On foetuses, sentience and moral schizophrenia

In an anti-abortion letter in today's The Times, John Muscat, among other things, writes:

"And before anyone lectures us that the unborn child is not yet a person (i.e. without human rights), what is it then, a chicken perhaps or maybe a tadpole?! Does anything in the known universe other than a human embryo have the ability to mature into a fully grown person if left to follow its natural course?".

Now, I shall not go into the matter of whether abortion is ever justifiable or not, since this is beyond the scope of this blog, and there are animal rights advocates on both sides of the debate. However, it is pertinent to point out the following, which is relevant to the non-human animal rights issue.

The statement that "the unborn child is not yet a person" in the opposite sense intended in the quote (significantly and confusingly, he substitutes "child" with "embryo" in the same paragraph), is nonsensical for the simple reason that this statement by itself does not provide enough facts for us to make our reasoned judgement. What is implied by "the unborn child"? Is it a zygote immediately upon conception? Is it a foetus a few weeks into the pregnancy? Is it a wholly formed human baby waiting to be born? Is it anything intermediate between these three stages?

Animal growth (including human) is a continuous incremental process which results in the formation of an individual developed from a single cell. It is known that sentience (which denotes personhood) comes within an intermediate stage from the single cell stage to the fully grown infant ready to be born. When exactly sentience enters the picture (which is when the brain and nervous system are sufficiently developed to be capable of registering sensations such as pain and cognition) is still disputed within the scientific community. However, what is certain is that, religious belief in ensoulment aside, at least when an entity reaches the stage of sentience, that entity is an individual who deserves moral consideration. It is good to mention that plants and bacteria are also alive, but lacking a brain and a nervous system, they are not sentient.

Like I said, I won't go into the merits of whether abortion is ever morally justifiable. However, to (sarcastically) ask whether the "unborn child" (zygote, foetus or baby?) is a chicken or a tadpole if not a person, shows lack of basic knowledge of biology. Of course, a human zygote, foetus or baby is not a chicken or a tadpole, just as the chicken zygote is definitely not a tadpole or a human baby. However, what is certain beyond any shadow of doubt is that a tadpole and a chick are, like a human baby, both sentient.

The question "does anything in the known universe other than a human embryo have the ability to mature into a fully grown person if left to follow its natural course?" is non-consequential, in the sense that it says nothing about whether or not a human embryo has rights. In fact, it could equally be claimed that contraception blocks the sperm from being left to follow its natural course and meet the egg to become a human. In essence, this kind of logic would make the use of contraception "murder".

However, to return to the question of sentience, personhood and abortion, it is ironic that most people who advocate the rights of non-sentient human zygotes and sentient or non-sentient (depending on what stage of development) human foetuses, do not bat an eyelid over the daily murder of millions of sentient and fully developed non-human animals.

Richard Dawkins makes this point succinctly when, in The Ancestor's Tale, he says:

"Many of our legal and ethical principles depend on the separation between Homo sapiens and all other species. Of the people who regard abortion as a sin, including the minority who go to the lengths of assassinating doctors and blowing up abortion clinics, many are unthinking meat-eaters, and have no worries about chimpanzees being imprisoned in zoos and sacrificed in laboratories. Would they think again, if we could lay out a living continuum of intermediates between ourselves and chimpanzees…? Surely they would. Yet it is the merest accident that the intermediates all happen to be dead. It is only because of this accident that we can comfortably and easily imagine a huge gulf between our two species – or between any two species, for that matter."

Mr Muscat goes on to say that "We are living through confused and hypocritical times where so-called advanced and modern societies increasingly legislate in favour of protecting and preserving the environment and all sorts of other rights for present and future generations (most of whom still unconceived), which is all very well, but then think nothing of legalising the termination of life by abortion of millions of members from those very same future generations because, as the "reasoning" goes, they have no right to see the light of day although they have every right to a healthy environment...!

The widespread abhorrence of the Maltese towards abortion is inherent from our solid no-nonsense culture and tradition of protecting the defenceless.

That is one reason why I am proud of and grateful to my country".

It must be said that the preservation and protection of the environment is laudable since this takes into consideration the well-being of all present and future sentient individuals. However, the preservation of the environment for future generations makes sense only with respect to future generations who actually get to enjoy the environment (or suffer from its degradation) through being born. Thinking of future generations makes sense only if it means thinking of future generations who will actually get to be born.

This basic misunderstanding is one that is recurrent within the debate on the human imposed breeding of non-human animals. Abolitionist animal rights advocates are usually (illogically) labelled as being anti-"animals" since, by opposing the breeding of non-humans for human purposes, they would be somehow denying non-human animals their existence. The person who makes such a claim cannot (or is not willing to) comprehend (or concede) that a non-existent has no interests. A non-existent is nothing.

Of course, this says nothing about whether abortion is ever justifiable or not (after all, even zygotes are existing entities - with or without rights). But it is a major fallacy to claim that pro-choicers or pro-abortionists "think nothing of legalising the termination of life by abortion of millions of members from those very same future generations because, as the 'reasoning' goes, they have no right to see the light of day although they have every right to a healthy environment...!"

When thinking of the right of future generations to a healthy environment, we would be thinking hypothetically. It is only those who are actually born who will get to enjoy the environment we would have preserved. Those who are not (either because the hypothetical "persons" never come to exist, or else they are aborted) would experience nothing of the world outside the mother's womb (or egg in the case of birds, reptiles and other species).

So while preserving the environment just in case future individuals will come into existence (and millions undoubtedly will) is obviously a good thing, it says nothing about whether abortion is ever morally justified or not, and there is no contradiction in the claim that the environment should be preserved for future generations who actually get to be born while holding the belief that abortion (which results in individuals not being born) could be morally justifiable. The issues are completely separate issues and should be judged on their own merits.

Regarding Mr Muscat's claim that "the widespread abhorrence of the Maltese towards abortion is inherent from our solid no-nonsense culture and tradition of protecting the defenceless" and "that is one reason why I am proud of and grateful to my country", I would only say: If only that were so!

If Maltese people truly had a tradition of protecting the defenseless, the majority would be vegan. Again, if only that were so! Then, perhaps, thousands upon thousands of sentient individuals would be spared suffering, unconsenting use and premature death each year, simply because they are defenseless individuals whom it so happens that humans find their flesh tasty, and regard them as a convenient (albeit unnecessary) replaceable source of food.

It is only what Gary Francione calls "moral schizophrenia" that makes otherwise normal people see non-sentient zygotes or sentient or non-sentient foetuses as rights-holders, while seeing certainly sentient non-human animals as replaceable commodities with no rights, for no other reason than that they belong to other species and that they are, in Mr Muscat's words, "defenceless".

Sophie's personal tragedy - a recurring true story

Today's The Times provides us with the following story:

"Sophie felt pains in her belly. Instinct told her that she was due soon and an hour later a new being was brought into the world.

About three hours later, after having washed her babies properly, she lovingly cuddled them close and, while they contentedly sucked warm milk, she closed her eyes. Feeling exhausted after five hours of labour, Sophie slept.

The next morning, a lot of shouting could be heard coming from the house.
A pair of hands roughly snatched the four newborn kittens from Sophie and they were thrown into a plastic bag.

The bag was securely knotted up with the kittens wriggling inside it, still half asleep, not knowing what horrible fate awaited them.

The bag was thrown into a skip with the kittens meowing piteously for their mother. The cover of the skip was slammed down, muffling their tiny cries.

This is a true story. Fortunately, the kittens were saved by a man who went to the skip to dump some garbage and heard their cries. They have since been fostered and later adopted. They are now about eight months old.

The StreetCat Rescue wants to highlight these stories, because what happened to these kittens is something that happens quite frequently in Malta.

Kittens are put into plastic bags and thrown away, battered or drowned. They are left behind people's doors, in fields or near garbage heaps at the corner of the street.

Cats who live for years in a home and are treated as part of the family, are suddenly dumped because they are no longer wanted in the house; either because they are sick, old or pregnant or perhaps because there is a new baby in the home.

Cats who are brought up in a home environment do not know how to survive well when thrown out of the home. They especially suffer if they have been de-clawed or not neutered.

In every locality in Malta and Gozo, stray cats and kittens can be seen sheltering from the hot sun or rain under cars or roaming about the streets.

'Most of us feed and neuter them while many of us do not. Sometimes stray cats are found injured after being hit by a car or hurt by some other incident,' the organisation said.

After having individually taken care of stray cats for over 10 years, a number of animal lovers have decided to come together as a team and form part of StreetCat Rescue.

A project plan has been structured with the aim of minimising the suffering of stray cats and kittens, as well as educating the public on animal welfare.

StreetCat Rescue believes in feeding, neutering, medicating and protecting the stray cats and kittens on our island. When possible, homes are found for abandoned cats, kittens and unwanted pets.

To succeed StreetCat Rescue needs all the help it can get. Even if people feel stray cats are a nuisance, they can help this voluntary organisation with neutering.

'If everyone works together as a community we will be able to minimise this problem,' the organisation said.

Volunteers of all ages and from any locality are needed in the following areas:

• Fostering cats/kittens - to take care of a cat or kitten for some time until it is adopted.
• Socialising feral cats/kittens - taming cats/kittens to give them a better chance of being adopted.
• Feral trapping - to help catch cats which need to be neutered.
• Feline chauffeur - to drive cats/kittens to the vet and back.
• Homing officer - to visit homes in groups of two before a cat or kitten is adopted.
• Emergency calls - going to wherever a cat/kitten emergency arises.
• Aftercare - keeping a neutered or injured cat after being treated medically.

If you wish to help send an e-mail to streetcatrescue@yahoo.co.uk or send a letter to Hello, PO Box 78 Birkirkara. Donations can be sent to the APS account 2000059470-3.

www.freewebs.com/streetcatrescue"

Of course, I wholeheartedly support the efforts of StreetCat Rescue, who, in their website, among other things state that "by preventing (non-human) animals from being born, we prevent (those) animals from being hit by cars, infected with lingering, painful diseases, attacked by other animals or cruel people, stolen by laboratory dealers, used as bait by dog fighters, or simply stuck outside to suffer from starvation, exposure, or neglect".

However I cannot help but mention the fact that the cat story above also happens to several other animals every single day, unfortunately with more tragic outcomes. Male calves, for instance, are routinely taken away from their mothers either to be killed instantaneously, or to be raised for slaughter. Meanwhile, female calves, are raised to share the same fate of their mothers - that is to be raped for the sole purpose of stealing their milk (only mother cows give milk) - which in turn leads to the repetition of the story (calf taken away so that the mother cow's milk is given to humans instead of her calf). Of course, when the mother cows are no longer "productive", they are immediately killed.

I need not mention every case involving non-human animals used to be killed for food or to be used for their "products". Suffice for me to say that in all cases involving "food" animals, the offspring is most often taken away from the mother soon after birth, and is either killed immediately, or else taken away to suffer the same exploitation (or worse) as her mother.

It bears insisting that the only way to stop most non-human animal suffering is for humans to stop "domesticating", breeding, selling and buying any more non-humans as if they were human property.

Hopefully, people who are moved by the above story will get to realise that there is no fundamental difference between the suffering of cats or kittens and the suffering of cows or calves, pigs or piglets, chickens and chicks, etc.

All animals are sentient and equally deserving of the right not to be unnecessarily made to suffer or die, as well as not to be treated as if they were human property. Property could only have as much value as the property owner arbitrarily assigns to his/her property. Property is disposable and replaceable. All non-human animals are unique individuals. To treat individuals as replaceable is to deny them their individuality. It is to deny them their rights.

