Marsaxlokk market is what you get when non-human animals are considered human property

Simone Aquilina writes the following letter in today's The Times:

"I am writing to utter my complete disgust at what I saw the other day at the market in Marsaxlokk. Apart from this market being a disorganised chaos and looking more like a market out of a third world country, a man was selling birds and puppies, right next to a stall selling imqaret (deep fried pastry filled with a mashed date mixture) if I might add.

What was so horrible was that these poor birds were cooped up in small cages. Some could not even lift their heads, others were packed so tightly in a cage that they could hardly breathe.

Puppies were stuffed four to a small cage and one could see that all these poor birds and animals were very distressed.

One enquires whether this man can actually sell these birds and puppies. Also do the relevant authorities or local council members visit the market to see with their own eyes what is happening?

One could notice quite a number of tourists who were as distressed as I was watching this horrible sight.

Hopefully, through this newspaper (The Times), the relevant authorities will take action so that such sights are not seen anymore".

Consider non-human animals as property, and a treatment that befits property is what they'll get. In a free-market economy, it's profit that matters. If non-human animals are considered to be human property, any consideration (if at all) for their welfare will always be trumped by the maximum profit requirement. If this means more non-human animals cramped in cages in all extreme weather conditions (cold climate in winter and hot climate in summer), so be it, a speciesist entrepreneur would say. And would we expect the government to care? Not likely. The authorities know about the situation at such markets. Letters of complaint have been written (by both locals and tourists) for several years, to no avail. The market people, after all, are only selling goods, and goods (property) have no rights.

Dr Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando (a government MP), on November 9, had written: "Last year I had the honour of presenting the largest petition ever collected on our islands, 40,000-plus signatures, which aimed at pushing specific animal welfare-related demands forward. Both the Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment, to whom the petition was presented, were very receptive...It hurts me to read certain letters claiming that we live in an 'animal-unfriendly society'...It is easy for armchair critics to send denigrating letters to the press. One wonders if these individuals do anything concrete to help alleviate the situation some animals find themselves in".

Let's wait and see. Who knows? - maybe Dr Pullicino Orlando and his government will stop being "armchair critics" and ban the sale of non-human animals at open-markets (or anywhere, for that matter). Now that would be a true achievement that will benefit non-human animals, not the presentation of signatures collected by someone else and handed over to an unreceptive and uncaring government!

And perhaps, Mr George Callus, who was so "flabbergasted" by my criticism of Dr Pullicino Orlando, should himself make a visit to Marsaxlokk market, and see for himself the state of the non-human animals sold at the market. To use Mr Callus' closing line in his response to my letter ("One wonders what Mr Cassar is doing, in concrete terms, for animals apart from writing ridiculous letters to the press") and re-direct it to his beloved Dr Pullicino Orlando: "One wonders what Dr Pullicino Orlando (and his government) is doing, in concrete terms, for animals apart from presenting petitions to oneself and boasting on projects that have not yet even started".

Mr Callus and Dr Pullicino Orlando should perhaps visit the market together. Who knows, maybe they both will be "flabbergasted". But then again, maybe they won't. After all, they both consider non-human animals as human property without rights.

And as a final note, one should remember that the predicament the animals mentioned in the above letter find themselves in, is no worse than the conditions of most animals destined for slaughter so that people may simply enjoy the taste of their flesh. But of course, to a speciesist, these animals do not matter. Somehow, by calling them food, these animals stop being animals and become "livestock" and "meat".

Anti-circus protest roars into action

Behind the glitter and glitz of the circus lay a cruel world of untold animal suffering, said the Circus Animal Rights Coalition, as it protested yesterday against the Circo Aquatico which is due to perform in Malta.

The coalition expressed its disappointment that the circus, which boasted the use of penguins, crocodiles, and pelicans as attractions, would start performing next weekend.

The coalition has in recent years been working hard to raise awareness about the suffering of circus animals and the animal rights violations in using these animals as if they were human property to be exploited for profit, and it feels its message is starting to get across after a successful campaign last year.

The coalition - made up of Moviment Graffitti, Island Sanctuary, Animal Rights Malta, Cetfree, Nature Trust, Ananda Marga, International Animal Rescue and World Animal Conscience - yesterday distributed leaflets at City Gate, Valletta, to drive home the message. Holding a big banner reading 'Animal Circus, Animal Cruelty', coalition members told people entering the city that animals used in circuses were unwilling participants in a show that jeopardised their health and denied them their freedom.

"Circuses force animals to perform tricks that run contrary to their innate instincts and natural behaviour, often resulting in substantial injuries during performance and training," the coalition said.

To make matters worse, circus animals had to put up with long-distance travelling and their transportation was often in unsuitable and precarious conditions. The climate in a particular locality could also be unsuitable for their natural temperament, especially in the case of penguins, and this led to more suffering.

"Even if conditions were to be improved and humane methods of training adopted, the fact remains that keeping wild animals in captivity deprives them of much of what they value in life...and their spirit is broken," the coalition said.

"Seeing animals in circuses does not provide a realistic educational experience because these animals are being forced to perform tricks and live in unnatural conditions."

The coalition called on individuals and educational institutions to refrain from contributing to animal cruelty and abuse. It also expressed its dismay that a local company, which boasted environmental-friendly policies, was sponsoring this circus.

"An end to animal circuses doesn't mean an end to fun. By supporting animal-free entertainment, we can move towards putting an end to the abuse of animals in circuses".

More information on animal circuses may be found in the blog entry entitled "Circuses - Modern slavery".

On petitions, government funding and animal abuse

Franco Farrugia writes a somewhat long letter in today's The Times in response to an article by Nationalist MP Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, who wrote about what his government is supposedly doing for "animal welfare", an article to which I had replied and raised the ire of a certain George Callus.

I shall not reproduce the whole letter but will quote the most relevant parts. In any case, one may find the whole letter Mr Farrugia's blog. Regarding the issue of stray animals, I am mostly in agreement with Mr Farrugia, even though I believe the issue can only be effectively dealt with by a total ban on the human breeding of non-human animals, or at least by the public's recognition that non-human animals are not human property (which effectively means that we should stop breeding any more non-human animals). So here are a few quotes from Mr Farrugia's letter, along with some comments of my own.

Mr Farrugia writes: "I was somewhat incensed by the contents of Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando's article about animals (Animal Welfare: Who Cares? The Times, November 9) - in which he praised his own government for the great strides it is taking in favour of animal well-being. He also took to task all those who describe Maltese society as 'animal-unfriendly'. He claims that nothing is further from the truth.

I beg to disagree with him. Totally.

He first speaks about petitions and signatures. The petition was a good exercise, admittedly. But don't come telling me that a petition, on its own, is enough 'evidence that Malta is far from being 'animal-unfriendly'. Animals need concrete action, not mere signatures. And concrete action means action now, not promises of action in the future".

I obviously agree with Mr Farrugia here, and have even mentioned these points in my own letter to The Times which can be seen in my blog entry entitled "Animal rights: Who cares?". I would only add that the work in collecting signatures was mostly (if not all) done by animal organizations, and not by Dr Pullicino Orlando, and that the concrete action needed is both from the government's side and perhaps more importantly from the public. As long as people still see pets as cute animals to be owned, and do not put it inside their heads that non-human animals are not human property, non-human animals will continue to suffer (not to mention having their rights violated even if they do not seem to be suffering). The only way to eliminate both animal cruelty and animal abuse (all animal use is abuse) is to stop breeding and "domesticating" any more non-human animals as if they are our property.

Mr Farrugia continues: "And what 'support being given by the government' to animal sanctuaries is the Honourable Member speaking about? As far as I know, speaking to various leaders of volunteers of animal sanctuaries, I often get the feeling that there is absolute frustration in these camps, in that the authorities hardly ever listened to these individuals who are doing sterling service to the animal-kingdom, in Malta and Gozo.

Perhaps, I am wrong. Then, I would be most happy for Dr Pullicino Orlando to furnish me with facts".

Again, even though funding of no-kill animal sanctuaries will only be tackling the symptoms and not the source of the disease (which is non-human animal ownership), Mr Farrugia is absolutely correct that as yet, it has been much talk and little if any actual assistence from the government's part. This is precisely why in my article of November 9, I had said that I "will suspend my judgement on his propaganda about his government's allocation of funds in last year and this year's budget towards stray animals until the funds are actually spent, and the much publicised after-care centre for injured pets will actually come to fruition".

Mr Farrugia also writes: "When you consider what needs to be done to alleviate the cruelty of animals that is perpetrated in Malta and Gozo, and when you consider how much money animal-NGO volunteers use from their own pockets, well... Lm160,000 (promised by the government) is nothing.

He claims that this money is going to be used in 'direct aid to associations involved in the care of abandoned animals and to fund a nation-wide neutering programme in this year's budget'. Is this official? I doubt it. From what I have gathered, much of the funds are being channelled in favour of the neutering programme - which, while admittedly being beneficial, will not solve the problem of animal-cruelty in this country. I agree with the writer: Most of the money should be directed to the needs of sanctuaries. The question, however, is: Will they?".

Again, here I am in partial agreement with Mr Farrugia. While I agree that no-kill animal sanctuaries should be the main beneficiaries of the promised funds, even if they are, this would be dealing only with the symptoms and not the disease. The stray dog and cat problem (and all other animal abuse issues) will only be solved when people realize that we have no right to breed no-human animals for any human purpose whatsoever.

Mr Farrugia concludes by saying: "In conclusion, animals do not want the politicians' attention merely during election time, in order to try and garner more votes from animal lovers. It's not politicians visiting animal sanctuaries during election period that is needed, but a definite message to the population that cruelty to animals, in all its forms, will not be tolerated. Zero tolerance to such animal cruelty is what is needed, and this has to come across in deeds, not in words, empty promises and photo shoots!".

Again, here I am in partial agreement with Mr Farrugia. While I agree with his conclusion, I cannot but mention the fact that animal rights, like human rights, is not just about eliminating the obvious cruetly. Animal rights is about respecting the right of all animals to be treated as autonomous individuals who have an interest in life and liberty, and who should not be treated as if they were the property of others.

It makes no sense saying that we respect the rights of other humans if we hold them as our property, provided we treat them kindly. The same applies to all sentient animals. Animal rights is not about kindness. Animal rights is about justice and respect. Property cannot have rights. If anything, property can only have certain priviledges which can be revoked at any time. Ask any former slave.

It should be realized, particularly by all people who devote their time to action on behalf of non-human animals, that if dogs and cats have the right to life (for instance), there is no logical reason why other animals do not equally have the same right to life. If some animals have rights, then all animals do. It's all or nothing - it's that simple. This is not being an "extremist" or a "weirdo". This is all about logical thinking and saying things as they are.

What is needed is not just zero tolerance to cruelty. What is really needed is zero tolerance to any treatment of non-human animals as if they are our property. When non-human animals are no longer considered our property, with all the implications that follow (that is, non-humans will no longer be used for food, clothing, vivisection and entertainment), then most cruelty (particularly institutionalized cruelty and the cruelty that is necessary for consumers to buy body parts), will immediately cease to exist.

The only abuse which would remain will be the type that is performed by sociopaths. But this latter type of abuse will always happen (both to humans and non-humans), and no matter the regulations, laws and penalties for animal cruelty, such cruelty (like deliberate mutilation just for fun) will always regrettably remain. What we ourselves can help to stop is the abuse that comes from the unnecessary use of non-human animals for food, clothing and entertainment, which would spare misery of millions of animals. This is the only way to do justice to all animals. Animal rights demand no less.

On petophilia and the planned marine prison

Petophilia

On November 20, I used the word "petophilia", giving only a brief description of the word's meaning. I think it will be worth explaining in some detail this phenomenon, since Malta appears not to be immune to it.

I found some relevant information on this phenomenon on the Backlander website. Although I do not agree completely with all that is said in the article (and neither do I necessarily agree with any or all of the other articles on the website), most of this article about petophilia is indeed very true.

The article, for instance, tells us that "millions of pet owners are co-opting helpless creatures into parodies of family and community life. These relationships are destructive to the animals involved, and they erode social, political and economic well-being".

Of course, to spare any misunderstandings and misinterpretation, I will immediately state that I make a distinction between rescuing non-human animals for their own sake, and rescuing or buying non-human animals just for the sake of companionship. The former is to be encouraged, while the latter goes against the right of non-human animals not to be used as human property.

The Backlander article on petophilia goes on to say that "an obvious harm flowing from sorting species into pettable or not pettable is that, when individual creatures are devalued (deemed not pettable), the loss of parent species tends to be regarded as inconsequential.

The following propositions seem self-evident:

Pet ownership is discretionary. No one is forced by biological or psychological imperatives to enter into these arrangements.

The pleasures of pet ownership are one-sided. It does not matter whether Fluffy or Jake appear to enjoy their circumstances.

The only certainty is that they have been house broken.

Pets never need to apologize for what they get up to. This is because they cannot be said to have chosen their circumstance. Their options are restricted to capitulation, fawning, performing, and begging to secure morsels and attention. These are the prostitutions petophiles seem to delight in.

Human beings have not been content to housebreak naturally occurring animals. Selective breeding has spawned sub-species requiring constant surveillance, food, manicuring and defense. Dogs 'downsized' their once relatively large wolf brains as part of the bargain struck with early human beings. Large brains are metabolically expensive and could be dispensed with when scavenging, servility and barking at strangers became coping skills sufficient for dog days.

Pet owners believe that their willingness to provide this nurturing is evidence of stellar moral character.

Petophiles point out that pets have a much better life than farm animals. It is true that farmers, especially corporate farmers, have manipulated species they find interesting into grotesque caricatures. Chickens and turkeys convert food into flesh so rapidly that their skeletons often cannot support them. Decades ago, 'nouveaux chicks' lost the ability to brood naturally. They must now be reproduced under thermostatically controlled incubators.

Genetically modified organisms are the 'next big thing' in the pantheon of human imperialism vis-à-vis what we are pleased to think of as lesser creatures.

Even so, the lives endured farmed animals are usually mercifully brief, compared to the interminable harms suffered by pets.

(If pets were phased out - not by killing them, but by breeding no more) people would find themselves with more time and energy on their hands. These resources could accomplish a great deal. Without pets to lord it over, we would be less prone to arrogance and false claims of empathy and responsibility. Without pets, we might very well resurrect something of family and community life" (I would add that we would even have more time to dedicate ourselves to other pressing issues, like the use and killing of millions of other non-human animals for "food", "clothing", vivisection and "entertainment").

Dr Charles Danten, a veterinarian, also writing on petophilia, tells us: "There is a persistent belief that pets are well treated in our society, that in fact they're often better treated than children. Owning an animal is often taken to be proof of love, respect and compassion. But the reality is considerably darker, and until we look into it, it's hardly possible to bring about a meaningful change...

While the larger issues remain unaddressed, neutering at the consumer level has very little impact on the over-all numbers of stray and unwanted pets. In fact, it encourages consumerism by giving the consumer a false impression that the problem is being taken care of. This perception is largely responsible for the present unprecedented popularity of pets. America and rich Western societies have truly gone pet-crazy. As long as the pet industry survives, there will be incurable population issues...

In other words, neutering and adoption are like treating a fever instead of the infection; we are focusing on what is only a symptom of a society's quiet disease. Meanwhile, things just keep on getting worse. This point of view is mostly ignored by veterinarians and humane societies who study the overpopulation problem with the help of grants from the pharmaceutical and feed companies. I'll let you come to your own conclusions about why this is so...

As long as we adopt a pet from death row and get him neutered, we feel clear of conscience. We feel it's up to humane societies to do the rest. We indulge ourselves in fantasies about the human-pet bond, confident that we've done our part to improve the fate of animals. We feel like a part of the solution. But it's a con. Our society not only condones, but encourages our relationship with pets which is nothing but a subtle form of slavery. Shelters and humane organizations play a shamefully important role in this masquerade...

We nurture tight bonds with our animals, which makes them extremely dependent and infantile. Yet many of us do not hesitate to leave a pet alone all day, often locked up in a cage.

Depression, neurosis, phobias, chronic seperation anxiety, and stress are the lot of animals kept as pets. Usually these problems are caused by endless boredom, confinement, poor diet and lack of exercise. Animals have innate characteristics that are not compatible with the lifestyle we impose on them for our own pleasure and comfort. For instance, dogs follow their instincts to fit into a certain position in a pack. Dominance comes naturally to some dogs, which is good in a dog pack, but usually undesirable in dog-human relationships. Most people have little understanding of the laws that govern dog behavior, and when conflicts arise, it is always the dog that loses in the end. This is but one example of the incompatibility of animals and people that causes life to be stressful for pets.

Although we all acknowledge what pets do for us, we seldom think about what we are actually doing to them. When you start looking below the surface, when you finally see the big picture, you come to realize that over-all, pets are not so fortunate, indeed no more fortunate than the other animals that we use for food, clothing and to test beauty products, or those that we hunt for pleasure. This link is more difficult to make because the exploitation of pets operates perversely under the covert of good intentions. Precisely because of this, it is much more cruel by its hypocrisy and sophistication than the more obvious forms".

But that's enough to give a general idea on Dr Danten's arguments against the pet industry, that is fuelled by petophilia. If you would like to read the whole text, you will find it at http://www.angryvet.org/en/03_articles/Slavesofouraffection.htm

"We should, of course, care for all those domestic animals that are presently alive, but we should not continue to bring more animals into existence so that we may own them as pets" - Gary L. Francione

Mepa approves application for marine prisons in Qawra

The Malta Independent of today reports that The Malta Environment and Planning Authority (Mepa) board yesterday approved the full development application for the construction of a marine "aquarium" (prison) close to the Qawra promenade.

The marine prison includes several facilities for humans who love to see falsely imprisoned non-human inmates. The facilities, according to The Malta Independent, include a cafeteria, a museum, a diving institute, an amphitheatre and underground parking.

At present, the site is a derelict stretch of land on the foreshore of Qawra and will also convert the existing parking area into a promenade with ample open spaces.

According to the plan, the marine prison will be divided in a number of sections. These include a "paludarium" in which Mediterranean species will be imprisoned, a reef tank for the imprisonment of tropical species and a section for fixed display tanks.

During yesterday’s public hearing, the board also approved the application for the construction of a new substation at Manoel Island, underground services at the Malta Freeport and deferred the hearing for outline application for the construction of "pig fattening" units for pigs destined to be murdered.

It is to be assumed that speciesists will be overjoyed by the news. Not so those who respect the right to life and liberty of all sentient animals.

A flabbergasted "animal lover", animal "welfare" action and animals whose welfare does not seem to matter

Flabbergasted by the arguments of a "self-styled" animal rights advocate

It looks like I earned myself a new fan. Mr George Callus writes the following letter (entitled "Animal welfare action") in today's The Times:

"Flabbergasted is not a strong enough word to describe my reaction to a letter published on November 14. In it a certain Kenneth Cassar, the self-styled and apparently only member of Animal Rights Malta, chose to attack Jeffery Pullicino Orlando, of all people, for what he deems to be shortcomings on this MP's part with regard to animal welfare issues!

Anyone who has been following the positive developments of the past months knows that Dr Pullicino Orlando has been doing his utmost to bring certain issues to the attention of the relevant authorities. Mr Cassar's attempt at belittling the 40,000 plus petition with specific animal welfare related demands presented by Dr Pullicino Orlando betrays a lack of genuine motives behind his diatribe. This was undoubtedly the largest petition ever presented in Malta. An equivalent effort in the UK would, for instance require six million signatures in order to have the same percentage of the total population behind it.

One wonders what Mr Cassar is doing, in concrete terms, for animals apart from writing ridiculous letters to the press".

Mr Callus, who seems to be already in "election mode", conveniently fails to address any of the issues I raised in my letter of November 9 (published in The Times on November 14), but instead focuses only on his misinterpretation of a point I made regarding the petition Dr Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando presented to parliament. So perhaps I should rephrase the point I wanted to make, in the hope that Mr Callus would this time round understand me better.

In short, regarding the petition, I had only said that 40,000 signatures out of a population of 400,000, considering that the demands in the petition were very mild demands which did not involve any huge lifestyle changes (it dealt with only cats and dogs), may be seen as an under-achievement. Of course, apart from the fact that this is only one opinion (others might disagree), never did I blame the under-achievment on Dr Pullicino Orlando. How could I, when all or most of the work in collecting signatures was done by animal organizations? The "blame", if any, falls squarely on those who did not care to sign.

My only personal remark on the petition was only to the effect that Malta is not so much an "animal-loving nation" (ask the animal sanctuaries!), and that I would have expected that the government would not have to wait for Dr Pullicino Orlando to present it with the petition to do something about the disgraceful situation we have with regards to stray cats and dogs. I hope that much is clear.

The other points in my letter, which Mr Callus conveniently ignored, were about dogs and cats not being the only animals, and that other animals equally deserve the right to life; that even though the Education Department is doing good work in animal awareness, apparently much more needs to be done considering the "donation" of a parrot by a school for life-imprisonment at Razzett tal-Hbiberija; and that if Dr Pullicino Orlando really cared about non-human animals, considering he is a member of parliament, he would do all that is in his power to stop any more "animal circuses" from coming to Malta.

Of course, Mr Callus conveniently did not comment on any of the above, but chose to instead indulge in an ad hominem attack on me. But let me address each of his irrelevant remarks anyway.

Regarding his "self-styled" remark, I shall only ask this question: Self styled what? Mr Callus did not say. If he meant "self styled" founder of Animal Rights Malta, then I guess this makes as much sense as calling the founder of The Times "self-styled". Should I call him "self-styled" secretary of Dr Pullicino Orlando? Also, Mr Callus should know that truth does not depend on how many people believe it to be so. Remember Galileo?

Mr Callus then says that he "wonders what (I am) doing, in concrete terms, for animals apart from writing ridiculous letters to the press". Well, for one, I am not killing any animals, or having animals killed for me (like Mr Callus presumably does). The best action in the interest of all animals is to stop killing any of them.

As for the rest, if Mr Callus is really interested in learning more about the unpaid work I do on behalf of all animals (and not just the cute and cuddly ones), I invite him to read this blog and see for himself.

I would only like to add that I cannot be sure whether in reading my blog, I will make people my "friends" or "enemies". Most probably, many people who exploit non-human animals or have non-human animals killed on their behalf just for pleasure and convenience, will see me in a negative light. However, since I neither do my animal rights advocacy work for profit (I do not get paid), nor to get elected to any post (I am only using my right to free-speech), if there is even a remote chance that I will educate some people on the true meaning of animal rights, it would all be worth my effort. The only beneficiaries will be the animals spared from suffering and certain death with each person I manage to convince. I only hope I am up to the task, but on this, I can only let others judge. And as for my letters being "ridiculous", I would have rather appreciated it if Mr Callus would have pointed out which parts of my letters are "ridiculous", and where I am wrong. Who knows, perhaps I might learn something new. But then again, it is much easier to hurl insults than to produce reasoned counter-arguments to the points raised in my letters.

If you cannot win...censor

It looks like Franco Farrugia has decided to censor parts on my letters from which he quotes in his blog, including parts where I mention my own blog. I presume that he did this so that the readers of his blog would not have the opportunity to read my side of the story. Perhaps little does he know that making a search of my name or "Animal Rights Malta" on any search-engine will immediately give both my website and blog. The internet is a wonderful means of free speech.

Both for the fact that I am totally opposed to censorship of beliefs and opinions, and also because I believe in fairness, I will not remove all the links to his blog from mine. In fact, whenever I see the need to mention him, or quote from his blog (it all depends on what he says), I will keep linking back to him. I will then let the readers make up their own minds as to who makes any or most sense.

Are we any better than Japanese "whalers"?

On boycotting Japanese cuisine to protest against "whaling"

Evelyn Vella Brincat, in today's The Times, calls for a boycott of Japanese restaurants as a sign of protest against "whaling". Ms Vella Brincat writes:

"We learn with horror that Japanese fishermen are setting off once more to slaughter whales at a time when they are particularly vulnerable.

I wonder if it is time to call for an international boycott on all Japanese restaurants as a sign of protest against this useless killing. I myself enjoy Japanese cuisine, but not at this price!".

Now, before I explain why a boycott of Japanese cuisine is not such a good idea, I think it would be a good idea to give a brief history of Japanese cuisine, particularly where it concerns non-human animals.

Japanese cuisine as a national cuisine has evolved over the centuries from many political and social changes. During the Kofun period, much of Japanese civilization came from Korea which in turn was heavily influenced by Chinese culture. As such, Buddhism was a large influence on Japanese culture. After the 6th century, Japan directly pursued the imitation of Chinese culture under the Tang dynasty. It was this influence that marked the taboos on the consumption of meat in Japan.

In 675 A.D. Emperor Temmu decreed a prohibition on the consumption of cows, horses, dogs, monkeys, and chickens during the 4th-9th months of the year, and to break the law would mean a death sentence. Monkeys were eaten prior to this time, but were eaten more in a ritualistic style for "medicinal" purposes. Chickens were often domesticated as pets, while cows and horses were rare and treated as such. However, a cow or horse would be ritually sacrificed on the first day of rice paddy cultivation, a ritual introduced from China. Emperor Temmu's decree however did not ban the consumption of deer or wild boars.

The 8th century saw many additional decrees made by emperors and empresses on the ban of the killing of any animal. In 752 A.D., Empress Kōken decreed a ban "even" on fishing, but made a promise that adequate rice would be given to "fishermen" whose livelihood would otherwise have been destroyed. In 927 A.D. regulations were enacted that stated that any government official or member of nobility that ate meat, was deemed unclean for three days and could not participate in Shinto observances at the imperial court.

Upon the decline of the Tang dynasty in the 9th century, Japan made a move toward its "individuality" in culture and cuisine. This unfortunately meant that dishes consumed post 9th century now included both animal flesh and vegetables.

The Kamakura period marked a large political change in Japan. The nobility having lost control of the Japanese countryside, fell under the militaristic rule of the peasant class samurai with a military government being set up in 1192 in Kamakura, giving way to the period. The Buddhist vegetarian philosophy strengthened during the Kamakura period as it began to spread to the peasants. Those who were involved in the trade of slaughtering animals for food and/or leather came under "discrimination". Those practicing this trade were considered in opposition to the Buddhist philosophy of not taking life, while under the Shinto philosophy, they were considered defiled. This "discrimination" eventually intensified to the creation of a separate caste.

Japanese cuisine is today based on combining staple foods (shushoku), typically rice or noodles, with a soup, and okazu - dishes made from fishes, meat, vegetable and tofu. These are typically flavored with dashi, miso, and soy sauce and are usually low in fat and high in salt. As Japan is an island nation its people eat much "seafood". Meat-eating has been rare until fairly recently due to restrictions placed upon it by Buddhism. However, strictly vegetarian food is rare since even vegetable dishes are flavored with the ubiquitous dashi stock, usually made with katsuobushi (dried skipjack tuna flakes). An exception is shōjin ryōri, vegetarian dishes developed by Buddhist monks.

In essence, this means that modern Japanese cuisine, like most other cuisine from other parts of the globe, includes both vegan and non-vegan recipes.

Information on the history of Japanese cuisine adapted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_cuisine.

So why is a boycott of Japanese cuisine not a good idea? This is so for three reasons.

For one, it is a tad hypocritical of non-vegan Europeans to criticize the Japanese for killing whales when meat-eating Europeans are responsible for the killing of millions of equally sentient and rights-bearing individual animals. What's more, if we are to compare like with like, most probably our animal "agriculture" comes out worse than "whaling", both in respect of numbers killed, and also in respect of the suffering involved.

Secondly, considering that Japanese cuisine includes both vegan and non-vegan options, to boycott the non-vegan options makes sense regardless of whether the Japanese murder whales or not. As for boycotting the vegan option, not only does this not make sense (choosing vegan options is the only way to spare all sentient animals), but if we really care about non-human animals, far from boycotting Japanese (and other countries') vegan food, we should be encouraging people to eat it.

Thirdly, to boycott all Japanese restaurants, wherever they may be, involves boycotting people who have nothing at all to do with whale slaughter.

Of course, everyone has the right to boycott anyone he/she likes. However, it would only be fair that when one calls for a public boycott, one does so for good reasons. I fail to see a good one in this instance, considering that our country itself is responsible for killing thousands of non-human animals. The only logically consistent and morally required boycott would be a boycott of all animal-derived products, no matter which country they come from. After all, unnecessary killing and abuse in Japan is no different from unnecessary killing and abuse in Malta. Now here's an idea. Instead of starting a boycott of Japanese cuisine, which, apart from being based on a wrong premise, most probably won't even save any whales, how about boycotting food which includes the dead bodies of any sea creatures (and any other sentient being)? Now that will obviously work and will definitely save lives!

Animal rights and great expectations

I see that Franco Farrugia too chose to comment on the letter I commented on in my entry entitled "On animal cruelty convicts and deserted streets". Now I do not wish this blog to become a sort of "crusade" on Mr Farrugia's writings. However, when Mr Farrugia makes statements (perhaps due to being misinformed) that are detrimental to the animal rights cause (which necessarily means detrimental to non-human animals themselves), I cannot leave such comments without counter-comments of my own. To be fair, I always link to Mr Farrugia's blog, and let the public make their own informed opinions.

Mr Farrugia, after commenting on Shane Johnson's letter (so far, I have little if anything to disagree on), chose to add a further comment, presumably referring to me. I was going to write just one final comment after quoting Mr Farrugia. However, due to the several points that should be addressed, it is simpler to split the quote in small parts and comment on each.

Mr Farrugia writes:

"We are all aware - Well, 'we', that is, those of us who read these pages and websites dedicated to animal wellbeing - about the rights of animals. When I say animals, I mean all animals, whether they are domestic or farm animals. Of course, we have to keep our feet firmly on the ground. And yes, be realistic. For we can expect all people to be kind to animals and not to inflict any cruelty on them. But certainly we cannot expect all people to follow us in our vegetarian life. It would be crazy to expect all and sundry to accept and follow such a life".

No, Mr Farrugia. We surely can expect all people to follow us in "our" vegetarian life, and it would not be crazy to expect all and sundry to accept and follow such a life. People who make a truthful claim about recognizing the rights of all animals (including their right to life) should make a concerted effort to incrementally (if not immediately) go vegan. A good start is perhaps to at least recognize that justice for all animals requires that we do not exploit them just for convenience, taste or profit.

Animal rights entails no less than the elimination of all practices that treat non-human animals as human property. So, while I acknowledge that to be realistic one cannot expect all humans to instantly go vegan starting from tomorrow, the claim that one would expect people who say they respect animals to make a concerted effort to go vegan, and to recognize that veganism is the only lifestyle that respects all animals' rights, would be a reasonable claim. In claiming that I expect all people who believe that all animals have rights should go vegan, I am making a claim with regards to what should be done, and not what actually will be done. There is a difference. My expectation in this sense is both reasonable, realistic and true.

Mr Farrugia continues by saying: "Moreover, it is not as simple as that, to change from one lifestyle full of eating meat, to one which is 100% meat-free. (I still have to 'meat' a person who is 100% vegetarian! and living to tell the tale!)".

Yes, Mr Farrugia, it is as simple as that. If you still have to meet a person who is "100% vegetarian" and lived to tell the tale, perhaps this is because you have still not met me and several other vegetarians and vegans in Malta, not to mention thousands of vegetarians and vegans throughout the world. If you do not believe me, ask the Vegetarian Society of Malta. And yes, I have lived to tell the tale, and am telling it now. I have not eaten any meat for about 20 years.

Mr Farrugia then says: "Moreover, there is scientific argument against moving from one lifestyle to the other overnight!".

I have yet to see scientific evidence corraborating Mr Farrugia's claim, and would honestly like to see it if he has read it in some scientific journal. In any case, I did switch from one lifestyle to the other overnight, but let me concede that perhaps I was one of a "few rare exceptions" (which is conceding a lot). However, this still says nothing about whether one should accept the claim that only veganism is totally compatible with animal rights (which is obviously and self-evidently true). Surely there is no scientific evidence that claims that vegans are weirdos, and in making that claim, one would not only be saying that to go vegan requires some effort (which I concede), but would also be saying that he does not intend ever to at least try.

Mr Farrugia then says: "I am absolutely not saying that the human being should continue slaughtering the animals that are being slaughtered at the moment, for human consumption. Far from it - let nobody with an axe to grind at me misinterpret me in this manner".

How, if one is not saying that human beings should continue slaughtering animals, is one to eat any animals? To eat meat, someone must kill the animals. The only way to stop the slaughter is to make an effort to go (perhaps) vegetarian, and then incrementally go vegan, if one cannot go vegan at one stroke. But again, in claiming that to be vegan is weird, and that vegetarianism is not a moral requirement is to deny the essence of what it means for animals to have rights (as opposed to arbitrary priviledges that can be taken away at our whim). I have no axe to grind. I am only commenting on some misunderstandings on animal rights so that those who want to listen, may perhaps change their views, which would in turn spare non-human animals from a lifetime of suffering and abuse, ultimately culminating in murder.

Mr Farrugia then ends his comment by saying: "However, it would be equally irrational to expect - demand! - that all people quit eating meat as from day 1! The human being, after all, is part of the natural jungle and animals do eat other animals, so..."

Again, I do not expect (nor demand - it's not up to me) that all people do actually quit eating meat as from day one. However, I do expect that people who claim to champion the rights of all animals make a commitment to try to go vegetarian/vegan, and at the very least, do not describe people who actually live their lives consistently according to animal rights principles (vegans) as extremists or weirdos. Is this too much to ask? If one's answer is yes, then one truly has no idea what animal rights are really all about.

As for humans being part of the "natural jungle", and that animals do eat other animals, Mr Farrugia should note that not all non-human animals are carnivores. Many of them are actually vegans. Furthermore, what makes us different from carnivorous animals (such as lions) is that lions need meat to survive. We don't. This presents us with a moral choice. Shall we imitate carnivores even though we do not need meat to live, or shall we "imitate" the vegans who do not kill any sentient being because they can? This is a moral choice which leads to wrong or right action, upon which the life of countless animals depends. What will your choice be? That's all I'm saying.

The only reason I am pointing out the inconsistencies between most people's claims and the same people's actions with regards to non-human animals, is not "to show how clever I am", but to give people the opportunity to think about things they are not accustomed to think about, and possibly change their ways. We have enough false advertisments disguising the real picture of non-human animal use and slaughter without having animal advocates defending the same animal-abuse practices and claiming that the elimination of animal use and abuse is impossible! If it is not us who give the true picture, who will? The animal exploiters themselves? As the saying goes, "if not you, who? If not now, when?".

On animal cruelty convicts and deserted streets

Shane Johnson writes the following letter in today's The Times:

"I am truly sickened at the number of cases involving animal cruelty in Malta, with dogs and cats being found strangled, others burnt with acid while yet others have their paws sawn off.

I am sure that it must take a particularly cruel individual to hurt these animals in this way and I am equally sure that if someone has so much hate inside him/her that he/she is capable of inflicting torture on an innocent animal, this person must surely be cruel enough to also hurt other humans.

The problem is that although we hear so many sickening stories, we rarely hear of the perpetrators being brought to justice. Possibly the police have enough on their hands without having to investigate crimes involving animals, but what is happening is that we are not sending the proper message to these monsters that animal cruelty, especially torture, is punishable by law and in other foreign countries criminals caught hurting animals have to serve time in jail. It is high time that we too start sending people who have tortured animals to jail, which will surely act as a deterrent to these cowards who feel good by inflicting pain on another animal.

Recently we have also heard of animals being stolen (sic) from Ir-Razzett tal-Hbiberija and were also told that a deer was bludgeoned to death. Some suspects have been detained by the police and there is reportedly strong evidence that might link the crime to these suspects. I would strongly suggest that should the suspects be proven guilty, they should serve an effective jail sentence and let this be the message that there is no place for barbarism in our country".

Of course, it's a good thing that many people are repulsed by the utter cruelty in torturing and killing dogs and cats just to get a kick out of it. Most people will surely claim that such animal cruelty is wrong because it is unnecessary. Most people, like Mr Johnson, see other people who torture non-human animals as "monsters", and expect that such people are brought to justice and face the consequences of their actions. While the issue is much more complex than a simple "jail all culprits" (some people who are cruel to non-human animals might themselves be victims of cruelty and/or neglect, and might themselves require psychological help), it is understandable that most people would expect court sentences to act as a sufficient deterrent.

However, some soul searching is in order here. If the torture and/or killing of a dog is seen to be cruel because unnecessary, what can we say about the killing of equally sentient animals whom most of us have tortured and killed to be eaten (to name but one example of unnecessary killing). It is definitely true that the torture and killing of dogs and cats is unnecessary, but is it not equally true that the torture and killing of "food" animals is also unnecessary, when healthier alternative sources of food are readily available? Is it suddenly fine to torture and kill non-human animals just because we choose to call them "food"?

Most of us Maltese and other Europeans see the killing of dogs for food in Asian countries as "inhumane", while non-vegans and non-vegetarians, strangely, see nothing wrong or inappropriate with killing other equally sentient animals for exactly the same reason - convenience and profit. Would torturing and killing dogs suddenly become ok if we decide to eat the dog after the killing? Would the tortured dog care that his body is not gone to waste after he is murdered? Of course not. What makes the pig, cow, chicken etc any different?

I find it particularly bizarre when I encounter people who literally break down in tears when they get to know of cases of cruelty to cats or dogs, when many of these same people think nothing about the animals they kill or have killed for them for dinner. Perhaps this is just a case of "out of sight, out of mind", but it is truly amazing how many people fail to make the connection between the animal carcass on their dinner plate, and the fact that the non-human animal they are about to eat was once as much a sentient animal as a dog or cat is. And what's perhaps more amazing is that most petophiles (people with a tendency to prefer the company of pets to humans) see vegans as weird!

Just think about this: If we were to jail all people who are directly or indirectly cruel to animals, people who needlessly torture and kill non-human animals just for pleasure, convenience or profit, where would this leave all the people in the animal exploitation and killing industry, and the people who pay the industry to do the "dirty work" for them? Where would this leave you, if you are one such person?

If a jail term were to be given to all the people who needlessly kill (directly or indirectly) non-human animals, our streets would be mostly deserted! Think about this every time you hear or read news of animal cruelty. Are you equally guilty of unnecessary animal torture and/or killing? How about making a commitment to stop being an active participant in the abuse and killing of animals? How about stopping being a "monster" to these animals? And the good news is that you do not need laws to stop your own "animal cruelty". All you need is a sufficient will and determination to do the right thing.

On getting personal and shooting the messenger not the message

Franco Farrugia, despite his claim that I have nothing better to do (than giving the true meaning of animal rights and what's really in all animals' interests), chooses to drag his personal issue with my comment of November 9 in The Malta Independent, by writing a "personal note" in his blog (does this make him have nothing better to do, as well?).

It is very unfortunate that Mr Farrugia has not even tried to understand what I wrote. If he did, he would have perhaps seen that my letter was just intended as constructive criticism. This is very clear from the fact that instead of dealing with the issues I raised, and giving his own opinion on them, he chose to shoot the messenger instead of the message.

Mr Farrugia writes: "...I dedicate this blog to animals: to their wellbeing and to their awareness. Many of my teenage readers read parts of it because it has to do with animals and to learn about what is happening around them that has to do with animals. And I stop there! I have neither the time to enter into arguments with people who have nothing to do, nor do I have the will to shoot myself in the foot like other people and waste precious cyberspace showing people how learned I am about this and that".

If campaigning for the rights of all animals and explaining the inconsistencies in the animal "welfare" view as opposed to the animal rights view is seen by "welfarists" as a waste of precious cyberspace, this corroborates my belief that there is a huge gulf between animal "welfare" and animal rights.

This is not a matter of "showing people how learned I am". This is a matter of utilising what I learned in the best interest of all animals. This is being a responsible person. It is a very unfortunate fact when those who choose to speak on behalf of those who can't (non-human animals), instead of trying to be better informed and appreciating the writings of others who might be better informed on some issues, choose to shoot the messenger and see the better informed view as boasting about being better learned.

I would very much appreciate it if Mr Farrugia took a few minutes (anyone can spare a couple of minutes) to refute the arguments in my original letter and in my other comments about this issue. Until that time, I cannot see how I can take Mr Farrugia seriously, and would have to resign myself to the belief that Mr Farrugia simply does not want to listen because it is more convenient to exploit most animals while claiming to champion the rights of a few.

Again, animal rights is not about the rights of cuddly animals. It's about the rights of all animals. Being deemed as extremist and "wasting" one's time is the price of being logically consistent and saying the truth no matter the repercussions from those who want to persist in exploiting animals and are not even prepared to listen, and to give themselves the chance to revise any prejudices or mistaken opinions. The lives of countless non-human animals might depend on honest and serious reflection of the animal rights view. The question is, does anybody care?

It is useful to review the context in which the above was said. To summarise my original letter, I shall put it into seven simple points:

1. The animal rights view holds that non-human animals are not human property.

2. All human imposed breeding of non-human animals is the result of treating non-human animals as human property. If non-human animals are not human property, it logically follows that all non-human animal use for human purposes is exploitation and abuse.

3. Property cannot have rights. Property can only have "privileges" arbitrarily assigned by property owners, and which can be revoked at any time.

4. The claim that one prefers the company of non-humans to humans, besides being a wild claim (it basically means that one prefers the company of any animal to any human), is also speciesist and nonsensical, since it disqualifies humans from the natural status of animals, and treats all humans as a group and not as individuals.

5. The general public, unsurprisingly, considers people who claim to prefer the company of non-human animals to the company of any human as weird, and as people who cannot maintain good human relationships.

6. Animal rights is a matter of strict justice and not arbitrary love.

7. The elimination of speciesism is the only sure way to end most animal abuse.

Mr Farrugia, unfortunately, did not address the above claims rationally, and instead chose to comment that I should spare people the "exactitudes", that he is opposed to breeding (even though he is for regulating breeding, which opposition to all breeding would logically oppose - not to mention that he is only opposed to pedigree dog and cat breeding and not thousands of other animal species), that he (and many) sees non-human animals as human property (without justification), that vegans are weirdos, and that I am shooting myself in the foot and "attacking" a "fellow" animal lover (I disassociate myself from the classification of "animal lovers" since animal rights is about justice for all animals, and not just love).

I have addressed all Mr Farrugia's (non-) responses of November 13 in "On having nothing better to do, and shooting one's foot", so I won't repeat them here. However, for him to dismiss my arguments without due consideration, and to claim that they are the work of someone who has "nothing better to do", and to see my arguments as boasting about how learned I am, smells of gross intellectual dishonesty.

One does not debunk another's reasoned arguments by claiming that the one making the rational arguments is simply boasting about how much he knows. One refutes arguments by making counter-arguments. I have seen none of that yet from Mr Farrugia. And seeing how Mr Farrugia is not even willing to learn, I would wish that he sticks to educating children about the "good treatment" of cute and cuddly animals. This would at least spare people from getting uninformed opinions which would be detrimental to countless non-cute and non-cuddly animals.

To educate on animal rights and anti-speciesism without being properly informed, and without even wishing to be properly informed, would be a great disservice to millions of non-human animals who deserve to be defended in the best possible way. The best possible way entails being properly informed about the issues. It is for that reason that I suggested reading some of the books that deal on animal rights theory and strategy. If this means that the like of Mr Farrugia will see that as boasting, so be it. I will take that chance if it is a sure way of giving resources of information to people who wish to learn.

On a final note, if the question is between choosing to persist in showing the true meaning of animal rights, even if this makes some "animal lovers" uncomfortable, or censoring myself and deciding not to share any knowledge I have so as not to offend anyone, I choose the former. The lives of millions of non-human animals depend on people like me opting to do exactly so. This is not a matter of pride in knowing one's right. It's a matter of doing what's right and what's best for all animals. Think about this. It only takes a few minutes, but they will be a few minutes well spent. There's nothing worse that not wanting to learn, especially when others' lives depend on your obtaining the necessary knowledge.

On having nothing better to do, and shooting one's foot

Apparently, Franco Farrugia has taken offense at my comment on a short paragraph in a long letter of his that appeared in the Malta Independent of November 9. Since, unlike what he claims in his blog post's heading, I do have better things to do - campaigning and educating for the abolition of speciesism - hopefully I won't have to drag this issue for too long. That said, I feel that his comments are in need of a clarification, since on one hand they stem from a misunderstanding of what I intended to convey, and on the other, they prove the point I wished to make.

Mr Farrugia, in his blog comments writes: "Wow! at least the writer admitted that I have good intentions. He certainly made my day!"

I did not have to admit anything. His good intentions are not in dispute. I know he has good intentions as much as I know he does a lot of good where it concerns stray cats and dogs. However, good intentions are not enough. When someone is mistaken about anything, pointing out the mistake is a natural and good course of action. In fact, it would be disrespectful not to point out what you consider as mistakes to someone whom you respect, even if you disagree with that person on some fundamental issues.

Mr Farrugia then writes "Oh come on, spare us the exactitudes, please" in response to my comment that "Mr Farrugia fails to note another kind of people in the non-human animal issue – the animal rights advocate who holds that animals are not property, and that they should not be used for any human purpose. This has nothing to do with 'animals' being a nuisance, and all to do with their fundamental right not to be treated as property. There is no love without respect".

Since when has it become a wrong to say things as they are, and to explain and indicate positions with respect to animal advocacy which may be misunderstood, unknown or simply ignored or opposed? To "spare exactitudes" when the lives of innocents are at stake, would be very irresponsible. A cow is as much a sentient animal as a dog. To spare others "exactitudes" is to ignore the injustices committed to the cow and other non-human animals.

As for my comment that "It is not a question of having less animals to be cruel with. It's just about the fact that human imposed breeding, selling and buying of any non-human animal is in itself abuse, since that single act treats non-human animals as human property", Mr Farrugia comments: "And isn't that exactly what I said in my letter? Could I have been clearer in my condemnation of breeders?".

To start with, I was not only referring to cats and dogs, but also to the breeding, selling and buying of "farm" animals. Mr Farrugia feels no compulsion to oppose this kind of breeding, selling and buying (of "farm" animals) since he thinks of vegans as "weirdos". But more on this in a moment.

It should also be noted that Mr Farrugia (perhaps inadvertently, but more likely not) did not oppose all cat and dog breeding in his letter, in any case. The exact quote from his own original letter is: "animal breeders, such as breeders of 'pedigree' dogs and cats, should be controlled. These so-called animal-lovers, who are no animal lovers at all but just people who own offspring machines in the form of bitches and female cats – and who make sure that their animals are kept pregnant for most of their lives – should be made to pay taxes for the 'business' that they carry out. Obviously, my views are well-known in these pages. I would go even further and ban pedigree breeding altogether – for some years, at least. That way, real animal-lovers would come forth and choose from among the dogs and cats that are homed in the number of sanctuaries that we have in our country".

What one gets from the above is the following: Animal breeders should be controlled (not banned). The breeders should be made to pay taxes for their "business" (which would still sanction the practice - only legal activities are taxed). He would ban pedigree breeding altogether - for some years at least (why just pedigree breeding?, and why "for some years, at least").

Someone who sees non-human animals as not human property (which is the animal rights position) sees a wrong in any kind of human imposed non-human breeding, and this applies to any animal species. If Mr Farrugia does not agree that non-human animals are not human property, he should simply say so. But there is no reason for him to take offense at me for showing the animal rights view concerning this issue, particularly since he mentioned only two views with respect to the human - non-human relationship and failed to mention the third, which is the animal rights position.

As for the part where I wrote: "property cannot have rights – if anything, property can only have privileges which we may or may not arbitrarily assign to them if it is convenient for us to do so. I also find the claim made by many 'animal lovers' that they prefer the company of 'animals' to that of humans particularly worrying", Mr Farrugia simply says: "Well, with all due respect, tough! that's my opinion, one which is upheld by many!"

Of course, I do appreciate Mr Farrugia's honesty in saying unequivocally that he believes non-human animals are human property. However, saying that his opinion is "one which is upheld by many" does not make an opinion right. The opinion of most Germans during the last world war was that the Jewish issue was at best not their concern, and at worst they supported the holocaust. Of course, majorities do not prove right thought or opinion. I am not saying that Mr Farrugia's views are comparable to those of Nazis - far from it - even though life for many non-human animals who are not of Mr Farrugia's concern is comparable to life in a concentration camp awaiting slaughter.

As for my comment: "No wonder the general public thinks of us as weirdos who turn to non-human animals because we lack the ability to maintain good human relationships", Mr Farrugia replies: "First of all, there is no 'us', especially after this letter. I have nothing to do with the person behind this letter. Secondly, I think there are much weirder weirdos than one who claims that he prefers the company of animals than that of man, such as those, for instance, who are 100% vegan!!!!!"

Well, first of all, I did not imply that those who prefer the company of non-humans to humans are necessarily weirdos. All I implied was that people who act or profess to act so are generally perceived as weirdos by the general public. If Mr Farrugia was to distance himself a little from his small circle of "animal lovers", and ask around, he would see what I mean.

Secondly, and this is my opinion as opposed to the above, for one to claim that one prefers the company of (any or all) non-human animals to that of (any or all) humans is in itself speciesist. Since humans are animals, to lump all humans together and make prejudiced judgements about them is as much a wrong as the lumping of all non-humans together and making similar claims about them. To have a preference, while justified in itself, denotes and requires reasons for that preference. To say that one prefers dogs to a particular type of humans is not a prejudiced claim, since there may be justifiable reasons for that preference. But for one to claim to hold a preference for all dogs (animals) to all humans (animals too) clearly denotes speciesist prejudice.

As for the comment that there is no "us", I only used "us" in the context of how the general public perceives us. Usually, the general public sees "animal activists" as comprising "animal lovers", "pet lovers", "animal welfarists" and animal rights advocates as one single group, for better or for worse. In this sense, there really is no "us". Unfortunately, the general public, and most "animal lovers" fail to see the distinction. Most people see no contradiction in advocating for "animal rights" and killing (or having killed) animals for food, to mention one example.

As for Mr Farrugia's claim that the weirder weirdos are those who are 100% vegans, this says more about him than it says about me. Presumably, according to Mr Farrugia, it is "weird" for someone not to exploit any animal! What I find weird is for someone to claim that dogs have rights, and at the same time to claim that (or act as if) cows, pigs, chickens etc do not have the same rights, just because that someone finds it convenient to exclude the latter animals from moral inclusion and rights.

Finally, to my comment to the effect that animal rights is a matter of strict justice, and not just love, and that the only way to eliminate most "animal cruelty" is by eliminating speciesism, and the distinction between "human" and "animal", Mr Farrugia replies: "Does Kenneth Cassar realise that he is shooting himself in the foot and attacking a fellow animal-lover? Why doesn't Kenneth do us all a favour and continue keeping his guns trained on those who harm animals, and not the undersigned!"

No, Mr Farrugia, I am not "shooting myself in the foot" and attacking a "fellow animal-lover". First of all, if I were not to advocate for the rights of all sentient animals (and not just cats and dogs), and if I were not to point out the fallacies in some points of view that, while being at best well-meaning, are detrimental to thousands of non-human animals, I would be doing non-human animals a disservice.

Also, I am not attacking anyone. Rational debate is the only way to correct errors, gain further insight, and update one's own opinion. As for Mr Farrugia's concluding sentence, while I do believe that Mr Farrugia is harming animals (those he presumably eats), I did not dwell much on that in my original letter, since my letter was written in good faith, and my only purpose was to correct basic misconceptions about animal rights. So no, I will only do a favour to those who need it most, which includes all animals, and not just the cuddly and cute ones.

Perhaps, a reading of some of the books I have read would help clear any confusion with regards to what one means by "animal rights", and why all animals are entitled to basic and fundamental rights such as the right to life and the right not to be others' property. It would definitely explain in greater detail that which, due to space and time restrictions, cannot be explained fully in a simple blog. One thing's for sure - one cannot effectively and consistently conduct animal rights campaigns and educate people on animal rights (which necessarily includes anti-speciesism) unless one has at least an idea on animal rights theory.

Save a dog and you save one dog. Convince one person to reject speciesism, and you may be saving hundreds if not thousands of all kinds of animals. Such is the importance of anti-speciesist campaigning and education. But of course, to conduct effective and logically consistent campaigns, one should first be properly informed about both moral theory and good strategy. Reading the books in my list would definitely help.

A classic of moral schizophrenia

Apologies to Gary Francione for "stealing" a heading from his own blog, but I see the following as a classic case of moral schizophrenia.

Mr Stephen A. Petroni writes in today's The Malta Independent on Sunday (TMIS):

"I offer Claude Camilleri (Mistra Bay) my sincere condolences for the loss of Krug (“Murder”, TMIS, 4 November).

I too am a lover of cats (and all animals for that matter) and I condemn the brutal killing of a harmless and lovable kitten. I wouldn’t bat an eyelid if the person/s responsible were hung, drawn and quartered but then our laws are far too soft on these despicable crimes.

I am also a collector, researcher and shooter of firearms. I have never shot at cats or other animals and will not do so (self-defence being an exception). This is a personal choice. I am not against controlled and sustainable hunting.

I therefore fail to see any logic in Mr Camilleri’s outburst against legal gun ownership. I can understand his momentary feeling of irrational and emotional rage following the senseless killing of an innocent creature.

However, he overdid it when he wilfully and publicly pointed a finger at law-abiding enthusiasts".

Mr Petroni then goes on to defend collecters of firearms and other gun owners, a matter which, though it concerns me, is not directly relevant to this blog.

However, let's see what I mean by Mr Petroni's moral schizophrenia.

Mr Petroni says that he is a "lover of all animals". That would require that he be a vegan, which I highly doubt, but let's not detract. He also says that he condemns the brutal killing of a harmless and lovable kitten, and that he wouldn’t bat an eyelid if the person/s responsible (of shooting a cat) were hung, drawn and quartered. However - and this is where moral schizophrenia comes in - he is not against controlled and sustainable hunting. Yes, you read right. The lover of all animals is not against controlled and sustainable hunting!

If Mr Petroni were to be morally and logically consistent, unless he was lying in the first instance, and considering that he claims to be a "lover of all animals", he would equally say the following: "I condemn the brutal killing of a harmless and lovable bird. I wouldn’t bat an eyelid if the person/s responsible (of bird killing - hunters) were hung, drawn and quartered but then our laws are far too soft on these despicable crimes".

Of course, I am not saying that hunters should be hung, drawn and quartered - those were Mr Petroni's choice of words (I only say that they should be prevented from killing). But considering that all birds are animals, and that all birds are sentient, a true "lover of all animals" who is enraged by the unnecessary killing of a sentient cat would be equally enraged by the equally unnecessary killing of an equally sentient bird. And why stop at birds? All animals are sentient, and the killing of any animal for food, clothing or entertainment is also unnecessary, as veganism shows.

Of course, this seems to be the case of a firearms enthusiast trying to win favour with "animal lovers" upon seeing that his hobby came under the spotlight after the killing of a cat by one such enthusiast (be he a collector, hunter or whatever).

I am definitely a believer in every case being judged upon its own merits, and see Mr Petroni's point in claiming that all firearms enthusiasts should not be lumped together as killers of cats. Of course they are not. But it is truly amazing how many people who claim to be "against animal cruelty" (including, amazingly, many hunters) fail to realize the fact that to be an animal does not necessarily mean to be "cuddly" or "cute". I have to resort to stating the obvious, but unfortunately most people fail to recognize this simple truth: all animals are animals (including, of course, us)!

And yes, Mr Petroni is correct in saying that killing animals in self-defence is an exception - but I would add that it is the only exception. Killing not done in self-defence and only as a last resort, is murder.

Animal rights: Who cares?

Do we really care?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Welfarists" and abolitionists

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vulnerable non-human animals and no-kill sanctuaries

Vulnerable non-human animals

In a letter to The Times, congratulating Nature Trust for educating young people about the love of animals and thanking Ralph and Calla Guild of New York for contributing substantially towards the purchase of a rescue vehicle for the Gozo SPCA, and congratulating the Gozo SPCA's small staff and volunteers for their work, Carmel Hili writes:

"As a species, we humans are called to respectfully share our planet with other species and not enslave them. Being vulnerable, cats and dogs in particular call for our protection from cruelty and exploitations. These are sentient beings that recognise friends, warm up a home and return affection many times over".

Mr Hili got it half right in the above quote from his letter. As a species, us humans truly should respectfully share our planet with other species and not enslave them. However, it is not only cats and dogs in particular who call for our protection from cruelty and exploitation. All non-human animals are sentient beings who deserve respectful treatment, and have the right not to be enslaved and killed.

Like I said in "Overdue recognition of animal rights", 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.

Mr Hili also says that "Every time I see stray dogs or cats or brutalised animals as in the recent picture on Kullhadd (local newspaper), I feel pain as a human being. Stories of people abandoning their animals in strange and distant towns are disgusting".

It is only the fact that usually, non-human animals destined to be murdered legally, are hidden from the public eye, that most humans do not "feel pain as a human being" and are not disgusted by all the abuse and murder in the name of taste and convenience.

It bears repeating what I said in "Sophie's personal tragedy - a recurring true story", that unnecessary suffering of non-human animals by human hands also happens to several other animals every single day, unfortunately with more tragic outcomes.

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, and is ultimately killed when she is no longer "productive".

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 news reporting of cruelty to cats and dogs, 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 one empathizes with stray cats and dogs, 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.

And this applies equally to all sentient non-human animals.

No-kill animal sanctuaries

Meanwhile, Joe Grixti also writes a letter to The Times, in which he says:

"People who frequent Ta' Qali stadium and the surrounding area have noticed the number of stray dogs running about, many of them maimed by vehicles and in a miserable state. The first roundabout leading to the Centunary Stadium is the home of many of them begging for something to eat.

Most of these dogs have been there for many years. I wonder how they have survived, since there aren't many people who are kind hearted towards abandoned animals on this Catholic island.

At present there are three litters of puppies in the grounds, many of them suffering from hunger and the elements. I have contacted several organisations for stray animals but each one of them has given me the excuse that they have no space for them. What about the fund-raising events that have been going on for years now? Not a single stone has been laid for the so-called sanctuary for stray dogs".

While it is to be hoped that the dogs in question are eventually rescued, it must be understood that no-kill animal sanctuaries cannot perform miracles. That most (or all) animal sanctuaries have no space or time for more dogs to be admitted in their sanctuaries is not simply a feeble excuse to brush off responsibility. It is a fact that the care of hundreds of dogs requires lots of time, space, money, and a lot of volunteers giving their little spare time to care for the dogs. If Mr Grixti checks the facts, he will most probably find that most sanctuaries barely cover the costs of feeding and veterinary bills from the donations they recieve.

As for admitting more dogs, the problem is not just funding. As I explained, the care of dogs (each with different personalities and his/her own unique requirements), requires a lot of time and volunteer workers, who usually either do their unpaid work after their regular day jobs, or else, if they are not employed, in the little spare time they have left after meeting the requirements of their own families.

Of course, the best way to find out what work at dog sanctuaries really involves, is to volunteer to do some work there oneself. It would also be more beneficial to the non-human animals most of us pity from a distance, if, instead of complaining and expecting animal sanctuaries to perform miracles, we do some sanctuary work ourselves. If more people volunteered, and if people finally got it into their heads not to breed or buy any more non-human animals, people would see less or no more stray dogs suffering, not only at Ta' Qali, but anywhere at all.

Collective punishment and spring hunting

Lino Farrugia, secretary of the bird murder federation (FKNK) writes the following letter in today's The Times:

"A news item in The Times (October 29) reported that the European Union has cautioned Israel against imposing collective punishment against the 1.5 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip by reducing the territory's fuel supplies. 'I think collective punishment is never a solution,' Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the EU's Commissioner for External Relations, told reporters in Jerusalem, adding that she would raise the issue in meetings with Israeli leaders during her visit.

It looks as if the EU is not averse to using two weights and two measures. Why did it not caution Malta for imposing 'collective punishment' against the 14,000 hunters on the Maltese islands by cutting short the May 2007 shooting season? Not only did the EU not warn the Maltese government against such a measure, but EU Commissioner Stavros Dimas actually congratulated the Maltese Minister for the Environment for taking it.

Does EU Commissioner Dimas consider expediency to be more important than justice?"

Lino Farrugia, very conveniently, is missing one important fact - that spring hunting goes against the EU's Birds Directive. Mr Farrugia may whine as much as he likes, and stamp his feet until they turn blue, but the fact remains that whatever his opinion on the reason for the government's decision to stop this year's spring hunting season a few days earlier (be it a collective punishment or not), spring hunting should have been abolished at least upon Malta's entry into the EU. Actually, all hunting should be abolished since all birds are sentient rights-bearing individuals, but in this case, since spring hunting is illegal throughout the EU, even a speciesist would concede that at least spring hunting in Malta should legally be abolished.

What Mr Farrugia, and our dear government, should note, is that despite over 80% of the Maltese population are against spring hunting, if the government keeps on insisting on retaining it, the whole country risks hefty fines from the EU. Now how about that for collective punishment!

The only difference in this case is that the collective punishment would not be brought upon us by the EU (which is obliged to follow and enforce its own regulations), but would be brought upon us by the Maltese hunters and their lackey - the Nationalist government.