Ornithologists and abolitionists: the fundamental difference

Just when the Autumn bird murder season is about to begin, Jill Goulston's letter entitled "Hunting solution" is published in The Times.

Ms Goulston writes: "As the 'hunting season' is about to assail our ear drums and our sensibilities once more I have been inspired by the perfect, simple solution.

Those opposed to the hunting are overwhelmingly of this persuasion because of the wholesale depredations caused to migratory birds and the effects this has on ecologies far beyond Malta's shores. The hunting fraternity continuously plead that they are not responsible for this and that only the occasional passing buzzard or flamingo gets shot by mistake. Thus the arguments rage and neither side listens to the other! So we come to my solution - oh so simple and guaranteed to please everyone, well at least those who speak and write the truth. Let us move our 'hunting' months outside the times of maximum migration - told you it was simple!

If hunters only want quail and turtle doves that is what they will get and the rest of us can enjoy the heart easing sight of birds soaring overhead on their way north or south. Try not to dismiss me as 'a foreigner'; those of us who choose to live here care deeply about the place or we would not have invested here".

The above quoted letter needs an explanation. First of all, Ms Goulston seems to assume there are only two sides to the hunting debate - that of the ornithologists or nature lovers, and that of the hunters. Ms Goulston fails to acknowledge the view of the animal rights advocate, whose opposition to all hunting stems from the recognition that all sentient animals have a right to life and liberty, irrespective of whether they are protected by speciesist laws or not. This makes the solution proposed by Ms Goulston unacceptable, and makes her belief that her solution would please everyone wrong. Ms Goulston also wrongly assumes that people who would not agree with her "solution" are those who do not speak and write the truth.

Is it not true that birds are sentient individuals? Is it not true that birds would choose to stay alive rather than being blasted out of the sky? Is it not true that hunting is an unnecessary (and therefore immoral) tradition by which sentient non-human animals are unnecessarily killed? Is it not true that the only "justification" hunters and their supporters claim on behalf of their practice comes from their unsubstantiated prejudice that the lives of birds do not matter simply because they are birds and not human?

Moving the hunting months outside the times of maximum migration, while admittedly sparing lots of birds from being murdered, is not a solution at all. Although killing less is always better than killing more, when applied to humans we claim that this does not justify unnecessarily killing anyone at all. To claim otherwise in the case of non-humans is simply speciesist.

Of course, most ornithologists and/or environmentalists (those who are not also animal rights advocates) would see Ms Goulston's suggestion as a good one, which is why I was not surprised by Birdlife Malta president Joseph Mangion's statement in today's The Times, where he is quoted as saying that "BirdLife recognises the right of the Maltese hunters to hunt certain species that are allowed by law".

Abolitionist animal rights advocates do not recognize such a "right", since the supposed "right" to hunt breaches the actual and definitely more fundamental right to life. This is why animal rights advocates support Birdlife Malta's campaign for a ban on Spring hunting only because it would be a total ban, and would not discriminate between different species, allowing some to be murdered while protecting others simply because they are not members of a numerous species or else simply because humans consider them beautiful to watch. See also "On pro-hunting conservationists, fanatical campaigns and intellectual dishonesty" and "All non-human animals are endangered animals".

And as a final note, no, I do not dismiss Ms Goulston's suggestion just because she is a "foreigner". I dismiss her solution because it is murderous and speciesist.

Dog sanctuary in desperate need of volunteers

Today's The Times and The Malta Independent report that The Island Sanctuary (a no-kill sanctuary) may have to close down soon due to a lack of volunteers. The sanctuary, which is based at Tas-Silg, cares for 160 dogs and is run by about six volunteers, all women over 40, who dedicate all their free hours to the dogs at the sanctuary.

Volunteer Yvonne Aquilina says that at least eight or nine people a day are needed to look after so many dogs. Being old dogs, most of them required medication, a lot of attention and sometimes trips to the vet.

Moreover, while dogs were recovering they sometimes needed 24-hour monitoring.

Ms Aquilina, a teacher, said that there was more work at the centre in winter but that was when the number of volunteers decreased.

While in the past several students and housewives used to appear at the centre to give a helping hand, these were now finding jobs and making less of an appearance.

Ms Aquilina said the centre would have to close down unless the situation was rectified.

Claire Gafa' explained that currently there are only two volunteers at the sanctuary to do the morning chores for all the dogs. These chores include food preparation, administering medication, letting dogs out for their half-an-hour to two hours' exercise within the sanctuary's premises, cleaning the pens and washing the plates. "These chores are done by two people and it takes us from 6am to 2pm every day," said Ms Gafa'. "We have now reached the point where we can no longer operate in this manner". Ms Gafa' said that the sanctuary would have to close down unless more volunteers turn up.

