A partisan political pique about who kills most animals

It becomes interesting when pique between opposing political parties and the subsequent political propaganda provides us with statistics on the extent of the atrocities, objectification, and subsequent murder committed on non-human animals in Malta, all subsidized by the governing party through your taxes.

These statistics, to a rational thinking person, put things with regards to the treatment of non-human animals into perspective. They make the occasional torture and killing of cats and dogs by some sociopath look negligible (though of course it is not - every animal counts equally) when compared to the institutional torture and murder of non-human animals for equally unnecessary reasons such as the pleasure one derives from the taste of meat.

A rational thinking person asks how one can reasonably complain about an occasional killing of a non-human animal by a sociopath - a regrettable but perhaps unavoidable occurrence (there will always be sociopath sadists around) - when that same complainer pays for the torture and murder of other animals for the same reason: to derive pleasure.

In today's The Times, Randolph Spiteri (communications coordinator, Parliamentary Secretariat for Agriculture and Fisheries) writes:

"I am utterly surprised at the comments made by the opposition spokesman for agriculture, fisheries and rural development, Noel Farrugia (Imported Turkeys This Christmas, The Times, December 20). Yet again his comments are a clear indication that he has not kept himself abreast of the developments taking place in the agricultural sector.

I would like to inform Mr Farrugia that the traditional importers of turkey chicks over the summer months, as in previous years, imported more than 3,600 chicks. Incidentally, some of these turkeys were slaughtered on December 19.

This ensured the provision of fresh turkey for the duration of the festive season for consumption by the public.

I appreciate the fact that, in his statement, Mr Farrugia has publicly recognised and confirmed that the government has heavily invested, through subsidisation, in the agricultural industry. The financial aid granted is intended to strengthen the agricultural industry leading to the production of a higher quality. Bearing this in mind, it is pertinent to mention that a survey carried out recently among consumers has confirmed that 95 per cent are fully satisfied with the quality of locally-grown products.

There is no doubt that the government has kept its promise to provide financial aid to the agricultural sector, as can be seen from the following: 2003 - Lm6.5 million (€15,140,927); 2004 - Lm7.9 million (€18,402,050); 2005 - Lm9.3 million (€21,663,173); 2006 - Lm8.9 million (€20,731,423); 2007 - Lm9 million (€20,964,361);

To conclude, worthy of mention is the fact that the second strategic plan for the agricultural industry for the years 2007 to 2013 amounts to €100 million".

These facts come out from Mr Spiteri's letter:

1. To the government (and regrettably to the majority of Maltese citizens), non-human animals are nothing but "products", which means that they will obviously be treated as such. Think about this when complaining about "animal cruelty". Are you subsidizing cruelty (or more accurately, murder) by purchasing and consuming animal carcasses? Are non-human animals just products to you? If so, how can you speak of animals having rights? Products cannot have rights. And if you believe that non-human animals do not have rights, ask yourself this question: Why don't non-human animals have rights? Is it just because it is convenient for humans to believe so? Think about this: There is no reason for denying non-human animals rights which would not exclude some humans from having rights as well. If there is one morally relevant characteristic that gives all humans rights but excludes non-human animals (because they lack that characteristic), I honestly would like to know it. To claim that humans have rights just because they are human simply begs the question: why do humans have rights?

2. Millions of Euros are wasted on the unnecessary imprisonment, rape and murder of non-human animals just for the pleasure of their taste. Think about this if you are one of those who complain that we do not have the necessary funds to take in any more refugees (and unfortunately we have a lot of such complainers).

3. Finally, perhaps one will perhaps take the claims by both major political parties that they care about "animal rights" with a pinch of salt, considering that they are in direct competition with each other as to who kills or subsidizes the killing of most animals! As to any negligible financial assistance a government might give to help a minority of non-human animals (cats and dogs), it is worth remembering that governments also subsidize the murder of much more other equally sentient and rights-bearing animals.

How about making a new year's resolution to go vegan?

