Flabbergasted by the arguments of a "self-styled" animal rights advocate
It looks like I earned myself a new fan. Mr George Callus writes the following letter (entitled "Animal welfare action") in today's The Times:
"Flabbergasted is not a strong enough word to describe my reaction to a letter published on November 14. In it a certain Kenneth Cassar, the self-styled and apparently only member of Animal Rights Malta, chose to attack Jeffery Pullicino Orlando, of all people, for what he deems to be shortcomings on this MP's part with regard to animal welfare issues!
Anyone who has been following the positive developments of the past months knows that Dr Pullicino Orlando has been doing his utmost to bring certain issues to the attention of the relevant authorities. Mr Cassar's attempt at belittling the 40,000 plus petition with specific animal welfare related demands presented by Dr Pullicino Orlando betrays a lack of genuine motives behind his diatribe. This was undoubtedly the largest petition ever presented in Malta. An equivalent effort in the UK would, for instance require six million signatures in order to have the same percentage of the total population behind it.
One wonders what Mr Cassar is doing, in concrete terms, for animals apart from writing ridiculous letters to the press".
Mr Callus, who seems to be already in "election mode", conveniently fails to address any of the issues I raised in my letter of November 9 (published in The Times on November 14), but instead focuses only on his misinterpretation of a point I made regarding the petition Dr Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando presented to parliament. So perhaps I should rephrase the point I wanted to make, in the hope that Mr Callus would this time round understand me better.
In short, regarding the petition, I had only said that 40,000 signatures out of a population of 400,000, considering that the demands in the petition were very mild demands which did not involve any huge lifestyle changes (it dealt with only cats and dogs), may be seen as an under-achievement. Of course, apart from the fact that this is only one opinion (others might disagree), never did I blame the under-achievment on Dr Pullicino Orlando. How could I, when all or most of the work in collecting signatures was done by animal organizations? The "blame", if any, falls squarely on those who did not care to sign.
My only personal remark on the petition was only to the effect that Malta is not so much an "animal-loving nation" (ask the animal sanctuaries!), and that I would have expected that the government would not have to wait for Dr Pullicino Orlando to present it with the petition to do something about the disgraceful situation we have with regards to stray cats and dogs. I hope that much is clear.
The other points in my letter, which Mr Callus conveniently ignored, were about dogs and cats not being the only animals, and that other animals equally deserve the right to life; that even though the Education Department is doing good work in animal awareness, apparently much more needs to be done considering the "donation" of a parrot by a school for life-imprisonment at Razzett tal-Hbiberija; and that if Dr Pullicino Orlando really cared about non-human animals, considering he is a member of parliament, he would do all that is in his power to stop any more "animal circuses" from coming to Malta.
Of course, Mr Callus conveniently did not comment on any of the above, but chose to instead indulge in an ad hominem attack on me. But let me address each of his irrelevant remarks anyway.
Regarding his "self-styled" remark, I shall only ask this question: Self styled what? Mr Callus did not say. If he meant "self styled" founder of Animal Rights Malta, then I guess this makes as much sense as calling the founder of The Times "self-styled". Should I call him "self-styled" secretary of Dr Pullicino Orlando? Also, Mr Callus should know that truth does not depend on how many people believe it to be so. Remember Galileo?
Mr Callus then says that he "wonders what (I am) doing, in concrete terms, for animals apart from writing ridiculous letters to the press". Well, for one, I am not killing any animals, or having animals killed for me (like Mr Callus presumably does). The best action in the interest of all animals is to stop killing any of them.
As for the rest, if Mr Callus is really interested in learning more about the unpaid work I do on behalf of all animals (and not just the cute and cuddly ones), I invite him to read this blog and see for himself.
I would only like to add that I cannot be sure whether in reading my blog, I will make people my "friends" or "enemies". Most probably, many people who exploit non-human animals or have non-human animals killed on their behalf just for pleasure and convenience, will see me in a negative light. However, since I neither do my animal rights advocacy work for profit (I do not get paid), nor to get elected to any post (I am only using my right to free-speech), if there is even a remote chance that I will educate some people on the true meaning of animal rights, it would all be worth my effort. The only beneficiaries will be the animals spared from suffering and certain death with each person I manage to convince. I only hope I am up to the task, but on this, I can only let others judge. And as for my letters being "ridiculous", I would have rather appreciated it if Mr Callus would have pointed out which parts of my letters are "ridiculous", and where I am wrong. Who knows, perhaps I might learn something new. But then again, it is much easier to hurl insults than to produce reasoned counter-arguments to the points raised in my letters.
If you cannot win...censor
It looks like Franco Farrugia has decided to censor parts on my letters from which he quotes in his blog, including parts where I mention my own blog. I presume that he did this so that the readers of his blog would not have the opportunity to read my side of the story. Perhaps little does he know that making a search of my name or "Animal Rights Malta" on any search-engine will immediately give both my website and blog. The internet is a wonderful means of free speech.
Both for the fact that I am totally opposed to censorship of beliefs and opinions, and also because I believe in fairness, I will not remove all the links to his blog from mine. In fact, whenever I see the need to mention him, or quote from his blog (it all depends on what he says), I will keep linking back to him. I will then let the readers make up their own minds as to who makes any or most sense.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment