar – STOP YOUR INSULTS. One is judged through one's words and actions! Implying that one is ignorant or a coward make your argument no much better. Not doing anything about certain injustices is definitely not cowardice BUT respect and tolerance towards others.

Incidentally I hold the human-being above all others. As for your not harbouring hate against anyone but only harbouring hate against unjust practices, you seem to harbour quite an amount of hatred against me, even though I am not a hunter (an unjust practice in YOUR opinion).

An explanation as to the mix-up in your priorities (as requested in my previous comment) would definitely have been more appropriate than rude insults".

Well, to start with, I didn't insult anyone. It is Ms Zarb Darmanin herself who said (twice) that she would do nothing about injustice. To moral people, doing nothing about injustice is moral cowardice. If one tolerates injustice, that says more about them than it says about me.

Let us see once again what Ms Zarb Darmanin is saying here. Ms Zarb Darmanin says that she also has her opinion on various injustices committed, but goes on to say that, however, she is not that presumptuous to expect that she gets her way on such things.

Now, remember that Ms Zarb Darmanin does not believe that killing birds is an injustice, so when she says that she has her own opinion on various injustices committed, she is limiting the injustices to those committed on humans. To make matters worse, she goes on to insist that "not doing anything about certain injustices is definitely not cowardice BUT respect and tolerance towards others".

So does Ms Zarb Darmanin believe that moral persons should do nothing about injustices, such as discrimination at the work-place, including, but not limited to, sexual and racial discrimination? Does she believe that people should do nothing about injustices such as the incarceration of people for political or religious reasons? Does she believe that people should do nothing about the injustice of torturing prisoners, for whatever reason? But perhaps I am being too harsh. Perhaps this is not what she had in mind when she says that injustice should be tolerated out of respect and tolerance towards the unjust. If this is not what she meant, I sure would like to know what she did mean. Remember we are talking about what she believes to be injustices, and not simply differences of opinion on matters that have nothing to do with justice.

And to make matters worse, since all this is about writing letters and comments, does Ms Zarb Darmanin really believe that people should not even do as "little" as writing a simple letter or comment, opposing injustice, again out of respect and tolerance for the people performing the injustice? And she tells me that I have mixed priorities!

I also must comment on Ms Zarb Darmanin's claim that I "hate her", presumably because I choose to reply to her comments on The Times online. I do not even hate people who have done me personal harm in the past. But if she wants to believe that I see her as worse than such people, again, she might as well suit herself. If I saw every reply to my comments and letters that oppose my views, as coming from people who hate me, I would end up being paranoid and would need psychological help. Ms Zarb Darmanin is lucky in this sense. She only has me and a few others who reply to her comments opposing her views. Surely this should be no case for paranoia.

I also checked her previous comment in The Times online, and found that she didn't mention priorities. But perhaps she refers to when she said: "I find it rather hard to understand how you harbour such love towards birds, yet show such hatred and disrespect towards fellow human-beings".

Her confusion stems from two common mistaken perceptions about myself.

For one, I do not harbour any special love of birds. I just see birds as individuals with an equal right to life and liberty.

I also do not hate human beings. I only believe they have no right to murder non-humans for pleasure or convenience. Once again, I hate practices and not people. To say that someone who opposes the unnecessary killing of non-human animals is someone who hates humans is no different from saying that someone who opposed the Nazi holocaust hates Germans.

If everyone respected everyone else, (including respecting non-human animals), there would be no need for priorities. We would simply live our lives doing as little harm to others as possible. Alas, too many people insist on harming others. To claim that one should not defend the abused or harmed out of respect and "tolerance" towards the abuser is, to put it mildly, bizarre.

I'll end this entry with the lyrics of the song "If you tolerate this, your children will be next" by the Manic Street Preachers, which deal on tolerance of injustice.

The future teaches you to be alone.

The present to be afraid and cold.

So if I can shoot rabbits,

Then I can shoot fascists.

Bullets for your brain today.

But we'll forget it all again.

Monuments put from pen to paper,

Turns me into a gutless wonder.

And if you tolerate this,

Then your children will be next.

Gravity keeps my head down.

Or is it maybe shame,

At being so young and being so vain.

Holes in your head today.

But I'm a pacifist.

I've walked La Ramblas,

But not with real intent.

And if you tolerate this,

Then your children will be next.

And on the street tonight an old man plays,

With newspaper cuttings of his glory days.

And if you tolerate this,

Then your children will be next.