The consequence of this is an unmentionable subject to Ms Gafa', as to any other animal lover. "We have been in this situation for three to four years," she explained. The number of volunteers at Tas-Silg has been falling for various reasons, most of all personal reasons such as female volunteers becoming pregnant, students who found full-time work and others who changed from shift-work to working office hours.

A good number of volunteers turn up at weekends but, "we are really tight on weekdays". "I believe that many of those professing their love for animals could spare a couple of hours, especially housewives or retired people, and come and help out. All we need is just five people willing to give three hours of their time to help keep this place running," said Ms Gafa'.

As with any other voluntary organisation, finances do pose a problem. However, in one way or another Island Sanctuary has always benefited from the generosity of animal lovers. Ms Gafa' added that vets have also been very helpful in providing their services at heavily discounted rates. "It is a sheer lack of manpower that is driving us close to closing this sanctuary. So please help us".

The Island Sanctuary has been in operation for the last 20 years. It has been complaining of a lack of volunteers for the past three years, but its appeals have fallen on deaf ears.

The Island Sanctuary can be contacted on 2165 9895/7901 8901 or via e-mail at info@islandsanctuary.com.mt.

On the false dilemma of plant vs animal life

Plant vs animal life - a false dilemma

Peter Axisa, in today's The Sunday Times, replies back to Mario Desira's letter of August 19 on the positive effects of vegetarianism. Mr Axisa writes:

"Mario Desira (The Sunday Times, August 19) has gone to great lengths trying to persuade everyone of vegetarianism's positive effects. He may very well be right but his letter needs commenting upon, even though I thought I had made my point in my reply to John P. Darmanin (August 12).

'It is a way of life that has been in existence since humans first appeared on earth'. By the same token, what about the cavemen who hunted down animals day in day out?".

No one disputes that cavemen hunted non-human animals for food. All Mr Desira was correctly claiming is precisely that vegetarianism is a way of life that has been in existence since humans first appeared on earth. This is just a basic historical fact, and Mr Desira did not extrapolate any moral significance from it. To deduce morality from nature is what is called the "naturalistic fallacy". Nature is not a moral agent. It is only individuals with brains who may be so. Therefore, the simple fact that early humans might or might not have eaten the flesh of non-human animals says nothing about whether it is moral to do so, in the same way that the fact that early men habitually raped women does not make rape morally justified.

Mr Axisa goes on to say: "More recently, the miracle of the five loaves and two fish or the lamb at the Last Supper?".

It is an indication of lack of arguments for support of an immoral opinion when someone pulls out the "bible card". A literal reading of the Bible makes it a moral obligation for god-fearing people to publicly kill adulterers, homosexuals, children who disrespect their parents, and more, not to mention the sanctioning of slavery. I wonder if Mr Axisa considers all this as morally justified as his eating of lambs and fishes just because "the Bible says so". And lest someone says that it is the old testament, it will be opportune to remind oneself that an omniscient and omnipotent God cannot change his mind. Moreover, I have already previously argued that the Bible should not be taken as literal historical fact in its entirety. This is the only way to weed out the otherwise literally barbaric acts that a literal interpretation would sanction or demand.

Mr Axisa continues: "I 'understand the relationship between sunlight, growth and health' but I also understand that there are other important elements for the production of fruit and vegetables that include water and nutrients. Perhaps Mr Desira is not aware that most nutrients plants feed on, come from the application of farmyard manure. I need not explain where that comes from! Plants need phosphorus to strengthen their roots. That mostly comes from pulverised bones, so even here, nature is showing you the link between plants and animals".

Again, no one is denying this. However, apart from the fact that animal bones are not absolutely necessary for the production of manure, even if we concede animal bones as necessary, veganism is only about the avoidance of the unnecessary exploitation of non-human animals. The use of bones (if this were absolutely necessary) coming from animals (human or non-human) who die of natural causes would provide no dilemma to vegans, for the simple fact that it doesn't involve the exploitation and killing of sentient (and living) individuals.

Mr Axisa goes on to say: "As for 'eating meat or fish being the most unhygienic thing to do', I think that this is beyond acceptance. If by eating meat or fish 'one's body ends up as a biological cemetery of dead animals' I can only say that with the same argument, the bodies of those eating solely fruit and vegetables are a permanent decomposing compost heap!".

Perhaps, what Mr Axisa fails to note is that the human digestive system takes longer to digest and convert animal food than it does plant food. That was the point Mr Desira was trying to make. This means that while the bodies of vegetarians and vegans do not become "decomposting compost heap" because the human digestive system takes care that this does not happen, it is a fact that the body of the meat-eater does become a cemetery of dead animals for the simple reason that the human digestive system takes much longer to digest and convert animal food.

Mr Axisa then says: "Mr Desira quotes Leonardo Da Vinci who once said that 'people will in the future look on the consumption of flesh as barbarian'. In reaction, am I supposed to quote the many 'great people' who think differently?".

Here it is obvious that Mr Axisa has missed the point entirely. In Mr Desira's quote, Leonardo Da Vinci was talking about what he believed would happen to Europeans in the near future. His prediction has proved to be correct since the vegetarian/vegan movement is steadily growing with time. Quoting "great people" who support meat eating would be besides the point, since they would not be predicting anything about the future. We all know that at present the overall majority still eat murdered non-human animals. We do not need any "great people" to tell us that.

Mr Axisa then says that: "I am well aware that 'even the microscopic organisms in the kitchen sink have feelings, including pain' so readers beware - think twice before flushing your washing up water down the drain! It was nice to note that even plants have feelings but not so nice to see a tinge of egoism when trying to justify that eating plants is not as bad as eating animals because the former lack a nervous system".

Again, Mr Axisa misses the point entirely, perhaps partly due to Mr Desira's choice of words. While plants do in a certain sense have sense perception, which is nothing more than stimulus-response, plants do not have a brain connected to a nervous system, which is something that is absolutely required for recognizing, and therefore feeling pain. This makes the sarcastic comment about thinking twice before flushing water down the drain (because of microscopic organisms in the water) irrelevant. The microscopic organisms in question cannot be sentient because they neither have a brain nor a nervous system. For someone to be someone, that is for someone to be conscious of one's own existence, and therefore for someone to feel the pain (and know it is he/she who is feeling the pain and not someone else) one would require a functioning brain which registers the pain sensations through a nervous system. This is all standard and basic biology - scientific fact. Therefore, it is not "egoism" to justify eating plants (who are not individuals with a self they are conscious of) while protecting the right to life of sentient and conscious individuals who do have a self they are conscious of, and who do feel pain and appreciate life. On the other hand, it is discriminatory to deny the enjoyment of life to some sentient and conscious individuals, and deny it to others just for unnecessary and trivial reasons such as the enjoyment of the taste of their flesh.

Mr Axisa then says: "Roll on the time when 'humans can subsist on sunlight'. I can just picture these multinationals probing at the idea of patenting the rights for the bottling/canning/prepacking a dash of sunlight. Imagine the supermarket shelves full of different tasting sunshine extracts. This is reminding me of a sunshine drink we bought when we were children! I can toy with the idea of driving around in a sunshine-driven car but with respect (call me conservative), I cannot see myself sitting at table chewing on a bit of sunshine!".

While the above might put a smirk on speciesist faces, it shows a basic lack of understanding of simple English language. Nowhere did Mr Desira claim that humans will in some time in the future be able to subsist on sunlight alone. What Mr Desira said was that since we cannot subsist on sunlight alone, we have to do the best next thing, which is to subsist on primary food sources such as plants and fruit. But then again, when one does not have any rational arguments to support his prejudiced actions, one will resort to anything...the discredited "bible-card", misrepresentation of others' claims, and why not, sarcasm too.

Mr Axisa then says: "Mr Desira says that 'there is nothing natural about eating cats and dogs, whether pets or not and that applies to all creatures...' I beg to differ. Although eating cats and dogs is not up my street, there are people of different cultures who think otherwise".

That different cultures think otherwise says nothing about the wrongness or justness of particular actions. Compulsory female genital mutilation is considered justified in some cultures. So is cannibalism, forced prostitution, child slavery, etc. However, it is only moral relativists who believe that morality is a question of personal taste, particularly if the act in question is part and parcel with some culture or religion. Therefore, Mr Desira is perfectly correct in claiming that the unnecessary killing of sentient individual animals is always wrong, no matter the culture.

Mr Axisa continues: "Besides, are we insinuating that the balance of nature be completely done away with? If my garden were to become infested with rats, am I supposed to feel good about it and not even contemplate using a rat poison or introduce some cats to kill them off? Should I let them multiply to see how prolific they can be, because I suppose rats have feelings too?".

There is a simple answer to these questions. Life necessarily involves conflict of interests. But while in the case of human vs human, the general understanding is that wherever possible such conflicts should be resolved in a non-violent and non-lethal manner, simple speciesist prejudice makes many people believe that non-humans do not matter morally, and that human vs non-human conflicts of interest may be resolved simply by killing the non-human. In the particular example of rats which Mr Axisa mentions, there are non-lethal ways of getting rid of rats apart from the easy but immoral solution of rat poison. One way is the use of non-lethal traps. Another is the use of contraception (which can be added to food) which will reduce the number of rats significantly. In an incrementally non-speciesist world, more humane means of human vs non-human conflict of interest resolution will be found.

Mr Axisa concludes his letter by saying: "It's nice to know I got one thing right in my reply, i.e. that of soya products but I now learn that even these products 'can have adverse health reactions'! I can understand one turning vegetarian for many reasons, but certainly not for the reasons most of the same vegetarians come up with. Also, it is important to appreciate that what is good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander. As for comparing life-spans, all I can say is that my father lived to the ripe age of 97. His motto was 'everything in moderation'!".

Regarding soya products, it is true that excess of use of soya products might have "adverse health reactions". However, nowhere is it claimed that normal soya use is unhealthy. As for the comment that what's good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander, actually the opposite is the case. Both the goose and the gander are sentient individuals who have the right to life and liberty, and that's all that matters. If Mr Axisa means that it is not possible for anyone to become vegetarian, then he is perhaps simply mistaken. As for the motto "everything in moderation", this is fine except when dealing with moral questions. Everything in moderation would not apply in the case of human murder for instance. No one would claim that human murder is fine as long as it is done "in moderation". The same applies to non-human animals who have an equal right to life and liberty.

The overused argument that either one is entitled to kill any life form, or one is not entitled to kill any life form is a false dilemma, since it rejects the reasoned and reasonable proposition that to kill a non-sentient life form when one requires to do so does not harm the thing killed. To be harmed, one has to have a mental life that is conscious of its individual welfare. This requires a functioning brain, which plants do not possess.

On non-humans as pets and food

Meanwhile, Christine Garzia, PRO of the Vegetarian Society of Malta, also wrote a letter on the same topic to The Sunday Times which is published today. Ms Garzia writes:

"I was taken aback by Peter Axisa's arguments (The Sunday Times, August 12). I believe that people who have animal companions living with them and who love them would never ever think of killing and consuming them, for two reasons.

The psychological bond that develops between an animal companion and the individual who cares for the animal supersedes any other instinct. Secondly, we are brought up in a society where certain animals, such as cows and chickens, are treated as objects, while others like dogs and cats, are treated as companions.

I consider rabbits to be in a rather hazy place: ambiguous animals who are sometimes treated as objects, while at times they are treated as companions. Such contradictory demarcations are all a product of social learning.

In essence, vegetarianism is about challenging current thinking - as other similar movements before have done - and ultimately emerged from several ideas. One main notion inherent in the vegetarian ideal is ethically-driven and involves the choice of changing one's behaviour to reduce the harm done to the environment; and to the suffering inflicted on animals and to our planet.

Challenging society's attitudes of eating patterns and notions is not easy, and there is a variety of reasons why an individual is driven to adopt such a lifestyle. In 2004, I conducted local research for my undergraduate thesis 'On becoming vegetarian: a study of beliefs and motives', which discusses the motives behind such a change in lifestyle. It is available on the Vegetarian Society of Malta Website (www.vegmalta.org).

A fact worth noting - an aspect of meat-eating that non-vegetarians are unaware of - is that when humans consume meat, they are, in essence, eating vegetables originally converted into meat, at a great financial and environmental cost, besides inflicting unnecessary suffering to animals.

This reality translates in non-vegetarians consuming much more vegetables than vegetarians.

Consequently, the issue of GMOs proves to be a far more significant concern to non-vegetarians, especially more so since most of the GMO-produced soya goes to animal feed.

Having mentioned soya products, the gist of the article that Mr Axisa quoted from the Website, included two points. Consumer needs and wants are extremely powerful. So many substitute products are widely available that it is now much easier to make the transition to a vegetarian diet than it was several years ago. However, just because soya products are so widely available, this does not mean that vegetarians eat soya every day, as his use of the word 'staple' implies.

As a proud 'convert' to vegetarianism, I now couldn't imagine living any other way".

The positive effects of vegetarianism

Mr Mario Desira, in today's The Sunday Times, provides an excellent reply to Mr Peter Axisa's letter of last week, to which I had given a short reply on this blog. Mr Desira writes:

"There were a few common misconceptions in Peter Axisa's contribution on vegetarianism (The Sunday Times, August 12). Vegetarianism is not a fad diet. Rather, it is a way of life that has been in existence since humans first appeared on earth.

As a vegan for the past 26 years, I speak for most vegetarians when I say that not only do we miss nothing in terms of culinary delight, but the effect of a vegetarian diet on both mind and body are positive and healthy.

As a life-long fruit and vegetable grower Mr Axisa would definitely understand the relationship between sunlight, growth and health. While we cannot eat sunshine, we do the next best thing - fruit and vegetables that have converted sunlight into food.

Sunlight is the real food, and the more one departs from sunlight, the more unnatural and unhealthy the diet. That means the more processed, modified and cooked food is, the less sunlight energy is available and one would be asking for trouble: ill health, reduced lifespan and disease.

Eating meat or fish is the most unhygienic thing one can do in life, building one's own cells from animals who have been born and bred in captivity and more or less brutally killed, thereby one's body ends up as a biological cemetery of dead animals!

Many great thinkers, philosophers and scientists since time immemorial have pointed out the superiority of a vegetarian diet, explaining that it is an expression of humanity's loftier traits, namely compassion and wisdom. As Leonardo Da Vinci once said, people will in the future look on the consumption of flesh as barbarian.

It may surprise Mr Axisa to know that in the universe everything is alive and conscious, either potentially or actually, including the smallest unicellular micro-organisms. Even the microscopic organisms in a kitchen sink have feelings, including pain! Thus even vegetables have feelings and show response to their environment. This has been scientifically demonstrated long ago by hooking up vegetation to EEG equipment. This not only does not invalidate vegetarianism, it is confirming its wisdom. If a cell or plant can feel, how much more a complex animal with a functional nervous system!

Until humanity evolves to the point where like plants we can subsist on sunlight, we have to rely on fruit and vegetables. Fruits are meant by nature to be eaten to ensure the spreading of its seed, while admittedly vegetables are entities in their own right. There have been for some time groups that do not eat vegetables as they are regarded compassionately as sentient entities and I suspend judgment for now as to whether this view is extreme or not.

Nobody is suggesting we starve to death, but surely at least we are choosing the option of least damage when we consume vegetables. Due to the absence of a central nervous system, even the word 'pain' may be a misnomer when applied, as we apply it conventionally, to vegetables.

The growth of organic vegetables, coupled with eating and processing them with respect, can only be of benefit to vegetables, the land and ourselves. Findhorn, in Scotland, is the example that immediately springs to mind, showing how some good, old-fashioned, tender loving care to plants ensures magnificent vegetable growth and health.

So no, Mr Axisa, there is nothing natural about eating cats and dogs, whether pets or not, and that applies to all creatures, especially those who possess a face. Vegetarians, who have existed since humans existed, are hard scientific proof that we can live on fruits and vegetation alone, and people who do not do so choose to put an animal through pain and misery (or rather most let others do the dirty work and simply buy the product!) for the sake of transient appetite! People should try to raise and kill an animal themselves and see how natural this feels!

Finally, Mr Axisa is correct to state that most of the soya grown in the United States has been genetically modified. Of course soya products that have no GMOs exist and are available locally.

Soya products can have adverse health reactions and are meant for occasional use as animal product substitutes for those who may want to vary their diets occasionally for social occasions. Regular, long-term use is both unnecessary and unhealthy, and there is no problem as long as one is eating at the very least two types of cereals and two types of legumes to ensure that protein/carbohydrate needs are met".

When "euthanasia" is not euthanasia

Barbara Cassar Torreggiani, President of the local SPCA writes a letter in today's The Times in reply to Franco Farrugia's letter of August 13, which dealt with the disposal of dead dogs' bodies at WasteServ. I chose not to get involved in the "controversy" since I would rather devote my time to working against animal use and abuse while the animals are still alive, than spend my time on the issue of what happens to their bodies after they die.

However, I wish to comment on the following quote from Ms Cassar Torreggiani's letter:

"But I can inform Mr Farrugia that the numbers of white bags containing animal carcasses that are taken for disposal come from the public because approximately 80 per cent of those animals being disposed of belong to people who want to put their pet to sleep (sic) humanely. Very often this is a traumatic experience for the owner and the disposal experience is never pleasant but it has to be done. This in contrast to the too many owners who cruelly throw them out in the street to fend for themselves when they are no longer able to cope with them".

Perhaps only Ms Cassar Torreggiani herself could say whether all the dogs "euthanized" by the SPCA are really euthanized, or whether some of them are still being killed because they are "not re-homable". I hope that the former is actually the case, and perhaps it would serve the SPCA well to publicise this, if it is actually the case that the SPCA does not kill healthy animals anymore.

One thing is certain, however. If we really want to create a world in which non-human animals are truly respected, we should do away with such senseless and misleading terms as "put to sleep" and "euthanized" where this is not really the case (and this applies to everyone, and not necessarily the SPCA).

