Animal rights: Who cares?

Do we really care?

Dr Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando (a Nationalist MP) writes an opinion piece in today's The Times, which he entitles "Animal welfare: Who cares?". I shall limit myself to commenting only on parts of his article, and will suspend my judgement on his propaganda about his government's allocation of funds in last year and this year's budget towards stray animals until the funds are actually spent, and the much publicised after-care centre for injured pets will actually come to fruition.

At this point, I will only state the obvious, which is that the "animal centre" will not actually be an "animal centre" since it will presumably deny its service to the animals who need it most. If the centre would actually be an "animal centre", its rooms would be filled with patients from the government "abattoir". But who cares about these animals?

Dr Pullicino Orlando writes: "I have been involved in animal welfare issues for a number of years now. Last year I had the honour of presenting the largest petition ever collected on our islands, 40,000-plus signatures, which aimed at pushing specific animal welfare-related demands forward. Both the Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment, to whom the petition was presented, were very receptive and concrete measures are being taken to help all those dedicated individuals involved in the care of abandoned animals and to provide the necessary infrastructure and amenities".

40,000-plus signatures, in a tiny island such as Malta, could in some sense be construed as a significant achievement. However, come to think of it, with a population of about 400,000, and considering that the petition was only demanding more stringent laws regarding cats and dogs (not too controversial, is it?), one could well say that it was a huge under-achievement, and kind of proves the point (disputed by Dr Pullicino Orlando further down) that Malta is truly not an "animal-loving" country - and this, even disregarding the thousands of other animals who are not considered cute and cuddly, and whom Dr Pullicino Orlando himself does not even seem to care about: he eats them.

Moreover, the fact that the changes (which still have to come into effect - the Animal Welfare Council has apparently been disbanded) required a petition at all suggests that the situation in Malta with regards to the animal species mentioned in the petition (mainly cats and dogs) was not so good in the first place - which again proves that Malta is not an "animal-loving" nation at all, and that the government was not doing anything at all regarding the situation. Will it start doing something now, now that the general elections are getting closer? Let's hope so.

Dr Pullicino Orlando continues: "It hurts me to read certain letters claiming that we live in an 'animal-unfriendly society'. It would be foolish of me to say that there aren't some sick individuals out there who vent their twisted desires on innocent animals. These are the same type of people who are cruel to 'weaker' human beings they get the opportunity to interact with.

It is vital that, when caught, the relevant authorities deal with them in the severest manner possible in order to send a strong and clear message to this minuscule percentage of perverts who are, unfortunately, to be found all over the world".

Again, as far as I know, Dr Pullicino Orlando is not a vegan, or even a vegetarian. This makes him "animal-unfriendly" too, like it makes the majority of the Maltese population animal-unfriendly. Cows, pigs, chickens etc are as much animals as humans, cats, dogs etc are. It is only our speciesist mentality that makes a distinction between animals whom we feel entitled to use and abuse, and even murder, and other animals whom we paternalistically assign the purpose of being companions or pets. Therefore, it is vital - and that is what I am trying to do - that we send a clear message to this huge percentage of morally inconsistent humans found all over the world, that all sentient animals are individuals with the right to life and the right not to be treated as human property.

Dr Pullicino Orlando then writes: "The above-mentioned petition, the dedication shown by a large number of individuals and associations involved in animal welfare and the support being given by the government is evidence that Malta is far from being "animal-unfriendly".

Again, as I already explained above, the petition proves quite the contrary. It proves that only a tiny minority cares at all about cats and dogs, let alone other animals whom they have killed for them. All that was required, after all, was a simple signature - no massive changes in one's lifestyle! And again, I will suspend my comments on the support being given by the government until the time when it is actually given. We have somehow become accustomed to empty promises. Let's hope I am proved wrong in this instance.

Dr Pullicino Orlando then says: "It is easy for armchair critics to send denigrating letters to the press. One wonders if these individuals do anything concrete to help alleviate the situation some animals find themselves in".