If you empathise with the kittens in the above story, there is no logical and consistent reason not to empathise with the fate of any other sentient animal. The only way to stop most animal suffering and abuse is to stop using animals for human purposes as if they were human property with no individuality or inherent value of their own. The only way is to stop breeding, selling and buying non-human animals, and to stop buying "products" derived from murder and/or exploitation. We should care for the non-humans we have already brought into existence, but we should bring no more into existence.

As StreetCat Rescue says, "by preventing (non-human) animals from being born, we prevent (those) animals from being hit by cars, infected with lingering, painful diseases, attacked by other animals or cruel people, stolen by laboratory dealers, used as bait by dog fighters, or simply stuck outside to suffer from starvation, exposure, or neglect". Similarly, by preventing other non-human animals from being conceived (by not buying "animal products" - the more we buy, the more animals are bred for exploitative purposes), we prevent the abduction of animals from their mothers, prevent their confinement, exploitation and use until they can take it no more, and also prevent their unnatural death by human hands, all of which is done for the sake of profit, pleasure or convenience.

Overdue recognition of animal rights

Today's The Times editorial, entitled "Overdue promotion of animal welfare", deals with the government's allocation of funds for "animal welfare" and the stray animal problem.

The Times editorial says: "It is a disheartening fact that the Maltese are, generally speaking, not an animal-loving nation. Cruelty to animals is widespread and the deliberate dumping of animals leads to an uncontrollable number of strays being left to fend for themselves.

Malta has to take a stand against the brutal treatment of animals and put a stop to the blatant contempt for animal welfare laws. The country's reputation has been besmirched again and again by shocking episodes, the latest being the killing of animals at the Razzett tal-Hbiberija, the case now being before the courts.

Despite this negative scenario, there are a number of NGOs manned by very dedicated people who do their utmost to promote the welfare of animals.

At long last, the government is living up to its commitment to recognise their worthy cause and has allocated Lm150,000 to support NGOs carrying out this largely thankless and demanding task. In addition, it is also devoting Lm60,000 to setting up an animal welfare centre in Ta' Qali that will provide shelter for stray dogs. Besides serving as an aftercare centre offering animals an inpatient service, it will also boast an educational centre which includes a library and an audiovisual facility.

This is most welcome news for animal lovers. Environment and Rural Affairs Minister George Pullicino had a fruitful informal meeting with six animal welfare organisations, during which it was agreed that Lm75,000, half the money allocated, would be devoted to a national neutering programme.

Such a programme is long overdue as there is no other way to cope with the relentless increase of stray animals that have placed an unbearable strain on the NGOs working in this sphere. The minister has asked them to come forward with a feasible plan that can be implemented as early as possible. He also asked them to pool their resources and co-ordinate their activities.

Mr Pullicino's announcement that the new Voluntary Organisations Act will soon come into force must have boosted the NGOs' optimism even more. Such developments are a definite step in the right direction as all NGOs will have to formalise their position and be more accountable.

The proposal that a three-man body will scrutinise the spending of the government grant goes a long way to ensure that things will be carried out as professionally and effectively as possible.

There is no doubt that the committed volunteers will rise to the occasion and strive even harder to cope with the sad situation of unwanted and abandoned animals.

However, animal welfare demands much more than funds and a neutering programme. An example of this is explained so clearly by a representative of one of the animal NGOs: 'The only way to discourage people from abandoning dogs is to enforce the law. It is against the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act to abandon an animal. However, unless registration and identification, preferably by microchip, of every last dog is introduced in Malta there is no possibility that the law can be enforced'.

Despite laws and regulations, law enforcement leaves much to be desired and, too often, frightful cases of animal neglect and brutality go unpunished.

Trained law enforcement personnel, ideally including people with animal welfare at heart, would go a long way to stamp out this barbaric trait that scars Malta's image so badly. One hopes the government's allocation of much-needed funds for NGOs, along with its words of praise and support for them, will mark a definite and clear step towards promoting animal welfare in Malta".

The above reminds me of a "drowning baby" analogy mentioned in an animal rights forum I regularly participate in.

Basically, the analogy goes like this: Suppose a human is throwing babies in a river and drowning them. Now suppose you happen be near the river and see the babies drowning. You have three options. One is to simply walk away. The other is to try to pick up as many drowning babies as you can. The third option, which I believe would be the most effective, is to stop the human throwing the babies in the river.

The analogy is comparable to both the stray problem and the overall non-human animal exploitation issue. In the case of the stray problem, the solution, similar to stopping the human from continuing to throw babies in the river, is to educate and legislate for a complete ban on human imposed breeding, selling and buying of any non-human animal. No matter how stringent "animal welfare" laws are, and no matter how well you enforce them, there will always be non-human animal abuse, torture and murder, just as there will always be human abuse, torture and murder despite laws that make such actions criminal. As long as non-human animals are considered as human property, giving humans the "right" to breed and use them for their own purposes, non-human animals can never be sufficiently protected. Remove the property status of non-human animals, and most abuse will cease having a legal status.

The most effective solution, which should go along with legislation, is true and correct animal rights education that explains and convinces that all sentient non-human animals are deserving of respect and the right not to be treated as human property.

Property cannot have rights. Property can only have certain "privileges" that depend on the value the property owner arbitrarily places on his or her property. While non-human animals continue to be considered human property, they will be treated as human property, and this, in turn, makes sure that at best, some non-human animals will have only limited protection, while most other animals will have no protection at all. This is exactly the reason why torturing a pet cat, for instance, is illegal, while torturing the same cat in a laboratory under the pretence of the "advancement of science", is perfectly legal. It is also the reason why most animals bred to be killed for food are not accorded equal protection (or in many cases, no protection at all) as animals bred to be used as pets.

It should also be mentioned that it does not make any sense to speak of dogs or cats as deserving of protection, while ignoring or denying the right to protection to other equally sentient non-human animals. Non-human animals either deserve protection (in which case, this would mean they have the right to protection) or they don't. And one cannot reasonably claim that some animals have rights while others don't, and not give valid morally significant reasons for making such a claim. And the only non-arbitrary measure of whether one deserves rights or not (including the right to life), is sentience. Any other measure would exclude many humans as well as most non-human animals.

It is my hope that, from my limited time and resources, I am doing as much as I can to spread the animal rights message, which is the only message that, if properly understood and adhered to, would give meaningful protection to all animals (including humans). There will always be human and non-human abuse, but a good understanding of, and an adherence to the animal rights philosophy, would ensure that cases of human or non-human abuse become the exception and not the norm.

While we live in a country where non-human animals are systematically, institutionally and legally used as if they are property, tortured if that is required for the purpose arbitrarily assigned to them, and ultimately murdered simply for the pleasures of a majority, our country can never be called a "nation of animal lovers", even if it were to raise dogs and cats on a pedestal and treat them as kings and queens. After all, a cow is as much an animal as a dog and a human. And the end of speciesism, which would stop the treatment of non-human animals as lesser beings and human property, starts with you, and how you conduct your own life and spread the message. And this, though it would certainly help, does not need government intervention. Like I said in "Miracles don't happen", all that is required is sufficient will to do the right thing.

On spring hunting madness and the right to food

Spring hunting is madness

The Times of today reports that European Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas yesterday piled pressure on Malta to ban spring hunting, labelling the practice "madness".

Only a week after slapping Malta with a final written warning over spring hunting, Mr Dimas dedicated his weekly blog to the matter.

The Commission, he said, is taking this issue very seriously and will be doing all it can to stop hunting in spring, and although the reasons given for the EU's insistence on the abolition of spring hunting are speciesist - for instance, Mr Dimas says that "The issue is quite clear from an environmental point of view. Spring hunting means hunting the breeding stock (sic) before they have bred which is like living off your capital instead of your interest", when a non-speciesist view recognizes that non-human animals are not human property at all - still, it is refreshing to know that after so much talk, the EU may be soon taking more stringent action against the Maltese government if the latter insists on retaining the practice of murdering birds in spring.

Mr Dimas also explains in his blog that going to court over this question (spring hunting) is a last resort since the Commission prefers to discuss in order to find an agreed solution to existing problems. However, he reiterated that one of the basic jobs of the European Commission is to enforce EU law.

"Where there is no other solution, I have made it clear I will use the full force of the law to ensure that provisions on environmental protection are respected," he said.

Mr Dimas called spring hunting one of the most controversial issues he had to deal with over recent years, recalling similar cases with France, Finland, Italy and Cyprus. He said he has received hundreds of letters, petitions and parliamentary questions on the subject.

"With the latest decisions, the Commission has made its opposition to this practice absolutely clear and I hope we can finally put the question of spring hunting behind us," he wrote.

Following a formal notice on spring hunting in July last year, the Commission last week decided to step up its infringement procedures with the issue of a "reasoned opinion".

If the Maltese government does not change its law or provide a "reasonable legal explanation", the Commission may decide to take the island to the European Court of Justice. Let's make that sooner rather than later, Mr Dimas.

The right to "food"

In an opinion piece in today's The Times entitled "The right to food", Dr Francis Agius (Parliamentary Secretary for "Agriculture" and "Fisheries") writes:

"On October 16, Malta, together with the rest of the world, celebrated World Food Day. This year, celebrations will take place this Sunday in the city of Vittoriosa. To mark this event, we are urged not only to appreciate the different types of food we are used to consuming but, more importantly, to appreciate the sterling work of our farmers, herdsmen (sic) and fishermen (sic) who, despite the odds, toil from dawn till dusk to provide us with fresh fruit, vegetables, meat, poultry (sic) and fish.

The World Food Day theme for this year is The Right To Food. The right to food is the inherent human right of every woman, man, girl and boy, wherever they live on this planet".

Dr Agius then goes on to brag about the subsidies and assistance his government has given to legitimate farmers as well as non-human animal exploiters, enslavers and murderers.

What Dr Agius is unfortunately yet to realize, is that, apart form the fact that killing and otherwise exploiting non-human animals for their flesh and other "products" is a breach of their basic right to life and liberty, murdering and exploiting non-human animals for food is also extremely wasteful and harmful to the environment.

By promoting and financially assisting the practice of enslaving and murdering non-human animals for profit or convenience, governments worldwide (including Malta) are helping waste precious natural (non-animal) resources that are fed to the animals bred for enslavement instead of growing natural (non-animal) food for humans, which is known to be healthier and far less wasteful. Also, by assisting the practice of enslaving and murdering non-human animals for profit and convenience, governments worldwide are helping degrade the environment.

According to a 2006 UN report, "The livestock (sic) sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global. The findings of this report suggest that it should be a major policy focus when dealing with problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity. Livestock’s (sic) contribution to environmental problems is on a massive scale and its potential contribution to their solution is equally large. The impact is so significant that it needs to be addressed with urgency".

It therefore transpires that celebrating of World Food Day while bragging on about the assistance to practices that harm and exploit non-human animals while simultaneously being extremely wasteful and harmful to the environment, is, to say the least, contradictory.

However, it must be acknowledged that governments are not the ones primarily to blame for all the non-human animal abuse that goes along with waste and harm to the environment. The primary blame lies with consumers without whom there would be no animal exploitation market.

If we care at all, we should celebrate World Food Day with real food that harms neither non-human animals, nor our own health and the environment. And while we're at it, let's make World Food Day every day by eliminating from our diet all products that are either harmful to ourselves and the environment, and/or are derived from practices that exploit, infringe on the rights, and murder others, be they human or non-human. As for the right to food, we do have that right, but not at the expense of anyone's right to life and liberty and at the expense of the environment. Nor do we have the right to waste, and this includes public funds and natural resources wasted on animals we breed specifically to exploit and murder.

EU gives Malta government last chance on spring hunting

Today's The Times reports: "The European Commission yesterday issued a final warning to (the) Malta (government) to ban spring hunting or be hauled before the European Court of Justice.

More than a year after its first warning to (the) Malta (government) and numerous meetings between the two parties later, Brussels has decided to send a 'reasoned opinion' on the matter, the second of its three-stage infringement procedure.

The reasoned opinion spells out clearly why (the) Malta (government) should change its laws and do away with spring hunting from next year.

A Commission source yesterday told The Times that this is the last chance for (the) Malta (government) to come in line with EU law if it wants to avoid the issue being decided by the courts, which might impose a hefty fine on the island.

'We have been discussing the issue with the Maltese authorities since July 2006 when we issued our first letter of formal notice,' the source said.

'Malta has replied, although with a delay, to our concerns. However, we still think that Malta's arguments do not hold water and thus we have now decided to step up our legal action.'

(The) Malta (government) has now been given another two months to change its laws or give valid legal reasons why it should continue to allow hunting in spring.

'If we are still convinced that we are right in our claims, we will have no other option but to take Malta to court,' the source said.

'As things stand, and knowing the Maltese arguments and political climate, we are almost sure that Malta will choose to face the music in front of the courts.'

The Maltese authorities had already made it clear that they do not agree with the Commission and that they are ready to challenge the EU executive in court.

The Commission yesterday explained that the final written warning to Malta concerns the hunting of quails (Coturnix coturnix) and turtle doves (Streptopelia turtur) during spring.

'The hunting of these migratory birds takes place during their return from Africa to breeding grounds in Europe, before they have had a chance to reproduce. The impact on bird numbers is therefore more significant than it would be in autumn or winter, after the breeding season. The Commission believes that alternative solutions to spring hunting exist, in this case the possibility to hunt the two species in the autumn,' a Commission statement said.

Malta is the only EU member state which permits spring hunting.

Before yesterday's decision, European Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas had already signalled the possibility of stepping up action against Malta. Replying to a Maltese woman taking part in an online discussion last Monday, he said he would not permit spring hunting to carry on.

'I can assure you that the Commission is committed to ensure full implementation of the Birds Directive in Malta and has made it clear to the Maltese government that this spring hunting is not compatible with Community law,' he wrote to Daniela, who identified herself as a member of BirdLife.

'Should this (reasoned opinion) not lead to a positive outcome, the Commission will have no choice but to initiate action before the European Court of Justice,' he concluded".

Meanwhile, according to The Malta Independent, "in a terse statement, and without actually making reference to the issue, the Rural Affairs and Environment Ministry said that it will be replying to the commission's 'reasoned opinion' when it receives a formal copy".

While the stand of this blog is that all hunting is equally wrong since all sentient animals have the right to life and liberty, I of course recognize the fact that a ban on spring hunting would prevent the hunting of any kind of bird in spring. So while our goal is holistic, and we shall not be contented until all animal exploitation and killing is abolished, a ban on spring hunting would surely be a positive step. It is for this reason alone that we wholeheartedly supported the campaign for the abolition of spring hunting.

It remains to be seen, however, whether the government will keep insisting that Malta should keep on allowing the murder of birds in spring, despite several warnings from the European Union, and despite the fact that the majority of Maltese citizens want spring hunting abolished.

There's no love without respect - more on the inmates at Razzett tal-Hbiberija

A letter from Shirley Sammut in today's The Times is an example of speciesist way of thinking, where people who declare that they are "animal lovers" (whatever that means) actually act in a way that does not respect non-human animals. It is only what evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins describes as a "discontinuous mind", and what Professor Gary L. Francione calls "moral schizophrenia" that makes humans believe that we are somehow set apart from all other animals, and that we are somehow "not animals". If we are indeed animals (which we obviously are), then calling oneself an "animal lover" loses entirely any significant meaning. But more on this in a moment.

Ms Sammut, in her letter entitled "Where are our priorities?", replies to a letter by Franco Farrugia, in which she writes:

"Franco Farrugia (Where Are Those Animals, October 12) began his letter by rightly claiming that we live in an 'animal-unfriendly' society, where (non-human) animals are not given the care and respect they, as God-given creatures (sic), deserve. However, he then goes on to imply that the authorities at Razzett Tal-Hbiberija do not care about the (non-human) animals that (sic) were lost (sic) or killed, just because they only mentioned the loss the disabled children will suffer, in their comments".

At this point, I would reply that the respect all animals (including humans) are owed is the kind of respectful treatment as free individuals with inherent value that does not rest on any arbitrary value others assign to them. To treat any sentient individual as property is to treat that individual disrespectfully. Of course, the Razzett's disrespectful treatment of the non-human animals confined in their property is not because they (the management of the Razzett) did not mention them in their media releases on the inmates' abduction. The disrespect is in keeping non-humans incarcerated against their will to be used for human purposes as if they were human property, and in breeding and/or buying them, again as if they were human property. It is only a speciesist discontinuous mind that sees non-humans as somehow being out of the moral circle, and that gives us a privileged position as owners of the world and all that lies therein, a position we very conveniently assign to ourselves.

Ms Sammut goes on to say: "I am a very keen animal lover and I was sickened to hear about the incident at the park but we should get our priorities right. I have worked with the people at Razzett and they are a dedicated and caring group of people whose main concern is the disabled children they work with. Their immediate thoughts will obviously go to how these children will be affected by this theft (abduction) and to how much of their hard-earned funds will now have to go towards buying more (non-human) animals and training them as soon as possible, as well as for setting up an effective security system for the park".

Generally speaking, people who describe themselves as "animal lovers" are people who usually enjoy the company of some or most animals, but this does not necessarily mean that the "animal lover" holds that all animals have rights, or "loves" all animals, as is very clear in Ms Sammut's case. This makes the term "animal lover" a misnomer. Such people are correctly termed as dog lovers, or cat lovers, or collectively, if this is the case, "pet" lovers, but not animal lovers. To be an animal lover would necessarily imply that one loves all animals, which is usually not the case.

Strictly speaking, the only "animal lover" is the veg*an who enjoys the company of (loves) all animals. This also leaves out most vegetarians or vegans as people who may be properly called "animal lovers", since, to stress the point once more, to be an "animal lover" requires one to love or enjoy the company of all animals.

The correct term for non-vegetarian people who enjoy the company of "pet" animals and possibly work for better treatment of these or other animals, is "animal welfarist". The animal welfarist may believe that non-human animals should be treated kindly, but does not believe that non-human animals have rights, and thus may accept practices which use or even kill non-human animals. The animal welfarist cannot hold that dogs or cats have rights, otherwise he/she would be required to explain why he/she believes dogs and cats have rights, while cows and pigs, or in this case, monkeys, emus etc. do not have the same rights.

The only way out of the inconsistency for the welfarist, is to claim that he/she is for legal rights only, and does not believe that non-human animals have natural or moral rights. But this cuts both ways. It would mean that it would be morally justified to treat dogs cruelly if the law permits one to do so, or alternatively, that it would be ok to be cruel to some animals in one country, but not in another, since it is only the law which matters, according to this view. Moral rights, on the other hand, are universal.

Finally, the vegetarian or vegan who holds that all animals have rights, may not necessarily be an "animal lover". He/she may not particularly enjoy the company of non-human animals, for instance, but still holds that all animals have rights. People who are for animal rights, and campaign for the recognition of animal rights, which preclude the use and abuse of all animals, should thus avoid using the term "animal lovers", since to be for animal rights is a matter of justice, and not charity or love.

It should by now be clear that the term "animal lover" is too vague, strictly speaking applies only to a few individuals (leaving out even most vegetarians or vegans), and does not benefit non-human animals in any conceivable way, since animal rights should be recognized as a matter of justice, and not passion or emotion. Otherwise, they would be no rights at all. Non-human animals require justice, and not pity.

That said, it is very clear that in Ms Sammut's case, since she obviously sees no problem with keeping non-human animals incarcerated, and using them for human purposes, she does not believe in animal rights (and is therefore at most a "welfarist"). However, even in her case, her claim that she is an "animal lover" is simply a product her own self-delusion.

There is no love without respect, and to keep any animal incarcerated (except in rare cases where they are kept confined for their own benefit) is definitely not respectful treatment. One cannot respect someone and treat that someone as one's property, and one cannot respect things. Non-human animals are either things with no rights and deserving no respect, or are individuals with rights, including the right to respectful treatment. And since we recognize the right to respectful treatment of all humans (regardless of any attributes they have or lack) we should equally recognize the right to respectful treatment of all sentient animals. To think or act otherwise is simply speciesist, which is as much a prejudice as being sexist or racist.

Ms Sammut then goes on to say: "Having said that, they (the people at the Razzett) are also animal lovers and it was definitely not easy for them to find the deer in that state, besides the shock of the robbery (abduction). They certainly did not act 'as if nothing has happened' and Mr Farrugia can rest assured that no investigations are necessary to ensure that they are responsible enough to have animals under their care".

I will not dispute that the management of the Razzett did not act as if nothing has happened (with regards to the non-humans abducted or murdered). Actually, this does not concern me at all. However, my obvious partial disagreement with Ms Sammut is that while I acknowledge that, as she says, "no investigations are necessary", I say this with respect to my own conclusion that keeping any animal incarcerated against their will, and using such animals as one's property, can never be described as responsible action, unless, of course, one is a speciesist who arbitrarily and conveniently believes that non-human animals were - despite all scientific evidence to the contrary - placed on this earth to be used as human property. No investigation is necessary to make this clear. Even in the best of circumstances, and with all the care that could ever be provided to the non-humans at the Razzett, to keep them incarcerated for the sole purpose of being used as human property cannot be described as respectful treatment or acting responsibly.

Ms Sammut concludes her letter by saying: "And he (Mr Farrugia) can also put his mind at rest that the police are doing their job well too. It seems ironic that, in the same newspaper, there was in fact a report that the police already have three people in custody in relation to the robbery. (Three men were subsequently arraigned). Well done!

Many people and organisations have turned this ugly event around by donating generously to Razzett and I invite Mr Farrugia to put his money where his mouth is and make a donation too. If the animals are replaced soon, he can then go and visit the park and see more than one deer in real life, an experience which I'm sure he'll enjoy. Can you imagine how much more joy a young disabled child will get out of it? Keep up the good work Razzett!".

Well, one thing's for sure. I will definitely put my money where my mouth is, but this does not include any donation to Razzett tal-Hbiberija, as long as the funds are used to imprison and enslave non-human animals for whatever reason. I would rather give my donations to another organization that helps the disabled, namely Id-Dar tal-Providenza (Providence House), an organization in desperate need of funds that, however, last December actually refused a donation from Bellucci Circus and publicly declined any donations that would have derived from activities and events that involve non-human animals held in captivity. In their press statement, Id-Dar tal-Providenza had declared that "the administration of Id-Dar tal-Providenza declares that donations are always accepted with gratitude from individuals, groups or institutions but would decline donations from sources in any way associated with cruelty or even the semblance of cruelty to animals".

As I said previously, while all animal rights advocates recognize the right of children, especially children with disabilities, to kindness, assistance and care, this should not be done at the expense of innocents. One vulnerable group should never be exploited to benefit another vulnerable group.

When dealing with innocents, it is not a question of priority, or a question of weighing who matters most. No innocent sentient individual should be harmed in any way except perhaps in cases of self-defence (when harm cannot be avoided).

We can never justify helping disabled children by exploiting non-human animals. The end does not justify the means. To think otherwise would justify the unthinkable, such as vivisecting non-consenting humans (and non-humans), an act which, in the case of human vivisection, could most certainly produce medical breakthroughs that would benefit thousands, if not millions.

We oppose any non-voluntary use of humans because we realize that to do so is to treat humans as replaceable property with no inherent value of their own. There is no non-prejudiced way to treat any non-human animal any differently.

On non-human animal inmates being seen as "things", and the abolition of slavery

I do not want this to look like some kind of crusade against Razzett tal-Hbiberija (Park of Friendship), the park that keeps non-human animals confined to be used as a means of "therapy" for disabled children, and breeds and buys non-human animals for that purpose.

It should immediately be made clear that other practices which may seem amoral to a speciesist, actually harm and abuse non-human animals to a much greater degree and for no "honourable" purpose at all. The use of non-human animals for food and clothing, for instance, involves much more suffering, both in respect of degree of suffering, and also in the numbers of non-humans used and abused (not to mention tortured and killed).

However, Razzett tal-Hbiberija's general manager Mark Sultana's reply to a letter to the Times written by Franco Farrugia, published in today's The Times, may help demonstrate the reason why a speciesist would see nothing wrong with using non-humans for human purposes provided these "do not suffer excessively".

Mr Sultana, among other things, writes: "I refer to comments passed by Franco Farrugia of Pietà in a letter entitled Where Are Those Animals? (October 12).

Ir-Razzett tal-Hbiberija would like to reassure readers that all the animals here are very well kept and cared for. The fact that we have a 25-year-old pony which (sic) is still active with regular pony rides for children; that we annually have deer giving birth and also have the record of the first naturally hatched Emus (featured front page on this same newspaper) among other stories are all proof of the care we provide.

We have bimonthly checks by a team of vets who constantly give us the necessary advice to make sure we offer the best environment for these lovely creatures".

Several comments are in order here. First off, the simple fact that Mr Sultana refers to a pony as "which" ("a 25-year-old pony which is still active") instead of using "who", is a clear indicator that Mr Sultana regards ponies as "things".

This explains why the injustice of holding ponies as human property perhaps does not even occur to such people (unfortunately the majority). Therefore, all that matters to Mr Sultana is that such a pony is not made to suffer unnecessarily, and by unnecessarily, he would mean any suffering that is not necessary for the purpose he arbitrarily assigns to the pony. What the pony would will to do, does not ever come into the picture. As far as he's concerned, the pony's purpose is to give pony rides, and that is what is demanded of him.

Mr Sultana also mentions successful breeding of deer and emus as "proof" of the care they give to the non-human animals at their facility. While it can't be stated enough that the level of care is not what's in question here (their use as property and confinement as prison inmates is), it must be said that successful breeding is not in itself proof of good health and/or good care. After all, starving people are also known to breed successfully.

Mr Sultana also tells us that vets constantly give them the best advice to make sure they offer the non-human animals the best environment. The best environment for these animals is definitely not behind fences and cages. The best environment is their own natural environment. And even if it were not, by keeping them imprisoned, the people at the Razzett are denying the non-humans any say or choice in the matter. This is exactly the same as treating them as slaves, which is what anyone becomes when he/she is deemed property of someone else.

Animal rights seeks nothing less than the total abolition of slavery. As long as non-human animals are still considered human property, legal slavery will go on unabated. And a thing or practice being legal does not necessarily make it right. To claim otherwise would be like saying that black slavery was morally justified prior to its abolition. Only moral relativists would make such an absurd claim.

Outdated practices and modern slaves

Outdated practices

Dennis Cini, in a letter in today's The Times, writes: "Hopefully hunting will be to future generations as anachronistic, barbaric and cruel as the holding of slaves is to us today".

The analogy is very apt, considering that what makes people use and abuse non-human animals is the false belief that non-human animals are human property. Incidentally, the belief that black people are white men's property is also what made black slavery possible. When people shed their prejudices and arrogance, and start regarding all sentient animals as individuals with inherent value that does not hinge on any arbitrary value others place on them, only then will all slavery be abolished.

More news on the abducted slaves

As reported in The Times, a monkey with a missing molar bit one of three men facing charges of abducting the non-human animals from Razzett tal-Hbiberija, in Marsascala, a magistrate heard yesterday.

Police Inspector Christopher Pullicino explained how a court expert had been appointed to compare the monkey's dental pattern with a bite mark found on the back of one of the men.

The officer was making submissions on bail during the arraignment of Kevin Portelli, 30, of Zabbar, Louis Ronayne, 24, of Kirkop, and his 20-year-old brother Salvino, of Marsascala who pleaded not guilty to "stealing" the animals, animal cruelty and causing damage at Razzett tal-Hbiberija on September 30.

Louis and Salvino Ronayne were also charged with breaching the conditions of a previous release and Louis Ronayne was charged with relapsing.

After the charges were read out to the three men, who were arraigned in the evening, the defence lawyers made a request for bail. However, Inspector Pullicino, prosecuting, objected saying there was the risk the accused would approach the witnesses for the prosecution.

He noted that among the witnesses was an expert who had been assigned to compare the dental pattern of a monkey - that had not been "stolen" - to a bite mark found on Mr Portelli's back.

"Although some 'stolen' animals had been returned, this was a crime that had been committed against society because the animals had been 'stolen' from people with disabilities", the officer said.

After hearing submissions, Magistrate Miriam Hayman ordered that the three men be detained in custody at this stage until the prosecution's main witnesses were heard.

Razzett tal-Hbiberija has reported that three barn owls, two golden pheasants, four mountain goats, a young mountain goat, one Amazon parrot, a rabbit and a monkey used for "therapy" with children with disabilities have been "stolen". An adult deer was found bludgeoned to death.

According to The Malta Independent, the baby mountain goat is the only animal that has not been found. Informed sources said they believed that this young mountain goat, who was being bottle-fed, could have died because she did not receive the proper nursing attention she needed. However, the police did not say whether the carcass of the missing animal had been found.

Lawyers José Herrera, Veronique Dalli, Chris Cardona, Malcolm Mifsud and Cedric Mifsud were defence counsel.

In all fairness, it must be said that perhaps the non-human animals abducted from the Razzett tal-Hbiberija would be better off at the Razzett than in the hands of the abductors. However, it is also a fact these animals should have never been there in the first place. To keep any animal confined against their will is to falsely imprison them. It must also be said, however, that although all kinds of animal abuse should be condemned, people should remember that thousands of non-human animals go through lives of much more suffering in human hands, and ultimaltely get murdered, just so that most people can enjoy the taste of their flesh or enjoy other unnecessary products derived from their slavery and murder. The only difference is that in the case of these thousands of equally sentient animals, speciesist society ignores their fate, and no one is brought to justice facing charges of animal cruelty.

Like I said in "Calculating the number "1", and more on the abducted non-human inmates", to use non-human animals is to treat them as replaceable tools. Non-human animals are either tools with no rights, or individuals with the right to life and liberty.

The only reason why the abductors in the Razzett case are being arraigned to court and other animal abusers (like breeders, butchers, etc) are not, is that non-human animals are still considered as human property. And with one's own property, there are few if any limits on what one can do. The only true protection that can ever be accorded to non-human animals is the abolition of their property status, be it collective or individual. And this would require no less than the abolition of all uses of non-human animals for human purposes. True justice would require no less.

Calculating the number "1", and more on the abducted non-human inmates

Calculating the number "1"

Daniel Xriha, in a boring letter (Shooting mathematics) that would only interest mathematics fanatics, writes in today's The Times disputing the number of birds the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) claims to be shot over Malta. I will not bore you with details, since where sentient life is concerned, to argue in numbers is to treat individuals as just numbers, which, when considering that Mr Xriha's letter is intended to somehow justify hunting in Malta, literally adds insult to injury. Not only do hunters murder birds, but those who argue for "sustainable" hunting actually treat individual birds as just numbers.

When dealing with the unnecessary killing of innocent life, the number killed is irrelevant, what species are killed is irrelevant, in which season the killing is made is irrelevant, and whether the murder is legal or not is also irrelevant. Unnecessary killing is murder, and this makes all hunting murder.

I have yet to see a letter from a Maltese hunter explaining why killing humans is always wrong, but killing birds is not. The only reason hunters give is that it is because we are human and they are not, which only begs the question: Why do humans matter and non-humans not? Try hard as you can, but you will never find any morally relevant attribute that is found in all humans and not in any non-human animal. The only attribute that really matters morally, and which would not exclude any humans as well, after all, is sentience.

Like Mr Xriha's letter's conclusion, I too conclude my comment by saying that I rest my case, although unlike him, I did not even have to take out my calculator. After all, every sentient animal, be the animal human or non-human, matters, and you don't need a calculator to calculate the number "1".

Where are the abducted inmates?

Meanwhile, Franco Farrugia also writes in today's The Times, in this case about the non-human animals recently abducted from Razzett tal-Hbiberija, a letter that is also published in today's The Malta Independent.

Mr Farrugia writes: "Perhaps it shouldn't come to me as a surprise that our country, as well as the various organisations and authorities within it, is so animal-unfriendly, in words as well as in deeds.

I am referring to the latest episode of animal cruelty that has taken place - this time, at the Razzett tal-Hbiberija, where a good number of animals, many of which (sic) were exotic, were reportedly stolen (abducted).

Barely has anyone spoken out to condemn this latest act, from the animals' point of view - various bodies which are supposedly the guardians of animal well-being in our country were very conspicuous by their silence".

At this point, it should be said that, while I would personally condemn the abductors for their actions which reflect the speciesist idea that non-human animals are human property (hence the use of the word "theft" in the mainstream media), it should also be stressed (as I have done in all my posts on this story) that the non-human animals at the Razzett tal-Hbiberija were already in a situation of abuse before they were abducted.

All animals (exempting rare cases involving self-defence and well-meaning protection) have the right to their freedom, and to keep non-human animals incarcerated for reasons other than their own protection, is abuse. Hence my "silence". The non-human animals in this case, except the one who was murdered, were presumably only transferred from one prison to the next.

Of course, most "animal protection" people would not dare criticize Razzett tal-Hbiberija for using and confining non-human animals in their zoo, which is what the place actually is. Since I am all for speaking the truth, I have used my own media to speak it. I can only hope that people will listen, and shed their speciesist prejudices.

Mr Farrugia continues his letter by writing: "Animal lovers surely need to know what action has been taken and is still being taken by the police regarding this serious matter".

In this instance, Mr Farrugia would be excused for not knowing, at the time of writing the letter, that three people aged 20, 24 and 30 are "helping the police in their investigations" into the abduction, and that they probably will be arraigned in the coming days.

Mr Farrugia then says: "Furthermore, one should also investigate whether the authorities at Razzett tal-Hbiberija were responsible enough with the animals that were under their care".

There is no need to investigate. The authorities at Razzett tal-Hbiberija were not responsible at all with the non-human animals "under their care". If they were, they would not have incarcerated them in the first place. Let's not beat about the bush, and engage ourselves in two weights and two measures. If we oppose commercial zoos, we should equally oppose zoos that make the claim that their use of non-human animals is for "therapeutic" and charitable purposes. To the animals incarcerated in the zoo, all this does not matter. All that matters is that the incarcerated non-humans are denied their freedom for the benefit of others.

Mr Farrugia continues by saying: "It is true that it is, indeed, a pity that the young children making use of the amenities of the Razzett are now bereft of the animals that are so important for all kinds of therapy. However, I am very disgusted that the Razzett tal-Hbiberija's short comments were simply directed at the loss that the young patrons have suffered with the theft. Not a single comment was made about their worry as to where these animals are now. Or about the deer that was savagely killed".

First of all, whether or not the abducted animals served a "therapeutic" purpose, while debatable in itself, is in any case irrelevant. No one should be forced to perform tasks for others (even if the task is to simply be there against your will), especially if this includes incarceration. We call that slavery. Secondly, what else would one expect other than the management of the Razzett to worry only about the effects the "theft" will have on the children using them for "therapy".

The involuntary use of any animal (including humans) is treating the used as just a tool for our own ends. Why should the management of the Razzett have any worries other than financial worries and worries with respects to the human children. After all, to use non-humans is to treat them as replaceable tools. All that is required now is for more monetary donations to buy more (non-human) slaves, or the donation of (non-human) slaves to replace the ones abducted - problem solved. Since when did tools have anything other than monetary value, or the value of the tasks they perform?

On the other hand, if non-human animals are not simply tools for human use, then the abducted animals should not have been there in the first place, and they should not be replaced by any others. Let's not beat around the bush, and say it as it is. Non-human animals are either tools with no rights, or individuals with the right to life and liberty.

Mr Farrugia also says: "It remains to be said, and with emphasis, in my opinion, that animals are not simply a means to an end but they are an end in themselves - they are sentient beings as much as you and I are. Hence, it is simply not enough to see that these animals are replaced as if nothing has happened".

All well and good. All animals are ends in themselves, and should not be considered human tools. However, Mr Farrugia then goes on to say that:

"Before any animals are used by Ir-Razzett again, its authorities have to see that there is the necessary level of security around the premises in which the animals are kept. Preferably, there should be an overnight watchman to oversee the safety of the animals".

I will not argue, like Mr Farrugia does, that there should be an overnight prison warden to oversee the animals. I will only keep insisting that the non-human animals should not be replaced.

Then, Mr Farrugia concludes his letter by saying: "The competent authorities must not give up on their search to retrieve the animals and to bring the culprits to justice, particularly in view of the atrocious death of one of them, a deer, a gentle and beautiful animal which I, for one, have never seen in real life.

Is there anyone out there who wonders where these animals are? Surely, in a small country like Malta, it is not easy to harbour these exotic animals in one's yard or garden, without the neighbours getting to know about it. Unless, of course, these animals are being kept in some isolated farm or garage till the hue and cry dies down.

But then, again, what hue and cry?"

It is to be expected that if the three suspects are actually guilty of the crime of abducting non-human animals and murdering one of them (although of course, they would be only charged with theft), we will all know what has become of the abducted. However, unless they have been murdered, the tragedy is that they will most probably still live the remaining years of lives incarcerated, even though they are not even guilty of one crime!

On being grey, heartless confinement, and why and where the caged bird and the blind horse sing

No grey, it's all black and white

Albert Gauci Cunningham, among other things, writes the following in today's The Times:

"In Malta things work this way; it's either black or white and most people fail to acknowledge or understand the fact that the only way to solve this, by now nauseating issue of hunting, is to go grey!"

Well, like I said last March, no, if it is a question of killing innocent and sentient individuals, there should be no compromise. Would Mr Gauci Cunningham compromise if the question was on whether one should be allowed to kill twenty, thirty, or a thousand black humans? Would he say that perhaps a hundred would be a fair compromise? I am confident that Mr Gauci Cunningham would say that there should be no compromise, and that the killing of any single black human should be illegal. There is no logical reason why the matter should be any different in the case of sentient non-human animals such as birds. To state that birds are not humans, simply begs the question: why does it matter to kill humans unnecessarily, and not matter if the individuals killed unnecessarily are not human?

Mr Gauci Cunningham also says that "on the other hand we have some in BirdLife who want to stop hunting (even sustainable) at all costs".

First of all, it must be immediately pointed out that BirdLife Malta, as an organization, has no abolitionist agenda, which is proven by Birdlife Malta president Joseph Mangion's statement in The Times of August 31, where he is quoted as saying that "BirdLife recognises the right of the Maltese hunters to hunt certain species that are allowed by law". If, on the otherhand, some BirdLife members do want to stop all hunting, they have every right to want so. In fact, considering that all birds are equally sentient and non-replaceable, this is the only logical and morally correct position to hold with regards to the hunting issue.

As for Mr Gauci Cunningham's mention of "sustainable" hunting, like I said in April of this year, when dealing with sentient individuals, talk of "sustainability" is as morally repugnant as talk of dispensable humans as long as the practice of killing them is "sustainable".

Sentient individuals are not dispensable, disposable or replaceable. Sentient individuals are rights holders with inherent value that is not reducible to that which others assign to them. All animals have rights, and talk of "sustainability" when dealing with sentient animals is tantamount to saying that non-human animals have no right to life.

Sustainability is acceptable only when dealing with non-sentient things. When sustainability is brought up in matters dealing with sentient individuals, talk of sustainability is talk which dispenses with fundamental rights and treats individuals as replaceable things. "Sustainability", when applied to sentients, is an outrageous disrespect towards the value of rights-bearing individuals.

Poetry on bird imprisonment

Lance Landall from New Zealand has contacted me and asked me to read one of his collection of poems (Heartless Confinement) which deals on the imprisonment of birds. The poem speaks for itself, and does not need any explanation. It also fits right into our abolitionist agenda. And speaking of abolitionist agendas, I also thought it appropriate to reproduce another poem on the same topic (Sympathy), written by Paul Laurence Dunbar, who was himself the son of ex-slaves.

Heartless Confinement

They’re kept in a tiny cage, a prison, in other words,
Incarcerated for life, never to be free, like other birds.
And there, those birds will remain, till finally, there they’ll die,
Yes, a heartless confinement, that no one can justify.

It’s no minor infringement, it’s acting inhumanely,
It’s time folk stopped to think, as it’s cruelty, quite plainly.
It’s just deriving pleasure, from some creature’s misery,
In other words, enjoying yourself, very tastelessly.

Back and forth they hop each day, for what else can caged birds do?
What a mindless existence, and so unnatural too.
I’m sure it drives them crazy, it must have some ill effect,
For after all, it’s a form of abuse, we all should reject.

No, birds weren’t meant to be caged, but rather, flying freely,
Enjoying their habitat, yes, living naturally.
They’re not toys or ornaments, they’re living creatures with rights,
Thus, it’s wrong that their imprisonment, amuses and delights.

Not one creature should be caged, accept where necessary,
And nor should humans either, be imprisoned wrongfully.
It’s selfish, perhaps sadistic, keeping creatures in a cage,
And should the tables be turned, oh, how loudly we would rage.

I’m not mincing my words, am I? And neither should I, friend,
For caging innocent creatures, is a practice that should end.
How can we, who champion freedom, not grant them freedom too;
Surely that’s hypocritical, yes, behaviour that’s askew.

Please don’t become the warden of a prison in your home,
A prison with an inmate, unable to fly or roam.
Consider how you would feel, should you be kept in a cell,
Just for someone’s enjoyment, completely against your will.

Lance Landall

Sympathy

I know what the caged bird feels, alas!
When the sun is bright on the upland slopes;
When the wind stirs soft through the springing grass,
And the river flows like a stream of glass;
When the first bird sings and the first bud opes,
And the faint perfume from its chalice steals--
I know what the caged bird feels!

I know why the caged bird beats his wing
Till its blood is red on the cruel bars;
For he must fly back to his perch and cling
When he fain would be on the bough a-swing;
And a pain still throbs in the old, old scars
And they pulse again with a keener sting--
I know why he beats his wing!

I know why the caged bird sings, ah me,
When his wing is bruised and his bosom sore,--
When he beats his bars and he would be free;
It is not a carol of joy or glee,
But a prayer that he sends from his heart's deep core,
But a plea, that upward to Heaven he flings--
I know why the caged bird sings!

Paul Laurence Dunbar

Where the Blind Horse Sings

Speaking of caged singing birds, Erikk Geannikis from Skyhorse Publishing sent me an email to inform me about a book that might interest some of Animal Rights Malta's Blog's readers. The book is called "Where the Blind Horse Sings - Love and Healing at an Animal Sanctuary", and is written by the Director and founder of the American Catskill Animal Sanctuary (CAS), Kathy Stevens.

The book depicts a world in which distinctions between "human" and "animal" are meaningless, a world where care and affection trump years of neglect and abuse. You will hear deeply moving and heartfelt accounts of animals like Dino, an old toothless pony who survived a fire and became the first member of the CAS community, and Cinnamon, a recent addition, who arrived timid and thin, with a bullet hole in her left eye. You will meet Rambo, the sheep who informs the staff when an animal needs assistance; Babe, the 900-pound pig; Paulie, the former cockfighting rooster who eats lunch with the humans and accompanies the director around town on her errands; and dozens of other horses, ponies, cows, goats, sheep, donkeys, pigs, rabbits, and a variety of birds, all larger than life. Side by side with them is a staff of hilarious, irreverent, but always loving humans, for whom every animal life has merit. These tales will profoundly - and joyously - change your life.

Miracles don't happen

Kenneth Zammit Tabona writes an article in today's The Times which deals on the recent spate of illegal hunting (and shooting in the face of a ranger), and the recent abduction of non-human animals from Razzett tal-Hbiberija. I have already given my opinion on most of the article's contents in my previous blog entries, so I will limit myself on commenting on things that were not mentioned previously by other correspondents.

Mr Zammit Tabona writes: "Let me once again make myself clear. I am against illegal and not legal hunting, however if abuse is allowed to happen unchecked I am afraid that it will be inevitable that the entire hunting community will be tarred with the same brush".

Unfortunately, Mr Zammit Tabona fails to recognize that all hunting is abuse, irrespective of whether it is legal or not, for the simple fact that hunting unnecessarily deprives life to sentient animals who have a right to live. I doubt that Mr Zammit Tabona would condone the shooting of stray dogs if the practice was made legal. Most probably he would feel outraged. Now, what makes the shooting of a stray dog cruel and the shooting of an equally sentient bird not? In this case, both animals do not form part of what some environmentalists call "endangered species". What makes the shooting of dogs clearly wrong is that, apart from bringing upon the dog unnecessary suffering, it deprives the dog of his life. What makes it any different in the case of a "common" bird? And what makes it any different in the case of a cow, pig, chicken, etc, for that matter? All unnecessary killing is abuse.

Mr Zammit Tabona goes on to say: "One would have expected that after Environment Minister George Pullicino abruptly ended spring hunting some months ago he would do the same now, especially after the Foresta 2000 ranger in Mellieha was shot at in the face and insulted. However, it was the Church Environment Commission on Monday the first that came out, excuse the comparison, with guns blazing instead!

It is apt that as I write to meet my deadline on Thursday, October 4, it happens to be the feast day of St Francis of Assisi - the poverello, whose love for God's creation at a time when animal rights were unheard of, has reverberated through the centuries and still, through the indelibly strong images conjured up by his canticles as immortalised by Giotto, presents us with a unique aspect of Christianity that has, in all this time, been responsible for environmental preservation long before the term was invented.

St Francis was the first eco-warrior, the first man in history to make it abundantly clear that all creatures, great and small, are part of God's plan and that man must respect them and use them in a sustainable way.

I could not help thinking of the deer that appear as attributes of St Julians and St Hubertus, both of whom are associated with hunting. Why did not a crucifix appear between the antlers of this deer that brought so much pleasure to the handicapped children who frequent the Park of Friendship as it did when St Hubertus was out hunting? Why did it not speak to its killer as it did to St Julian? Has God abandoned us to allow these senseless acts of cruelty to happen? Are miracles a thing of the past, lost as are the stories of Zeus's adventures?

It was right and fitting for the Church to speak out against illegal hunting while claiming that persistent abuse would jeopardise legal hunting. The Church's unexpected and brave statement was to me as extraordinarily miraculous as the Crucifix that appeared between the antlers of the deer of St Hubertus. The Church has spoken on behalf of the dumb and defenceless and, like the deer of St Julian, prophesised dire consequences if something is not done to regularise the abuses once and for all.

Miracles still do happen".

First of all, to say that "man must respect them (non-human animals) and use them in a sustainable way" is self-contradictory. To use any individual without consent, especially if one kills someone else simply because there are several others of the victim's kind, is to treat that someone as a replaceable object. Every animal is a unique individual. To treat someone as an object, and treat that someone according to the arbitrary value you place on him or her, is to treat that someone disrespectfully. Each animal values his or her life, and that's all that should matter. If "man" must respect non-human animals, then "man" should not use non-human animals as if they were replaceable objects.

As for the "miracle" that is the Church's speaking out on behalf of "protected" animals, this is no miracle at all. It is everyone's duty to act and speak out on behalf of anyone who is abused and exploited. The fact that the local Church authorities chose to speak out on behalf of "protected" birds, though it should be applauded as a step in the right direction, unfortunately does not go far enough.

It is very easy to condemn abuses that you do not take an active part in. It is far more difficult to acknowledge the abuses that one performs oneself, and to stop that abuse. Presumably, the Church, while falling short of acknowledging that non-human animals have rights, recognizes the fact that all unnecessary suffering and death inflicted by humans on non-human animals is wrong. Therefore, the Church should garner the courage to speak out unequivocally against all unnecessary suffering and death inflicted on non-human animals. It is not just illegal hunting that causes unnecessary suffering and death. All hunting does. And so do all uses of non-humans exploited for their taste, skin, entertainment, and all other uses that are unnecessary for human health and survival. When the Church speaks openly against all forms of animal abuse, now that would be a real miracle!

Then again, miracles don't happen. It's all up to us to change the world into a more compassionate one where justice prevails and where no one is exploited simply because the exploiter is more powerful than the exploited. That change starts with oneself, and does not require a miracle. All that's necessary is sufficient will to do the right thing.

Being shocked for the wrong reasons

Assisting one group by exploiting another

Today's The Malta Independent editorial deals on the recent abduction of non-human animals from the Park of Friendship in Marsascala.

The editorial, among other things, says that "The theft of a number of animals from the Park of Friendship in Marsascala last week and the killing of a deer at the same premises can only be described as a despicable, selfish and cowardly act.

The theft (abduction) of the animals took place between Sunday and Monday night last week. Some 13 "exotic" animals went missing after thieves broke into the compound and made off with them. A deer was simply beaten to death because it (sic) would not cooperate.

The vast majority of people have been shocked by this because of the implications it has. The animals used at the park were not simply display animals, they were there for therapeutic purposes so that young disabled children can pet them, interact with them and hopefully give them a little joy in their lives. It is not the cash value of the animals which is at stake here. The animals themselves were valued at Lm1,300. But the value they have to the children who go to the park can never be measured in such terms".

At this point, it should be immediately pointed out that whether the non-human animals incarcerated at the park were there "simply" for display, or whether they were there for "therapeutic" purposes, makes no difference to the incarcerated animals. Would any of us voluntarily offer ourselves up for incarceration if we thought it would help others? And even if the answer to this hypothetical question is "yes", still the question still hinges on volition. The non-humans incarcerated at the park never offered themselves up for incarceration.

Like I said previously, we should whenever we can assist those in need, provided we do not do so at the expense of other individuals. To assist one group by exploiting another can only be described as unjust and abusive. All sentient individuals have the right to life and liberty, and to imprison one group so that the other may benefit from the incarceration is simply abusive. That said, I unreservedly condemn the abduction of the non-humans from the park, but I do that for the right (non-speciesist) reasons. I condemn the abduction primarily out of concern for the non-human animals themselves.

The editorial is of course correct to note that it is not the value humans arbitrarily place on non-humans (as if they were human property) which is at stake. However, neither is it the value these non-humans have to the children. Like I also said previously, the incarceration of the non-human animals at the park is not the children's fault. It is certainly unfortunate that children are being made to get accustomed to non-humans incarcerated in such parks, and that the children using the park will surely miss the non-human animals whom they befriended. However, this in no way changes the fact that the non-human animals should have never been there in the first place.

There are other non-abusive therapeutic methods to help children with disabilities. A non-speciesist society would make use of non-abusive methods that do not involve the involuntary exploitation of anyone. And the undeserved incarceration of anyone is always exploitation.

Why kill the deer?

Meanwhile, Mary Anne Schiro writes the following letter in today's The Times:

"Reading the newspaper on October 3 filled me with disgust to say the least. First the cowardly act of the ranger being shot at, then the barbaric nightmare that occurred at Ir-Razzett tal-Hbiberija (Park of Friendship).

If nothing is done to curb these heartless criminals, from now on, all the Maltese will be guilty of such crimes.

The headlines should read:

We killed an innocent deer.
We shot so many birds.
We hurt so many horses.
We maltreated dogs and cats.

Shall I go on? It is truly sickening.

Most of all the angels at Ir-Razzett tal-Hbiberija are left with a void so difficult to explain. The chain in their vital routine has been broken.

So the time has come to take action and again I ask 'Why kill the deer?'"

Now, I don't know whether Ms Schiro is a vegan or even a vegetarian, though presumably she is not an animal rights abolitionist considering that she makes no mention of the fact that the "vital routine" that was broken (albeit in a truly tragic way - for the non-humans) was in itself abusive since it involved the incarceration of innocents. However, that said, I would add the following list to Ms Schiro's:

We killed thousands of chickens.

We killed thousands of cows.

We killed thousands of pigs.

We killed thousands of rabbits.

So the time has come to take action and I ask, 'Why kill the chicken, cow, pig, rabbit etc?' Does the life of the cow matter any less than the life of the deer or bird or dog or cat?

On living in the past, being furious about the Church's condemnation of hunting, and other hunter nonsense

FKNK furious about the Church's condemnation of illegal hunting

The hunters' federation (FKNK) has yesterday issued an angry statement in reaction to a statement issued by the Maltese Catholic Church’s Environment Commission which condemned the latest spate of illegal hunting in Malta.

As reported by The Malta Independent on Sunday, the local newspaper that has thankfully spared us most of the nonsense in the FKNK media release, tells us that the FKNK has demanded a meeting with the Archbishop.

The Malta Independent on Sunday basically tells us that "Falling not quite short of saying the Environment Commission’s statement was written by people with no knowledge of hunting, the statement added that it did not wish to speak about the Church’s past but a Church whose Inquisition killed so many human beings should not speak of the killing of a few animals".

A very interesting and "intelligent" observation by the bird-murderers' federation. So presumably, according to the FKNK's warped logic, just because the Church made grave mistakes (I would actually call them atrocities) in the past (and it must be pointed out for the sake of the FKNK, that the people who took part in the Inquisition are all dead), the Church has no authority to make its opinion heard.

I suppose, by the FKNK's warped logic, democracy and freedom of speech must be suspended today just because democracy and freedom of speech were denied centuries ago! Such logic could only be expected from people who still live in the past, which is what people who take part in atrocious and outdated practices (such as hunting) must be doing. So now, the FKNK is not only at war with the majority of the local population who oppose hunting, and at a xenophobic war with all "foreigners" who "dare" criticize illegal hunting (let alone all hunting) in Malta, but are now starting a crusade against the local church. Things are sure is getting more interesting.

As for the comment that the Church's "Environment Commission’s statement was written by people with no knowledge of hunting", I suppose that the experts on murder would be the murderers themselves. But should we consult with murderers when legislating against murder, or when considering whether murder is wrong? I think not.

It would also be interesting to know the "St Hubertus Hunters" take on this. Are they joining the anti-Church crusade too? Let's wait and see. One thing is for sure. In their desperate attempt to defend themselves and their immoral practice of murdering birds (a drowning man will clutch at straws), with their irrational public statements, xenophobic insults (calling foreigners "Nazis"), and the latest shooting at a ranger, the hunters themselves are surely doing themselves and their "cause" no favours!

On comedians, extremists, abolitionists, conservationists and bird murderers

And speaking of the "St Hubertus Hunters" - whose "patron saint" legend ironically enough says that he was a hunter who saw a vision of a stag who told him to change his evil ways, after which he stopped hunting and became a priest, and later a Bishop (of course, I do not believe that the legend is literally true, but then again, neither do I believe that any decent person, let alone a "saint" would condone the unnecessary killing of any animal) - provides us in the Sunday Times with the same letter that was published in The Malta Independent on Sunday a week ago. For the benefit of new visitors, I shall reproduce the letter together with my reply of a week ago.

The "St Hubertus Hunters" once again (in a letter in today's The Sunday Times), due to lack of basic understanding of the English language, mistake ornithologists and/or conservationists with abolitionists.

Let me state from the outset that the German organization The Committee Against Bird Slaughter (CABS), that participated in the Malta Raptor Camp, is not an abolitionist organization. Some members might be, but the organization, unlike Animal Rights Malta, does not have an abolitionist agenda. The CABS agenda is only to stop illegal hunting.

Mark Mifsud Bonnici, the secretary of the "St Hubertus Hunters" writes a long and boring letter in today's The Sunday Times, a letter which is not the ideal read on a Sunday morning. I had made an effort to read it in full when it first appeared last week (in The Malta Independent on Sunday), but I shall spare you most of the details. Basically it is a wholly useless letter based on the misunderstanding of the difference between abolitionists and conservationists, and a misunderstanding and incorrect interpretation of a simple sentence in the English language.

Mr Mifsud Bonnici writes: "A report in the local media made by The Committee Against Bird Slaughter (CABS), which states: 'CABS would return to Malta for a longer stay and with more volunteers during the spring hunting season and that it would continue its actions in Malta ‘until hunting stops”, amply shows the deceit of this extremist organisation. It proves that the sole purpose of organising the so-called 'raptor camps' is not the intended study of raptors and the reporting of illegalities, which was the excuse used for their visit, but an attempt to stop all hunting. An organisation that does not distinguish between illegal shooting and shooting legal quarry (sic) and claims to act 'against bird slaughter', can only be described as extremist and as such its methods and reporting are to be evaluated on this basis".

Now here is where Mr Mifsud Bonnici is gravely mistaken. When CABS makes a statement that it will continue its actions in Malta until hunting stops, Mr Mifsud Bonnici fails to take that sentence in its proper context. Since CABS' aim is to stop illegal hunting, it is understandable that if all hunting were to stop, there would be no need for it to continue its monitoring and reporting of illegalities. If there is no hunting, there is no illegal hunting. If there is hunting, there might be illegal hunting. It's that simple.

In their own website, CABS state categorically: "The Committee Against Bird Slaughter – CABS (Komitee gegen den Vogelmord e.V.) is an action and operational society. By this we mean that we have a small administration and executive board, without subordinate elements, capable of rapid reaction whenever and wherever required. The route from concept to final decision and implementation is often very short so that when wildlife is acutely endangered we can act rapidly. We have achieved a great deal since our foundation in 1975 through the implementation of this concept.We intervene in particular where bird trappers, hunters or animal traders commit offences against current nature protection legislation in Europe. We are always concerned to harmonise closely our activities with the responsible police, forest or customs authorities. In addition, through initiatives at parliamentary level, we attempt to achieve improvements in the legal guidelines for wildlife, nature and species protection. We distant ourselves fundamentally from militant actions or measures that do not comply with the prevailing legislation in the country of operations".

Basically, this quoted paragraph says it all. CABS is not an abolitionist organization. As for the charge of "extremism", I have already dealt with the "St Hubertus Hunters" on that issue in several blog posts, so I shall refrain from repeating myself here. It will suffice for me to say that all prejudiced individuals, be they racists, sexists, speciesists or whatever, see their opponents as extremists.

Mr Mifsud Bonnici goes on to say that: "We would welcome bona fide birdwatchers as readily as we would the reporting and prosecuting of illegal shooting, but we will definitely not tolerate any society or committee intent on banning hunting".

Interesting. So the "St Hubertus Hunters" will not tolerate any other opinion than their own, and will not tolerate anyone who wants to legally end hunting. Such are the "St Hubertus Hunters" democratic credentials. Now, who are the extremists? It would also be interesting to know how the "St Hubertus Hunters" would stop anyone (Maltese or foreign) from legally working to ban all hunting, considering Malta is a democracy, and particularly since now we are members of the European Union. Does Mr Mifsud Bonnici perhaps intend to suggest to any political party that people who campaign for the abolition of hunting should be expelled from our country? Or perhaps that abolitionists who legally wish to come to our country to conduct legal campaigns should be barred from entering Malta? I'm sure democratic politicians would take him very seriously if he would make such a suggestion. And what if he does not make that suggestion? How would he plan to stop anyone "intent on banning hunting"? Now here's a shocking revelation to Mr Mifsud Bonnici: You cannot stop us legally.

Now here's an interesting question from Mr Mifsud Bonnici. He asks: "Knowing full well the extent of illegalities that go on in other countries, especially in Germany, has CABS asked the German government to stop all hunting? Has the German government interfered with the legal activities of the members of the German hunting federation? Obviously this has not happened. So CABS picks on the small fry: Malta!".

Now does not this contradict Mr Mifsud's claim in the same long and boring letter that CABS are abolitionists who want to stop all hunting? I leave it to intelligent readers to make up their own conclusion. I don't think it requires much effort to see that the "St Hubertus Hunters" are at best understandably very confused, seeing that they are no longer allowed to do whatever they want, and seeing that, particularly now that we are members of the European Union, Europe's eyes are "on the small fry: Malta".

Mr Mifsud Bonnici concludes his letter by saying: "And yes we do kick up a fuss when comedians put on such shows with the aim of blackening the Maltese hunters’ image".

Now, in view of Mr Mifsud Bonnici's persistently contradicting himself in several of his letters, particularly in this one, when he both claims that CABS both are and are not abolitionist, I ask: Who is the real comedian? However, one thing's for sure. The mentality and immoral practice of destroying the weak, and bullying and murdering defenceless animals is no laughing matter. Despite the extremist and undemocratic Mr Mifsud Bonnici's statement that they ("St Hubertus Hunters") "will definitely not tolerate any society or committee intent on banning hunting", true abolitionists will never stop working towards the goal of the complete abolition of non-human animal murder.

As for "blackening the Maltese hunters' image", we shouldn't bother. I believe that Mr Mifsud Bonnici is doing a pretty good job of that himself, through his persistent bullying of (non-human) individuals who are weaker than himself (perhaps it boosts his ego), through his persistent murder of sentient non-human animals, and through his misunderstanding of simple English language and his persistent self-contradictions.

More opposition to hunter arrogance, xenophobia and callous shooting of birds and ranger

The Times editorial of today, and I.M. Beck's weekly article, deal with the latest illegal hunting incidents, the arrogance and xenophobia of the hunters' federation, and the shooting in the face of a ranger by a hunter last Monday. The Times editor, among other things, writes:

"The vast majority of right-thinking Maltese deplore the bullying antics of hunters. They are especially revolted by the illegal hunting carried out by a sizeable minority. Few would therefore have resisted the feeling of schadenfreude as the so-called Federation for Hunting and Conservation (sic) piled one public relations disaster on the other in its reaction to the fortnight-long Raptor Monitoring Camp that has just ended.

The language used at a press conference by the secretary of the federation to describe members of the Committee Against Bird Slaughter (CABS), a German-based group of bird watchers, was ill-judged, intemperate in the extreme and utterly unacceptable. This led inevitably to members of CABS being physically and verbally harassed by hunters on the ground - being called 'Nazis' and pelted with stones. There were also reports of incidents where both male and female members were subjected to acts of indecent exposure and to others being threatened with weapons.

If the leadership of the hunting federation speaks of 'foreign interference' and 'extremists' and fans xenophobia, is it any wonder if the swaggering arrogance of men armed with shotguns in the rank and file is translated into acts of overt intimidation? If the federation feared that the presence of the Raptor Monitoring Camp would expose the blatant acts of illegal hunting which took place, they were right to be worried. Bird watchers witnessed over 200 incidents of illegal hunting and trapping during the 14-day camp, including the shooting of 109 protected birds".

To the above I would add that a growing number of Maltese people are finally getting to deplore all unnecessary murder of birds just for the "fun" of it. More and more Maltese people are finally getting to see hunting for what it actually is: as definitely and unquestionably the murder of sentient and harmless birds. Therefore, I believe that I.M. Beck, also in today's The Times, speaks for several Maltese people, when in his article entitled "Now ban it", he says:

"Hunting, I mean. What is it going to take, somebody getting killed? (Actually lots are already being killed - that they are birds and not human makes no difference). Not that there haven't been hunting accidents which have resulted in someone's death, of course, but you know what I mean.

First we had the repeated spectacle of protests by hunters turning aggressive but restraining themselves to overt threats and minimal property damage. Then we had journalists being beaten - and, yes, one of them was my son, which is why I'm strong on this one. Then we had environmentalists threatened and called all manner of names, including 'Nazis' (echoed with apparent relish by It-Torca (a Maltese language newspaper)).

Now we've had someone, a living, breathing, human being, shot, luckily without lasting damage. Whether this is because the shooter who was ultra-negligent was lucky or whether it is because s/he was a lousy shot is debatable - suffice it to say that the reaction from the one who fired the shot was a hasty retreat, combined with threats and insults.

I have it on good authority (my son, who knows the guy) that Mr Ray Vella, the latest victim of the hunting fraternity's bonhomie and goodness, is one of the world's all-round decent blokes. When the offspring met with him recently to cover the thuggish vandalism wreaked on the tree-planting project Mr Vella oversees, he was more concerned about the attack on Ben (my son) than on the destruction his project had suffered.

Now his thanks is to have been shot, accidentally or otherwise (and I can't put my hand on my heart and come down on the side of either option, though, emotionally, I know where I'm heading) and then insulted and threatened.

Great, the Federation of Bird-Killing Conservationists, or whatever it is they delude themselves that they are, has expressed its regret. Big whoop: They can take their regret and do with it what they please (thankfully we have been spared the hunter's federation's pathetic "BirdLife did it").

Enough is enough: People can't be allowed to go around carrying guns anymore".

On Alternattiva Demokratika's proposals in electoral manifesto and press release for World Animal Day

Alternattiva Demokratika Zghazagh (ADZ) - Green Youth, in a press release, yesterday said that it supports all animal associations, and that on the 4th October, ADZ together with animal associations, Greens across Europe and the public, celebrated World Animal Day. Yet, ADZ went on to say, "it is sad to note that to date there are still animals who are still being abandoned and treated badly by their human companions". On this day, ADZ said, "we celebrate the beauty of the animal life in all forms and the relationship humans have with the animal kingdom".

I shall be commenting on the press release and on AD's proposals in its political manifesto further down.

Robert Callus, spokesperson for ADZ said that "today we acknowledge the diverse roles that animals play in our lives. Animals not only are our faithful companions but support us and help us and bringing wonder in our lives. Most of all during this day we acknowledge and be ever grateful for the way animals enrich our lives".

ADZ said it "strongly believes that animals demand respect and are not objects and have their own rights, and that there should be more lobbying for serious law enforcement regarding animal fighting and illegal bird hunting. Those mistreating animals in their care should not be allowed to keep animals", Mr Callus said.

Mr Callus reiterated that "education should be part of a strong campaign to promote animal rights, with topics on the subject for school children, and at university level a compulsory credit should be introduced for B. Ed. students".

ADZ said it is also in favour of introducing the use of microchip for pets in Malta. Finally Robert Callus deplored the "theft" of animals from Ir-Razzett tal-Hbiberija describing it as an act which goes beyond a petty crime. "It is an act of hooliganism, hurting children with disabilities which becomes an embarrassment to us all", Mr Callus said. "It is embarassing that there are among us those who could seek their advantage at the expense of these children".

Alternattiva Demokratika (AD)'s proposals to be included in its electoral manifesto, include:

"Amending the Animal Welfare Act 2002 such that the minimum fine for dog and cock fighting rises to Lm2,000 to reflect the cruelty of this crime. Spectators during such fights (particularly dog fights) should also face charges. Banning the use of dog chokers (only the use of collars and harnesses will be permitted). Amendments to make sure that individuals found guilty of animal maltreatment are banned from keeping any animals in the future.

Stipulating the maximum number of hours horses drawing carriages (karozzini) can work at a stretch.

Ban on the use of animals, particularly exotic animals in circuses.

Ban on dolphinariums.

The problem of strays must be tackled effectively. AD proposes the introduction of a dog registration system. All dogs should be micro chipped against a nominal fee. If the owner of the dog does not report his dog missing during a stipulated period, he/she will be charged with abandonment. Death of dog must also be reported to system administrators. Special monitoring towards the keeping of dog breeds known to be used for fighting should be held. Money from dog registration plus fines will go into a neutering fund.

Importation of dogs not suitable for our climate should be banned. Dog breeds originating from low temperate zones suffer from the hot climate encountered in Malta.

Enforcement - Introducing Animal Welfare Officers. Although mentioned in the Animal Welfare Act 2002, these were never appointed.

Appointing of a professional dog trainer to serve as a court expert. Cases where a dog is reported to have attacked a person should not be put down to sleep prior to advice from appointed expert.

Livestock (sic) intended for food production should be given the same welfare protection as other animals. Particular problem areas in animal welfare are livestock (sic) transportation, breeding practices and slaughterhouses.

Education - Continuous Educational Campaigns in schools and media are essential for a mentality change. Animal Welfare Societies should be actively involved. Animal Welfare should be included as a credit for B.Educ course at the University. Teachers should be well educated in this subject in order to raise awareness amongst their students.

Animal Husbandry (sic) course organized by MCAST should also include Animal Welfare as one of the main subjects. It is important for farm managers to have a sound background in animal welfare".

While acknowledging that Alternattiva Demokratika (AD) is the most progressive party in Malta where issues on non-human animals are concerned, it must be said (like I have said before) that AD is not an animal rights party. An indiscriminate use of the language of rights only serves to confuse the issue, and therefore I would like to immediately point out that both the press release quoted above, and the proposals to be included in AD's manifesto, while being an obvious improvement with respects to all other political parties' position with regards non-human animals in Malta, are welfarist in nature. Animal rights means the abolition of the property status of non-human animals, and is not just about better or "humane" treatment of non-humans.

It is precisely for this reason that I wish to comment on both ADZ's media release and the proposals to be included in AD's manifesto. Of course, my criticism is to be taken as constructive criticism, and as a means to educate, and not as some kind of "ungrateful" personal attack. After all, all political parties in Malta (and probably in most of the world) are predominantly speciesist, and if one opts to vote for any particular party giving weight to non-human animal issues, to vote for any party with regards to these issues (unless it is an abolitionist animal rights party) is to choose the "lesser evil". That said, it must be stressed that AD is the most progressive when it comes to non-human animal issues.

It must also be said that most of the animal organizations in Malta (as in the rest of the world) are also welfarists who use the language of rights only strategically, and it is therefore no wonder that the public is so confused about these issues (one obvious give-away is the inclusion of animal flesh in fund-raising lunches and dinners). It is primarily the purpose of this blog to do away with all the confusion and to educate on what animal rights is really all about. It must be mentioned, however, that AD invited all animal organizations in Malta (including myself) to give their views on their proposals, many of which were included in their manifesto.

I would like to start with ADZ's mention of "the diverse roles that animals play in our lives. Animals not only are our faithful companions but support us and help us and bringing wonder in our lives. Most of all during this day we acknowledge and be ever grateful for the way animals enrich our lives".

Non-human animals exist for their own reasons, and they should not be expected to play any role in our lives. Of course, this does not mean that people should not adopt abandoned animals, but those who do should do so for altruistic reasons, and not simply to enjoy "faithful companions". Non-human animals owe us nothing. We, on the other hand, at least owe them respectful treatment as sentient individuals who are no one's property but their own. This obviously means that non-human animals are not to be used for any human purposes, and should never be intentionally harmed except in rare cases of self-defense.

It so follows that though ADZ rightly says that it "strongly believes that (non-human) animals demand respect and are not objects and have their own rights", this claim must necessarily mean that animal rights violations do not stop with "animal fighting and illegal bird hunting", for instance. All non-human animal breeding by humans is an animal rights violation, and all hunting, and not just illegal hunting, is an animal rights violation. And considering that dog and cat breeding by humans for human purposes is a rights violation, and that the unnecessary killing of all birds is also a rights violation, it necessarily follows that all non-human breeding by humans for human purposes is a rights violation (and this includes pigs, cows, chickens, etc). Also, all unnecessary killing of all animals (again this included pigs, cows chickens, etc) are rights violations. After all, if a dog has the right to life, why wouldn't a cow or pig have that same right? Either all animals have the right to life, or no one does. And in "animals", I of course include humans.

Now, considering that all non-human killing is unnecessary except in rare cases of self-defence, and that the breeding by humans of non-human animals is unnecessary (the reasons are all simply exploitative), it must necessarily follow that both all "animal agriculture", and all non-human breeding for companionship, entertainment or economical purposes are all rights violations. It also follows that since non-human animals are not human property, any use of non-human animals which is done just to benefit humans - and not out of concern for the non-humans themselves - is mistreatment.

Therefore, ADZ's claim that "those mistreating animals in their care should not be allowed to keep animals", following animal rights' logic, would mean that all humans who breed, sell and buy non-human animals, or use non-humans for human purposes, are mistreating animals. A law that would forbid humans who mistreat non-humans from keeping non-human animals, if it were to be consistent, would abolish all "animal agriculture", all breeding, selling and buying of non-humans, all non-human use for human profit or entertainment, etc. A non-speciesist law would only allow having non-human animals in one's home for altruistic reasons, such as caring for rescued animals.

Regarding the abduction of non-human animals from Razzett tal-Hbiberija, ADZ unfortunately sees it as just "an act of hooliganism, hurting children with disabilities which becomes an embarrassment to us all" and that "It is embarrassing that there are among us those who could seek their advantage at the expense of these children". Like I already said yesterday, the direct victims of the abduction and murder were the non-human animals themselves, and it is an unfortunate fact that disabled children, instead of being taught that non-human animals are not human property and should not be used for human purposes, are actually made to participate in "therapeutic programmes" which involve the incarceration of non-human animals. Of course, like I also said yesterday, children are innocents who are not to blame for the non-human animals' incarceration, and so it is an unfortunate fact that they have been made to grow fond of the non-human inmates whom they now will surely miss. However, this in no way excuses the confinement of the non-human animals. We should never help a group by exploiting another, especially when the exploited group is completely denied its freedom, like in the case of the animals at the Razzett.

My final comment on the above regards the claim that "Livestock (sic) intended for food production should be given the same welfare protection as other animals. Particular problem areas in animal welfare are livestock transportation, breeding practices and slaughterhouses". It is no surprise that non-human animals used for "agricultural" purposes are exempted from most protections that are accorded to other animals in the "animal welfare act". If, for instance, animals used for their flesh were to be given exactly the same protection as cats and dogs, the "animal abattoir" would have to close down.

Animal rights is not just about "humane treatment" of other animals (whatever that means). Animal rights is about the treatment of all animals as sentient individuals who exist for their own purposes, who value their own lives regardless of the arbitrary value humans place on them, and who most fundamentally, have the basic right to life and the right not to be treated as human property. All other treatment of non-human animals falls short of their rights and can only be described as injustice and abuse. And by the way, with millions of non-human animals incarcerated, tortured and murdered every day, "World Animal Day" is definitely no cause for celebration.

More on the abduction of non-human animals from Razzett tal-Hbiberija

The Times of today reports that "Solidarity and donations poured into the Razzett Tal-Hbiberija (Park of Friendship), in Marsacala, following the ransacking of its animal park last Sunday, depleting it of 13 (non-human) animals used in therapy for children with disability and leaving a deer bludgeoned to death".

According to The Times, "The Malta Communications Authority (MCA)'s social club will be holding a fund-raising event in December, which should go some way in replacing the estimated Lm1,300 worth (sic) of (non-human) animals stolen (abducted) from the park. These included three barn owls, two golden pheasants, five mountain goats, a parrot, a rabbit and a monkey, which (sic)" alone was worth Lm400 (sic)".

Gordon Pace, fund-raising manager of Razzett tal-Hbiberija told The Times that "it was not so much the cost that were the Razzett's primary concern as the fact that the children, who benefited from the use of the park, were the direct victims of the perpetrators of the theft (sic) and were the ones to have been harmed, even if unintentionally".

The Times also reports that apart from the MCA initiative, two individuals, who keep non-human animals at their homes, have "donated" four mountain goats and two owls respectively.

Mr Pace told The Times that the park is open to all ages but the animal therapy focused mainly on children aged five to 13.

"They used to groom them and they were their pets" Mr Pace said. "And although some may not notice that their particular 'pet' is missing, the therapy programme has been dealt a blow".

Mr Pace said the park had more goats, as well as its own deer, which could be bred to replace the "stolen" ones.

"Even if we got them back, they would need to get used to the environment again and it would probably take some months. And those that were not stolen (sic) were traumatised by the intrusion and are not behaving normally", he said.

While all animal rights advocates recognize the right of children, especially children with disabilities, to kindness, assistance and care, this should not be done at the expense of innocents. Therefore I would like to categorically repeat my claim that the non-human animals incarcerated at the Razzett tal-Hbiberija should not have been there in the first place. A petting zoo is a zoo, and a zoo is a non-human animal prison. All animals are sentient individuals with their own personal right to life and liberty (except of course, in the case of rescued animals who cannot be released). This means that to buy or breed non-human animals for human purposes is a rights-violation, because it involves treating sentient rights-bearing individuals as property.

And speaking of "buying" non-human animals, it must also be said that all animals are priceless. To put a price on someone is to put an arbitrary value. Each animal values his or her life, and to put a price on someone is to demean that individual, apart from exploiting him or her for your purposes. We should be teaching our children to respect all animals, and not to treat non-humans as human property just because we say so, or have the power to do so.

It must also be said that the animals were abducted and not stolen. Non-human animals are not human property, and to have something stolen, one must have the right to own it in the first place. Of course, since we live in a speciesist world, legally humans have the right to own non-human animals. So legally the animals taken from the park are considered as stolen. However, since all animals have the right not to be property of anyone, morally speaking, the animals were abducted, and not stolen. Saying this is in no way intended to diminish the gravity of the animal abduction. On the contrary - it is very probable that the person or persons who abducted them had no good intentions, and the animals will either end up in worse circumstances, be murdered, or be sold to other speciesists. I am only insisting on their abduction being called so, just to put things into perspective.

Also, the claim that the children were the direct victims of the abduction is obviously false. While understandably the children have truly been dealt a heavy blow, particularly since presumably they have got to become fond of the incarcerated animals, and since speciesist society unfortunately teaches children that it is morally ok to incarcerate and use non-human animals as human property (the children are innocent, and their miseducation is not their fault), however it must be stressed that the direct victims are obviously the non-human animals themselves, who, after spending years of incarceration, were abducted and/or murdered.

No animal is replaceable. All animals are unique. Even though I do not expect this to happen, the best thing the Razzett tal-Hbiberija could do after this incident, is not to replace the non-human animals, to stop breeding and buying any more, and to use therapeutic methods for children that do not involve the exploitation of innocents. This way, the people at the park would be helping the children (by alternative educational and therapeutical methods) without exploiting other sentient and rights-bearing individuals - non-human animals. Let's not exploit one group to benefit another. Let's recognize the inherent value of everyone, respect everyone's rights, and whenever we can, assist anyone who needs assistance provided we do so without exploiting others in the process.

Hunter shoots ranger in the face and runs away, and incarcerated animals abducted and one murdered

Hunter shoots at, then insults ranger

Maltastar.com reports that "a hunter in his mid-twenties fired shots towards a Foresta 2000 ranger in Mellieha on Monday, hitting him with lead pellets on his face, a mere one centimetre away from his eyes. Fortunately the ranger, Ray Vella, who was tending his own fields, was not seriously injured despite being shot at from a distance of around 35 metres.

The hunter ran away and no arrests were made since Monday, when the case happened.

Mr Vella is a member of BirdLife and has been the ranger of the Foresta 2000 site in Mellieha for four years. He is also the curator of the trees in the Foresta 2000 site where a few months ago an estimated 3000 trees were damaged by vandals. On Monday afternoon Ray Vella had just arrived at his field and was tending his land when a hunter shot in his direction from a distance of 35 metres, said BirdLife.

Mr Vella said: 'I was hit in the face in several places and shouted in pain, making it clear to the hunter that I was hit. The hunter in turn shouted back aggressively, swearing at me and cursing at BirdLife. He then ran off, while taunting me over his shoulder to call the Police'.

The environmental NGO criticised the Police who did not arrive on the scene before an hour after the incident, allowing the alleged criminal to run away. Ray Vella gave a full statement to the Police on Tuesday morning and expressed his intention to press charges. BirdLife Malta president Joseph Mangion condemned the appalling and unacceptable act. 'Words do not suffice to condemn what happened to Ray and to adequately express BirdLife’s incredulity with the way that our citizens cannot enjoy their country side in safety', he said.

Meanwhile, Alternattiva Demokratika, Din l-Art Helwa and the Environment Ministry also condemned the incident. The Hunters’ Federation President could not be contacted throughout the day".

Interviewed by The Times, upon being asked whether he thought the attack on him was intentional, Mr Vella later said: "Frankly, I don't know what to think. I saw no bird in the area and, if it was negligence, the man would have come to see whether I needed help and not run away...Certainly, had it been a panic reaction he would not have insulted me". Referring to the recent placing of murdered birds at Nadur Tower, Mr Vella said: "We're feeling the heat lately. I was at the Nadur Tower where the dead birds and the cow dung was left. It's not pleasant, but it doesn't change anything as far as I'm concerned. I suppose I now know what it feels like to be a bird".

I wonder whether the hunters' federation (FKNK) or the "St Hubertus Hunters" will say that the ranger was shot by a BirdLife member or perhaps by a member of the German organization Committee Against Bird Slaughter (CABS) to "blacken the Maltese hunters' image"!

Incarcerated animals abducted and one murdered

In the meantime, Di-ve.com reports that "thirteen animals have been 'stolen' while another was brutally killed in a 'theft' from the Animal Park at the Razzett tal-Hbiberija (Park of Friendship). The theft took place during the night between Sunday and Monday and was clearly a planned one, a spokesperson for Razzett tal-Hbiberija said.

Three barn owls, two golden pheasants, four mountain goats and a baby (goat), one Amazon parrot, one baby deer, one rabbit and one monkey were stolen. The 'thieves' also brutally killed a deer while committing the crime".

"The direct victims of the crime are the children who benefit from the therapy programmes making use of animal interaction, the spokesperson further said whilst highlighting the sadness of all the staff at Razzett tal-Hbiberija at such an act".

I feel I must comment that the direct victims of the crime are not the children who "benefit" from the "therapy programmes" making use of animal incarceration. The direct victims of the crime are the non-human animals themselves. Apart from the fact that all animals have the right to life and liberty, which makes confinement for human purposes no different from wrongful incarceration, and the fact that all non-human animal use reflects their treatment as objects and/or human property (which they are not), the kidnapping and murder of the non-humans incarcerated at Razzett tal-Hbiberija (not to mention the incarceration itself) makes the non-human animals themselves the direct (and only) victims.