Let's start with "put to sleep". When someone puts someone else to sleep, one expects that that someone will eventually wake up. Killing someone, however "humanely" is not the same thing as putting someone to sleep. The use of the phrase "put to sleep" is as misleading as it is harmful. It makes the practice of killing non-human animals, however "humanely", as something inconsequential and trivial. All sentient animals have a right to life, and killing someone because it is inconvenient to keep that someone alive can never reasonably be said to be the same as putting someone to sleep. If we're uncomfortable with using the word "kill", that simply means that we are uncomfortable with killing. We should therefore ask ourselves: Is the killing really necessary, and really in the animal's own interest? Which brings us to "euthanasia".

Euthanasia, also known as "mercy killing", involves the killing of animals (human and non-human) whose death we believe to be in their own interests. To qualify as euthanasia, the killing must be made with the consent of the person being killed (if the person cannot give his/her consent, we would be expected to make our own judgement whether the killing is really in his/her own interest, and whether if he/she were capable of showing us what he wants, he/she would choose to die). Another condition for a killing to qualify as euthanasia is that the killing is done by the least painful method available.

Since euthanasia applies to both humans and non-humans, one could easily know whether in the case of non-humans a killing is really euthanasia by considering whether we would call it euthanasia if the person being killed was human.

Let's say, a human is in severe incurable pain, and will die soon enough. Irrespective of whether one approves of euthanasia in the case of humans, or whether one disapproves, killing this person by the least painful method with his consent (or deciding whether it is in his/her best interests if the person is not in a position to make his will known) qualifies as euthanasia. The same obviously applies in the case where the dying victim is a non-human animal.

Now let's say that a human just happens to be homeless and poor, and that we have an acute problem of homelessness and poverty in our country. Does killing this human, who happens to be healthy despite his poverty and homelessness, qualify as euthanasia, provided that we kill him by the least painful method available? The answer is definitely and unequivocally a NO.

The same applies in the case of homeless non-human animals, and it is only speciesism which sets different standards to similar situations. The killing of healthy non-human animals is murder, not euthanasia.

Food for thought

Mr Peter Axisa writes a letter in today's The Sunday Times in reply to Mr John Darmanin's letter of last week, whose letter was about his experience as a vegan at Tate restaurant in Malta.

Mr Axisa writes: "John P. Darmanin (The Sunday Times, August 5) writes: 'I also consider animals to be my friends, therefore I do not harm them in any way so I don't eat them'. He adds (and this is what prompted me to respond), 'Imagine you eat your beloved dog or cat. It would be most unnatural because in nature, prey and predator are enemies'.

A contradiction in itself, because in nature, most animals hunt other animals to satisfy their appetite while in other cases, they depend on vegetation. So if it comes to that, eating your cat or dog would be a natural thing to do!"

It might be just me, but I can't see the contradiction in Mr Darmanin's argument. It is true that "in nature", some carnivorous animals eat other animals, but it is also true that many other animals are vegans. Humans are omnivores, that is they can choose whether or not to eat meat. We are also supposed to be moral animals, and so have the capacity to make moral choices, one of which being whether it is morally right to unnecessarily kill a sentient animal when we can live healthy lives as vegetarians or vegans. Mr Darmanin was correct to imply that there is no difference between eating a cow and a dog. Mr Axisa seems to conclude that instead of showing that eating cows is wrong, this only implies that eating dogs is not morally wrong. Mr Axisa, however, includes "if it comes to that" when saying that eating cats and dogs would be a natural thing to do. I wonder why. Does Mr Axisa somehow feel that eating cats and dogs is not morally right, and should only be resorted to in extreme circumstances? If that is the case, why does he make the distinction between cows and dogs? Why not equally say that cows may only be eaten "if it comes to that"? Our view on this is that it doesn't have to come to that. Humans can live perfectly healthy lives as vegetarians or vegans.

Mr Axisa goes on to say: "In modern civilisation (not nature) one can understand not wanting to eat one's own pets but what about the vegetation? By the same argument, we might very well wake up one day to find the creation of a new lobby group in favour of not eating fruit and vegetables for the same reasons that vegetarians say they will not eat meat.

I can just picture some group asking why should a lettuce or any vegetable that has taken so much care and attention to be grown, be destroyed just to ensure man's survival on the planet? Then what are we going to live on?"

Such statements usually come from people who have no idea about evolutionary biology. It is a scientific fact that vegetables and fruit are neither sentient nor conscious. Vegetables and fruit have neither a nervous system nor a brain. It is the brain that registers feelings through its connections to a nervous system. Feelings like pleasure and pain are the result of millions of years of evolution, and would have been selected out if they were not practical or useful for survival. Feelings such as pain are useful to animals because by feeling pain, animals have the option of avoiding the sources of the pain, and thus avoid situations that are harmful to them. Since vegetables are motionless and cannot travel over any distances, they cannot avoid sources of danger. Feelings like pain in the case of vegetables would have been selected out, since they would have proved fruitless. In any case, like I already explained, experience of any sort requires the use of a brain, something that vegetables do not have.