Here, I partially agree with Dr Pullicino Orlando. It is truly easy for armchair critics to send denigrating letters to the press, which I also made a point of in "Vulnerable non-human animals and no-kill sanctuaries". However, it is also easy to expect changes that do not require any kind of sacrifice on one's part, and not to do anything about the changes which require positive action from oneself. It is relatively easy to speak out against the abuses you do not take part in yourself, but it is much harder to stop doing your own worse abuses, like having non-human animals used and killed just so that you may have a convenient and tasty source of food, when a healthier alternative is readily available.

Dr Pullicino Orlando goes on to say that: "The Animal Welfare Division of the Department of Education is doing sterling work when it comes to fostering awareness among schoolchildren. I was involved in their work and can vouch for this".

While I appreciate the animal awareness work done in our schools, apparently much more needs to be done, which becomes very obvious when one reads of the San Anton School "donating" a parrot for life-imprisonment at the Razzett tal-Hbiberija, reported in today's The Times.

Dr Pullicino Orlando concludes by saying: "We'll get there because we're definitely a society which, as a whole, is far from being animal-unfriendly. Quite the opposite! Let's stop putting ourselves down".

On the contrary, we're definitely a society which, as I have shown, is very animal-unfriendly, when one considers that most of us see nothing wrong with imprisoning, selling, buying and killing most non-human animals just for convenience, pleasure or financial gain.

Dr Pullicino Orlando would perhaps be more credible if, for instance, he makes it a point that his government permits no "animal circuses" to come to Malta (yes, we know that once again, animal circus visits are planned for December), when there is no doubt or controversy in the claim that the only reason for such animal exploitation is pure pleasure and profit. Let's see if Dr Pullicino Orlando really cares. Let's see him stop the circus. Oh, but wait...perhaps "circus animals" are not "animals"? Are they perhaps machines? Who cares about "circus", "farm" and "zoo" animals, dear Dr Pullicino Orlando? I'm sure that, being a member of parliament in the governing party, you could help stop any future "animal circuses" from coming to Malta, like many civilized European countries have already done - that is, if you really care about "animals".

Malta is not an "animal-loving" nation, whatever that means! Of course, this does not mean we should "put ourselves down", or that we are worse than other countries (even though perhaps we are). It simply means we should work harder to eliminate speciesism, which is the source of most animal abuse.

"Welfarists" and abolitionists

In the meantime, Franco Farrugia writes a long letter on animal welfare in today's The Malta Independent. I shall only comment on one paragraph, which I see as particularly disturbing, despite Mr Farrugia's good intentions.

Mr Farrugia writes: "You see, there are two kinds of people and so, two schools of thought, insofar as animals are concerned. The first kind includes those who consider the presence of animals as a nuisance: as far as these are concerned, the money should be used in order to have less and less animals around for the human being to be cruel with. The second kind, and this includes the undersigned, includes those who are real animal-lovers and who would rather be in the company of animals than in that of fellow human-beings: for these people, money should be used in order to improve the situation of animal wellbeing in our country, and so, eradicate animal cruelty".

First of all, Mr Farrugia fails to note another kind of people in the non-human animal issue - the animal rights advocate who holds that animals are not property, and that they should not be used for any human purpose. This has nothing to do with "animals" being a nuisance, and all to do with their fundamental right not to be treated as property. As I said in a previous blog entry, there is no love without respect.

This is not a question of having less animals to be cruel with. It's just about the fact that human imposed breeding, selling and buying of any non-human animal is in itself abuse, since that single act treats non-human animals as human property. And property cannot have rights - if anything, property can only have priviledges which we may or may not arbitrarily assign to them if it is convenient for us to do so.

I also find the claim by many "animal lovers" that they prefer the company of "animals" to that of humans particularly worrying. No wonder the general public thinks of us as weirdos who turn to non-human animals because we lack the ability to maintain good human relationships. Animal rights is not an "animal enthusiast" club. Animal rights is a matter of strict justice, and the "love of animals" does not even play a part in the question.

After all, one does not necessarily have to seek the company of black people to campaign against racism or at least to be anti-racist. For the animal rights advocate, the only way to eliminate most "animal cruelty" is by eliminating speciesism, and this includes the negation of the false assumption that there is a distinction between "human" and "animal". It's like making a distinction between "cows" or "humans" and "mammals". Both cows and humans are mammals, and humans, after all, are animals too.