A Christmas joke: Hunters complain of 'brainwashing' of children

The Christmas edition of The Times reports:

"The hunters' federation wrote to Education Minister Louis Galea today to protest over what it described as 'further brainwashing of schoolchildren'.

The federation's secretary, Lino Farrugia, referred to a questionnaire distributed to Siggiewi primary school children before the holidays, and also recalled that on October 30 the federation had also written to the minister about 'another case of brainwashing' at Zurrieq St Francis primary school.

This, Mr Farrugia said, was not education but an orchestrated campaign against the traditional hobby of hunting and trapping.

He urged the minister to investigate who was responsible for the questionnaire and who had allowed such material to be distributed in the school.

The questions in the questionnaire were: Do you agree with bird hunting as a hobby? Do you think the police are doing a good job to control illegal hunting in Malta? Do you think hunting is a precious Maltese tradition? Do you think hunting should be abolished completely in Malta? Do you think hunters damage Malta's natural environment? Do you think hunters improve Malta's natural environment? Is or was anyone in your family a hunter? Can you name three Maltese environment organisations?

Mr Farrugia said the environment organisation Nature Trust had been behind the first case at Zurrieq. Although the federation did not know who was behind the case at Siggiewi, he was sure it was Nature Trust's 'usual company'. He hoped the minister would not ignore this complaint in the same way as he appeared to have ignored the first".

I believe that a detailed reply or rebuttal to the above is superfluous, since the claims by the hunters' federation, like the federation itself, are nothing but a bad joke. Suffice it for me to say that the duty of the Ministry for Education is to give a proper education to children, to give them the relevant facts, and to encourage and help young children to become thinking individuals and not unthinking puppets who follow a "tradition" simply because it is "traditional" to do so.

The questions in the questionnaire do just that, and the schools in question should be given all the praise due. We definitely need more schools like these. Sorry Mr Farrugia, but hunting is a dying "tradition" and repulsion towards your immoral act of murdering non-human animals for pleasure is growing day by day. Get over it, or better still, get over hunting and stop murdering animals.

As for the questions themselves, just for a bit of harmless fun, let me answer them myself:

1. Do you agree with bird hunting as a hobby?

Definitely not. Hunting is murder.

2. Do you think the police are doing a good job to control illegal hunting in Malta?

They would if they were given sufficient resources, including more police officers.

3. Do you think hunting is a precious Maltese tradition?

Of course not. The only people who "need" hunting are the hunters themselves, just to satisfy their uncontrollable urge to destroy the weak.

4. Do you think hunting should be abolished completely in Malta?

Like all other immoral practices, all hunting should be completely abolished.

5. Do you think hunters damage Malta's natural environment?

Some do to a large extent, some do to a small extent. But, as the spent cartridges in our countryside can witness, they all do to some degree.

6. Do you think hunters improve Malta's natural environment?

Some might, but not because they are hunters. They can still improve the natural environment and not hunt.

7. Is or was anyone in your family a hunter?

Not in my immediate family, no.

8. Can you name three Maltese environment organisations?

Nature Trust, BirdLife Malta, Friends of the Earth.

There...I have finished answering the questionnaire. Oh my God! Now I'm brainwashed too!

Oh what a circus!

True animal rights

Today's The Times publishes my letter in response to Shane Johnson's letter of December 14, when apparently the only pro-animal circus "animal rights activist" in the whole world (Mr Johnson) thought fit to let us know that we are making a fuss about "nothing".

Now, some people will perhaps find my response too harsh, and believe that to be pro or anti animal circuses is a matter of opinion. Rights are not a matter of opinion. If one claims to be "for animal rights" one should at least believe in such rights, and rights are not to be picked and chosen at will and when convenient.

If non-human animals are rights-holders, they are so because they share in common with us the relevant characteristics that make them rights-holders. Just as sentience is enough for any and all humans to have both the right to life and the right not to be treated as property, so should sentience suffice in the case of any and all non-human animals. To claim otherwise would make one a prejudiced and/or discriminatory non-believer in animal rights and a speciesist. At best, such a person would be an animal "welfarist", even though "animal welfarist" is a misnomer since it is in all animals' welfare interests to have any and all of their rights respected and recognized.

Moreover, if we were to follow Mr Jonson's logic in his letter of December 14 and not "make a fuss" about the circus when "cats and dogs are tortured, protected birds are blasted out of the sky", etc, wouldn't it be equally illogical for Mr Johnson to "make a fuss" about the regrettably unpreventable torture of cats and dogs by a few sociopaths, or the quick killing (though still murder) of birds by hunters, when thousands of non-human animals are made to suffer and are killed unnecessarily (murdered) in Maltese abattoirs? Does Mr Johnson perhaps not protest about these animals simply because he derives pleasure from the taste of meat? Again, are animal rights something we can pick and choose at our convenience? All treatment of non-human animals as if they were human property is abuse and a rights violation, and an animal rights activist opposes any and all kinds of animal abuse.

My letter in today's The Times goes as follows:

"When will people such as Shane Johnson (December 14) finally realise that animal rights means the abolition of the property status of all animals (including humans) and in essence, animal rights advocacy is advocacy for the abolition of any unnecessary and/or involuntary use of non-human animals by humans, as if they were human property?

People falling short of this goal and purpose while claiming to be 'for animal rights' are either simply misinformed, deluded or dishonest.

So in short, this means that despite his claim to be 'forever in favour of protecting animal rights', Mr Johnson is nothing of the sort. A fundamental animal right is the right to liberty, and property cannot have rights. At best, property can only have certain privileges which can be revoked at any time by the property owner.

The choice is simple: Either non-human animals are not property (and therefore have the right not to be used as if they were property - which means circuses violate their rights) or else non-human animals are human property with no rights.

Mr Johnson concludes his letter by saying that 'any animal rights group activist worth his salt should know (the) facts before dissuading people from visiting these circuses or any other organisations that use animals to entertain'. To that I answer that any animal rights activist worth his salt knows the basics of animal rights theory, and recognises the simple fact that involuntary use of rights-bearing individuals is in itself abuse. This makes all animal circuses abusive of at least one basic right - the right to liberty.

For a more detailed reply to Mr Johnson's letter, please visit www.animalrightsmalta.blogspot.com ("Protests over circus animal slavery - a dissenter") , where people interested in true animal rights may also find a list of books on animal rights philosophy".

Animal circuses - the hidden costs

Meanwhile, Larissa Tirhett writes a letter entitled "Oh what a circus!" in today's The Times, complaining about the high prices charged at the animal circuses that came to the Maltese islands this month. Ms Tirhett writes:

"Last Saturday, I went to the circus in Pembroke with my children. I paid Lm9.50 to enter - nothing strange so far. I then bought a Coke that cost 75c, one portion of chips at Lm1, a sachet of popcorn at Lm1, and a lollypop, which I normally get at 5c, for 45c.

I think this is too much. Who is in charge of these rates? Do they make their own prices? Is there an authority over these people? I have cancelled the booking for the circus in Floriana. I don't like the fact that they charge as much as they want to.

After all, the show wasn't that spectacular. We expected much better".

What Ms Tirhett does not realize is the hidden costs of animal circuses. Of course, the hidden costs unfortunately do not affect the human patrons of the circuses, but only affect non-human animals, otherwise more people would choose not to attend and support these circuses.

These hidden costs include kidnapping of wild animals, rape of wild animals (breeding of non-humans for human purposes), imprisonment and deprivation of non-human animals of their liberty, forced long-distance travelling in small compartments (cages or other containers), and forced display or performance for human profit. This is what is common to all animal circuses, among them the circuses that are in the Maltese islands this month. Other animal circuses might also include forced training (often by violent means, but always by coercive methods), food deprivation as part of the non-human animals' "training", and murder when they can no longer "perform" and so are no longer profitable.