Mr Axisa continues: "I wanted 'to know more about vegetarianism' so I visited www.vegmalta.org. In it I read that 'Alternative markets are continually being created by demand for new, substitute products by consumers, like soya products that have recently become staple products in every supermarket'.

Are vegetarians aware of the fact that the US is the largest supplier of soya and that 90 per cent of the soya grown there is genetically modified? Are vegetarians aware that this means that a good percentage of the soya they are promoting as their main staple diet contains these GMOs which, as far as I know, could very well contain some sort of animal extract?"

Mr Axisa is of course correct in saying that most soya is grown in the US, although European soya products are always available, and in fact, the production of European soya is increasing steadily. However, what Mr Axisa does not perhaps know is that most US soya is grown for export to European farmers who feed the GM soya to their animals. This means that most of the US genetically modified soya finally ends in the stomachs of European meat-eaters. In any case, vegetarians and vegans always have the option of buying non-GMO soya products, or not consuming soya products at all.

Mr Axisa says: "Having been a fruit and vegetable grower all my life and having been so active in the representation of Maltese growers, I should be and indeed I am, very pleased with the idea of promoting more use of fruit and vegetables, but not to such extremes.

Of course vegetarians have a right to their opinion but I am one of those who eat plenty of fruit and vegetables, normally accompanied by a bit of meat or fish. Nothing wrong at all with a vegetarian dish once in a while, but to me this should be the exception and not the rule".

My only reply to this is that when it comes to a sentient animal's right to life, which is denied by his or her unnecessary killing, there are no extremes. One either kills or does not kill. One either respects sentient life, or one doesn't. One either is a speciesist or one is not. Of course, eating less meat is better than eating more meat, but to stop participating in the unnecessary killing of sentient life, which in itself is a rights violation, is not going to extremes. It is the reasonable and logical thing to do.

Assessing a dedicated veggie restaurant

John Darmanin from the Vegetarian Society of Malta writes the following letter in today's The Sunday Times:

"I never read 'Mona's Meals' because I am not interested in restaurants, especially those that are not vegetarian. But a friend of mine brought to my attention Mona's contribution 'Oh you little mean machine' (The Sunday Times, July 22).

I don't believe in self-proclaimed critics of any kind, and if there were a reason for this, this article is the best example. It did not take me long to find out, actually a hotchpotch article that starts with drowsy drooling about kitchen appliances, that somehow vaguely lands the discussion into vegetarianism.

As a vegetarian - actually a vegan - I also consider animals to be my friends, therefore I don't harm them in any way so I don't eat them, like G.B. Shaw, the famous dramatist, to whom the long-standing motto is credited. Before I knew how horrendously cruel it is for animals that are born just to be eaten, I too used to enjoy eating chicken.

If people knew how battery chickens are raised, or if slaughter houses had glass walls, most people would shun eating meat. You cannot be a friend of the animal that you are going to eat the next day! It would be a most queer friendship.

Imagine you eat your beloved dog or cat. It would be most unnatural because in nature, prey and predator are enemies. You don't need to hold a conversation with a hen to make friends, most animals have their own particular ways to show emotions, intentions, imagination, play, likes and dislikes and many other attributes that in the past were considered particular to humans alone.

Mona is right in saying that for the vegetarian looking for a place to eat out, the Tate restaurant is a god-send as I found out about a week ago when I had dinner there. You do not have to explain to the waiter over and over again that fish do not grow on trees or are not found in one's garden.

I had been urged to try the newly opened veggie restaurant by my vegetarian friends over the Internet, even by people from the US who had been here on holiday. At first I could not believe it! Until some time ago, a dedicated vegetarian restaurant was taboo! But I could not resist the temptation to try the menu and I did.

I chose 'Istanbul delight' from the bakery section of the menu because it was vegan. It consisted of about four or five balls of deep fried crusty falafel and a falafel dip, a selection of greens and pita bread, etc. It was delicious. It was about 10 p.m. and so I naturally did not select from the breakfast menu as Mona and Co seemed to have done.

Who is Mona anyway? It takes a vegetarian to assess a dedicated veggie restaurant, because only a vegetarian would know what to look for and what to expect, and whether the food served is really up to vegetarian ethics and standards. Mona's declared bias against vegetarians in the first part of the article seems to turn into spite after the night breakfast incident, as she tries to pick on even the slightest things of the waitresses. The comment '...dumpy waitressing job' gives away the guise of a fair professional critic.