Now, considering all the above hidden costs, should not all people who claim to "care about animals" and "oppose animal cruelty" join the people who recognize animal rights, and boycott this evidently abusive and exploitative industry? Should we wait until the victims of exploitation and abuse are our own selves before deciding to act morally and oppose injustice wherever it happens and whoever the victim of injustice is?

To conclude, here is a quote an Animal Rights Malta's Blog reader called Colleen sent me a few days ago:

"Circus animal trainers love their animals like child pornographers love their children. They steal them from their mothers, force them to perform, and profit from the whole ordeal" - Nick Coughlin

Circus Animal Rights Coalition replies to Silvio Zammit

With reference to the feature on December 13 (The Times), regarding the symbolic protest activity organised by the Circus Animal Rights Coalition the day before, we would like to strongly contest the untruthful claim made by Silvio Zammit, from JS Productions, that the coalition has forced schoolchildren to sign the petition against the use of animals in circuses.

Not only have schoolchildren not been forced to sign the petition, but such collection of signatures has only been carried out through a process of informed consent and awareness on the reality of animal circuses.

Furthermore, the coalition would like to highlight the fact that in contrast to what Mr Zammit is claiming, attendance by schoolchildren at animal circuses is definitely on the decline this year, due to the greater awareness that animal circuses are anti-educational and counter to any consistent animal welfare education that is promoted by schools.

The coalition would also like to point out that Mr Zammit has a clear interest in negating the animal welfare issues put forward by the Circus Animal Rights Coalition since his main interests are clearly those of generating profit from animal exploitation activities. Conversely, the Circus Animal Rights Coalition is made up of voluntary organisations whose sole concern is the promotion of animal rights.

Mary Grace Vella, f/Circus Animal Rights Coalition
(Moviment Graffitti, Animal Rights Malta, Island Sanctuary, Subculture-Animal Friends, CETFREE, Abandoned Animals Association, Nature Trust, AD Youths, World Animal Conscience, Ananda Marga, International Animal Rescue)

Addendum:

Thursday, December 27, 2007
Circus petition

I am writing with reference to the article that appeared on The Times on December 13 in which Silvio Zammit stated that 'students were forced' to sign a petition against animal cruelty in the circus.

On behalf of my fellow students who signed this petition I must say that we feel offended as it was insinuated that we signed the petition under coercion. We would like to have our opinions respected and to confirm what we signed our names to.

Anne Marie Apap, o.b.o. Oriana Seychell, Ruth Grech, Raissa Spiteri, Lyanne Gauci, Ilona Demarco, Cressida Darmanin, Naomi Tabone, Sylvana Carabott, Jodie Salerno, Cynthia Marie Vella, Chantelle Zahra, Ritienne Bondin, Katya Mallan, Gabriella Gauci, Justine Schembri, Annalise Mizzi, Kimberly Caruana, Kristy Gafà and Antonella Camilleri, Zabbar.

Letter published in The Times.

Protests over circus animal slavery - a dissenter

Shane Johnson writes a letter in today's The Times, questioning the reasonableness of our protest against circus animal slavery.

Mr Johnson writes:

"I am forever in favour of protecting animal rights. However, I cannot understand why we make such a fuss when circuses come to Malta because a few people decide that it is cruel for animals to perform in circuses, especially when animal cruelty is an everyday occurrence in our own country".

Mr Johnson thus immediately starts on the wrong footing. In claiming that non-human animals may be used for human purposes provided there is no blatant cruelty involved, he makes it abundantly clear that far from being "forever in favour of protecting animal rights", he actually has no idea about animal rights at all. Let me spell it out: Animal rights means any and all animals are not means to human ends, but are ends in themselves. All sentient animals have the right to life and liberty, and the right not to be property, without which rights any other "rights" become meaningless. At best, Mr Johnson is a "welfarist" and does not believe in animal rights.

As for the comment questioning why we "make a fuss" about circus animals while "cruelty is an everyday occurrence in our own country", I would advise Mr Johnson to read the letters in the local press, where a month does not pass without a letter complaining and protesting about such cruelty. However, apart from the fact that this is about the right of non-human animals not to be slaves (and not necessarily about blatant cruelty), the fact remains that all human use of non-humans as if they were simply human property is wrong. Mr Johnson's argument is no different from someone arguing against protesting for workers' rights when there still are lots of unemployed people around.

Mr Johnson continues by saying: "We live on an island where cats and dogs are tortured, protected birds are blasted out of the sky, horses are left without protection from the sun and without water, animals are found bludgeoned to death, dogs are left all day alone and are kept in unsuitable conditions, dog fighting is rampant, the list goes on and on. In any other civilised country any one of these crimes would be punishable by serving time in jail but in our country we rarely hear of any of the perpetrators being punished adequately.

However, as soon as a circus comes to Malta we write about the terrible conditions these animals have to live in and how they are forced to do tricks that go against their natural instincts and also that the training involves punishment. Now everyone has a right to his own opinion but people should be more careful and only talk about facts they are sure are true".

To Mr Johnson's list I would add the thousands of non-human animals tortured and/or killed yearly just for pleasure, convenience or profit, such as animals used, abused and murdered for food, clothing and entertainment. But let's keep on topic. Regarding circus animals, it is a fact that these animals are either taken away from their natural environment to be confined for life and/or to perform for their human masters, or else they are bred in captivity for the same abusive purpose. Yes, Mr Johnson, we are careful about what we say, and we only talk about facts we are sure to be true.

Mr Johnson then says: "There are many animals the world over which are made to perform behaviours that are not part of their natural instincts, like police dogs who are trained to attack criminals on command , or to search for avalanche victims. However, I have yet to hear about someone complaining about these animals having to perform unnatural behaviours".

Yes, Mr Johnson. A true animal rights advocate opposes all involuntary human use of non-human animals. Any and all kind of "training", unless done for the non-human animal's own good, is abusive. If Mr Johnson wants to see "complaining" about all animal abuse, he should perhaps visit this blog. As for protests, let's begin by educating the public about what qualifies as animal abuse first, and then organize protests against all abuse. That lots of people join us in anti-circus protests shows that many people are coming to understand the inherent abuse in circuses, and are opposing such abuse. Of course, we need to work harder to make people see that all involuntary use of non-human animals is abuse, and not just the use of non-human animals in circuses. But just because many people do not recognize other animal abuses does not make the abuse of circuses stop being abuse.

Mr Johnson then writes: "Another very important point that animal activists, especially in Malta, should be very careful about is when saying that the animals are forced to perform tricks and are punished in order to be trained. I can honestly say that I don't know what sort of training this particular circus is using in order to train its animals, however I can assure readers that nowadays there are modern training techniques like positive reinforcement (better known as reward training) where the animals are offered a reward for learning a correct behaviour. There are also various tools like target training and shaping which allows an animal to learn a trick or behaviour step by step.

I have personally used these techniques myself on different types of animals and can assure readers that they work 100 per cent and that no punishment is necessary to train most animals to do tricks".

Well, I do not personally know what species of animals Mr Johnson himself has "trained" to do tricks by "positive reinforcement", which actually is just whitewashed negative reinforcement (if you don't perform, you don't get treats). However it is a well known fact that many wild animals do not willingly learn unnatural tricks unless coerced in doing so, often through violent means (fear is a great motivator). Notwithstanding all this, even if I were to concede to Mr Johnson that no violent methods are used to train wild animals in circuses (which is conceding a lot), this would still leave all the slave animals imprisoned, apart from having to travel year after year in far from ideal conditions.

Mr Johnson concludes his letter by saying: "Any animal rights group activist worth his salt should know these facts before dissuading people from visiting these circuses or any other organisations that use animals to entertain".

Well, Mr Johnson. Any animal rights activist worth his salt already knows the facts. "Animal circuses" involve kidnapping, rape, false imprisonment, forced labour, and denial of liberty. In short, "animal circuses" are a denial of animal rights, and people who claim to care about animal rights should abstain from visiting places of "entertainment" which profit from animal abuse and exploitation. Animal circuses are animal slavery. There is no way to go around that.

More information on "animal circuses" may be found in "Circuses - Modern slavery".

Silvio Zammit the animal exploiter, and the anti-circus slavery demo

Today's The Times reports on yesterday's successful Anti-Circus protest in Floriana, which brought to light the inherent abuse to non-human animals of "animal circuses".

I am reproducing most of the Times report in italics with my own comments/amendments in regular font.

"It was almost a battle of the bands in Floriana yesterday evening, with screeching whistles by anti-circus protesters against the merry tunes coming from outside the tent of the aquatic circus.

A boisterous band was playing to welcome the spectators to the circus, which opened yesterday, but was directly facing the protesters and the two factions seemed to be trying to outdo each other.

The group from the Circus Animal Rights Coalition, which braved the biting cold, was staging a demonstration against cruelty to animals and animal exploitation in circuses. Representing 14 animal welfare, animal rights and environmental organisations and other lobby groups, they held posters equating animal circuses to animal cruelty and slavery.

Asked whether they had been affected by the fact that a number of schools had refused to take children to the circus and that over 1,500 signatures were collected in just two school days from students and teachers who do not agree that animals should be used in such shows, Silvio Zammit (the organizer), from JS Productions, claimed the children were 'forced' to sign the petition. Sure they were, presumably at gun-point!

The coalition had said the circus included penguins and hippos but Mr Zammit said it involved the participation of pelicans, snakes, penguins, crocodiles and piranhas, which did not perform tricks, but were just there to be seen. Of course, just because the animals do not perform tricks still leaves the animals in situations of abuse, where their right to freedom is denied to them, apart from the fact that they are still forced to travel long distances and forced to live in unnatural conditions which cannot be described otherwise than prisons.

(Mr Zammit) insisted that they were certified by vets to be in good health and fit to travel. The necessary permits were in hand and everything was in accordance with EU and Maltese regulations, he said. Of course, this is all irrelevant, since the animals are still circus slaves who are denied their freedom just so that Mr Zammit and the circus owner may profit from their exploitation.

The protesters had a right to demonstrate in a democratic country but they were a minority, he said, adding that the rest of the population also had the right to go to the circus.

Conveniently, Mr Zammit ignores the fact that being a minority does not necessarily make you in the wrong, and neither does being part of an animal-exploiting and animal-abusing majority make you right. In fact, in this instance, the opposite is the case. To exploit and imprison non-human animals for profit just because a majority does not seem to care still remains immoral.

With regard to the maltreatment of animals in circuses, (Mr Zammit) asked who in his right mind word harm his own animals".

Perhaps Mr Zammit should ask this question to those people who force 'their' dogs to fight other dogs, or those who torture or kill 'their' animals just for pleasure, convenience or profit. Mr Zammit certainly should realize that especially where there is a profit factor involved, many people who see non-human animals as simply their property would have no qualms about mistreating 'their' animals just to profit from others' misery. Apart from this, the campaing against "animal circuses" is not just a campaign against blatant obvious cruelty. It is also against the exploitation of non-human animals and their imprisonment, which cannot be described other than exploitation for profit. Yes, Mr Zammit, you are an animal abuser and an animal exploiter, profiting from the fact that the government does not even care at all about animal abuse. Of course, Mr Zammit will meet us again every time he brings any more non-human slaves to Malta.

More information on "animal circuses" may be found in "Circuses - Modern slavery".

Watch video and pictures of the protest.

Tomorrow's protest, who not to vote, and animal sanctuaries

Anti-Circus protest tomorrow

The public is being urged to turn up in Floriana tomorrow evening to protest against the use of animals in circuses as the Circo Aquatico starts its shows on the Granaries.

Coalition representative Lana Turner said the tricks circus animals perform go against their natural instincts and they frequently get injured while practising. The training involves punishment, she said.

Animals are made to travel long distances, sometimes in precarious conditions, while the climate in some localities where the circus sets up its tent is not suitable for them.

Ms Turner expressed satisfaction that steps in favour of animal protection were taking place in the education sector, with a number of schools refusing to take children to the circus. In just two school days, the coalition had collected over 1,500 signatures from students and teachers who do not agree that animals should be used in such shows. The signatures will be presented to the government, she said.

Stopping animal circuses does not mean the end of this type of spectacle because there are circuses that do not use animals.

The coalition - made up of Moviment Graffitti, Animal Rights Malta, Island Sanctuary, Subculture-Animal Friends, CETFREE, Abandoned Animals Association, Nature Trust, AD Youths, World Animal Conscience, Ananda Marga, International Animal Rescue, Gaia Foundation, Kollettiva Gurnal ir-Realtà and SPCA - is urging people to assemble in front of the Phoenicia Hotel at 6 p.m. tomorrow.

The protesters will walk to the Granaries, where the circus will be held, Ms Turner said.

Meanwhile, today's The Malta Independent reports that "CT Entertainment Productions in collaboration with Vodafone, Kinnie Zest and Hyundai will be presenting the 'Circo di Spagna', a circus run by the Carbonari and Montico families" which "excludes the participation of animals, except for two domestic freelance horses which (sic) will present a unique performance..."

Well, obviously several slaves is worse than two slaves, but slavery is still slavery even if it were only one slave. This makes Circo di Spagna as much an animal exploiter as Circo Aquatico.

More information about "animal circuses" may be found in "Circuses - Modern slavery".

MP asks judge to abstain from case against hunter

Today's The Times reports that "Labour MP Joe Abela has asked a judge to abstain from a court case against a hunter, saying comments which he had made could prejudice the case". Of course, I will not waste too much space reporting all of Mr Abela's nonsense. However, here are a few quotes from The Times:

"Speaking during the adjournment of the House of Representatives late yesterday, Mr Abela also made a strong attack against the government's treatment of hunters and criticised Birdlife Malta for using public funds for literature against the hunters.

Mr Abela said he was not a hunter himself and had 'great sympathy for birds', but the House needed to hear both the points of view of environmentalists and hunters"...

"The current state of affairs was such that it was almost better to have a field of haxixa (marijuana) than to have a field where one could go hunting. It was unacceptable in this country that one could buy haxixa everywhere and at any time, but then the special forces were deployed to persecute hunters, stopping them as they walked in the countryside without any suspicion of wrongdoing. This was a violation of people's rights"...

"He said another example of how rights were trampled was the case of Karl Bugeja, who is facing charges in court of shooting a protected bird. Even before witnesses were heard and the case was concluded, the judge had told him to either settle or he would suffer even more punishment, Mr Abela said. This, he insisted, prejudiced the case. How could he not lose the case? Was it possible that the judiciary too was bowing its head to what the government, and ultimately Brussels, wanted? How could the rights of 16,000 hunters be ignored?"...

"It was important that the courts enjoyed the people's respect, and he was therefore requesting Mr Justice Galea Debono to abstain from this case, once it had been prejudiced, Mr Abela said. Mr Bugeja, like any other citizen, expected the courts to be independent of what the government, Brussels, Birdlife or anybody else said. If the concept of independence was eroded, how could institutions such as the courts enjoy credibility?".

Some comments are in order here.

First of all, isn't Mr Abela himself trying to prejudge the case by his political interference in the matter, cunningly using the immunity provided by the house of parliament?

Mr Abela claims "sympathy for the birds". However he totally supports the "right" of hunters to kill them. Moral schizophrenia at its best.

By bringing the drugs issue into the hunting debate, Mr Abela clearly shows his pro-hunting sympathies. That feeble, nonsensical, childish and illogical argument has been brought up several times by people who luckily enough for us do not aspire to govern our country. What's incredible is for the same stupid argument being brought up by a member of parliament, no less! Has Mr Abela never heard of the saying "two wrongs do not make a right"? And how does Mr Abela know that hunters are being stopped "without any suspicion of wrongdoing"? Is it just because his hunter voting constituents are telling him so?