Even a non-vegetarian trying a veggie restaurant for the first time knows that he will not find meat served and this may sound restricting because with other restaurants that use meat, the sky is the limit or better said, not even hell is the limit, because there seems no limit of creating suffering to animals that are brought into this world just for the pleasure of eating their flesh.

I am not the only vegetarian who visited the Tate restaurant and was very satisfied with the food, the atmosphere and the staff and would surely recommend it to other vegetarians. But the restaurant is also attractive to non-veggies as every time I have been around the place, it was really full.

For those who would like to know more about vegetarianism and veggie recipes in Maltese I recommend our Website www.vegmalta.org".

I personally would like to add that I also visited Tate on the 28th July. I went there unannounced, and did not disclose my identity until after I ate the food, since I did not wish to be given any special treatment. I found the food delicious, the staff very friendly and helpful, and the restaurant, apart from being beautiful, was spotlessly clean. And like my good friend John, I didn't order breakfast at 10pm, but I guess in this respect, us veggies are really weird. Trust us to order dinner at 10pm!

Tate Cafe Bar is situated at the Vittoriosa Marina, Vittoriosa, Malta.

Tel: (+356) 21 808 828

On the whipping of a distressed pony

"That's how horses are trained"

Justin Tonna writes in today's The Times about the severe whipping of a pony in Birkirkara. Mr Tonna writes:

"On the morning of July 25, while in Birkirkara, my mother witnessed a small pony in distress. The pony, harnessed to a cart and evidently exhausted by the intense heat, refused to move. In a display of mediaeval barbarity the owner of the pony, assisted by another man, proceeded to whip the poor creature in an attempt to make it (sic) move.

They continued this torture until the pony collapsed.

At this point my mother stopped pleading with the men and began screaming. Her two-year old grandson was with her and he naturally became extremely distressed at the scene unfolding before his young eyes.

The cart had toppled on to the pony when it collapsed and the men began cursing about possible damage to their precious cart. Once they had manhandled it clear of the pony they continued their beating in an attempt to get the animal on its (sic) feet.

Sickened, my mother rushed home and phoned the police. To their credit the police were on site in a matter of minutes and tracked down the two men. They returned to my mother shortly after, but when she asked if they had caught the perpetrators one of the officers remarked that there was no crime as 'That's how horses are trained'.

Unfortunately, I was not present for this fine piece of police work, so I am not qualified to say whether the officer really meant 'Don't waste our time', or alternatively if he meant 'We can't be bothered'.

My two-year old nephew still recounts the event, making whipping motions with his little hands and telling everyone in his own words how the horse collapsed. The event has left him greatly disturbed.

Our politicians regale us with empty promises about animal hospitals and cruelty laws, yet animals continue to suffer on a daily basis.

While we advertise our island on MTV, we deftly sweep images of dogs hanging from wire and farm animals left to rot under the carpet, lest they taint our Brand Malta image. While we throw taxpayer money at lavish projects, we give animal sanctuaries minimal or no funding.

But then why should we bother with animals? After all they have no voice to complain with, and most importantly they have no vote. In the minds of politicians these two qualities makes our furred and feathered friends insignificant.

Fortunately there are many of us who have a profound respect for the creatures with whom we share this planet. Election time is looming and politicians will soon break out the charm, wearing fake smiles and kissing every baby that is in front of a camera lens.

But this time we will make sure those suffering animals have a voice that will be heard clearly. And what will trouble those same politicians even more is that we will also give those suffering animals a vote - our own!"

To the above letter, all I have to add is what I said in "On pet shop blues and equestrian competitions", namely that animal rights requires no less than the abolition of the property status of animals, and this includes a complete ban on breeding, selling, buying, importation, and activities which involve captive horses.

If animals have rights, animals should not be property. If animals are property, they have no rights, and they can only hope to be granted privileges, but only as much as would not interfere with the practices their owners expect to go on. If the practice requires some suffering, so be it, according to the welfarist position. If the practice requires severe suffering, so be it as well.

It is only the animal rights position, which includes the abolition of animal slavery, that is the only hope for the gradual elimination of animal suffering and all animal abuse. To work for anything less is simply futile. Property is property, and property has no rights. All animals are sentient individuals with rights, and so should not be human property. One may treat a slave better than another slave, but one can never treat a slave well. A "well-treated slave" is an oxymoron.

On a lighter note

Johanna Calleja writes the following letter in The Times:

"The Sliema local council has recently erected signs at all the entrances to the Qui-si-sana Garden. These say: 'No Dogs, No Balls, No Skateboards, No Bicycles'.

Recently though, just to prove that the council does have a sense of humour or maybe to remind us that rules are made to be broken, another sign has been erected right in the middle of the garden. This says: 'Clean up after your dog'".