Regarding Karl Bugeja's case, I will not be as presumptuous as Mr Abela, and will let justice follow its course. I will not myself try to prejudge and influence the case like Mr Abela is doing.

My final comment on this disgraceful behaviour of Labour MP Joe Abela is to thank him for making it easier for voters who care about animal rights to cross another candidate off from their voting list. Yes, you read correctly.

If you care at all about non-human animals, do not vote for Labour MP Joe Abela.

Thank God for animal sanctuaries

Antoine Grima writes the following letter in today's The Times, a letter I will reproduce in full, since hopefully it will encourage people who do have the time, to spare some of their time in helping rescued non-human animals at no-kill sanctuaries.

Mr Grima writes: "Love and dedication are the keywords here. Very easy to say, but very difficult to live up to. Lots of people seem to know it all and, still, we have hundreds, if not thousands, of stray dogs and cats roaming our streets, horses being put down because their owners have no more use for them and so on.

I happen to know some people who run and help out in one of Malta's animal sanctuaries, where they look after dogs, cats but, mainly, horses. These animals need feeding twice a day, every day. Come rain or shine, Christmas or not, someone needs to dedicate at least a couple of hours every day, twice a day, to feed these wonderful creatures, let them have some exercise, play with them and love them. There is a handful of dedicated volunteers at the sanctuary who spend every hour of their free time doing the best they can to make the life of these animals as comfortable and as happy as possible.

The people that run the sanctuary cannot possibly do more than what they do, no matter what anybody out there says.

One must not forget either the cost it involves to buy food and maintain the premises. It's an everyday struggle and a very worrying position to be in, knowing that there are so many mouths to feed and they depend entirely on you to provide. I definitely would not like to be in that position. Thank God that someone is willing to accept the task. I salute them. Well done guys; very well done.

Some people do give their opinion, like I am doing here. Sure, they mean well, at least I think most do, but it is not that simple. While we talk, these people act and work hard. After a day's work, when most people head home to put there feet up, these dedicated people head to the sanctuary to clean, feed and exercise the animals in their care. Speaking to these people does make one think as to how on earth there can be so many stray and abandoned animals on this little island that is well known for its friendliness and hospitality. Definitely not towards animals though, if you ask me.

Please don't misunderstand me; not all is bad. There are many animal lovers out there; it just hurts to see so many animals in need, and the numbers are on the increase, while volunteers to help at the sanctuaries are very hard to come by.

These people deserve a medal but if you tell them that they will laugh at the suggestion. What they really need is help, both financial and physical. I have volunteered to help whenever I can and have been to the sanctuary a few times but, unfortunately, not as often as I would like to.

What surprises me most is the satisfaction one feels on leaving the sanctuary, knowing that Sam the alsatian, Kitty the cat and Larry the pony, all animals that would have been dead by now, are healthy and clean with a full stomach. It feels great. Now I know what keeps the people that run the sanctuary and the volunteers going and going. I only wish that whoever is reading this could have the privilege of experiencing this fantastic feeling.

Meanwhile, the authorities keep on talking and talking and talking.

Happy Christmas to all animal lovers from all human loving animals. Hope to see you at one of Malta's animal sanctuaries. I promise you, you'll love it".

Another letter on the upcoming slave show, and on dumping responsibilities on others

More on the upcoming slave show

Today's The Sunday Times features another short letter on the upcoming "animal circus" written by Raymond Schembri. Mr Schembri writes:

"I want to express my disapproval at plans to bring an animal circus to Malta later this month.

It seems that local promoters have made it a habit to bring such circuses over as a Christmas attraction.

The circus animals will not be in their natural environment; besides, they are being abused physically to perform tricks. The Maltese authorities talk so much about animal rights but seem to turn a blind eye to this form of abuse and have no hesitation in issuing permits for the event.

And even the media are guilty of the same contradiction, because although they support animal lovers and let us voice our concern, they still accept advertising for these sickening shows".

Once again, like I did following Elaine Mizzi's letter, all I feel I need to add is that even in the best conditions, and with the provision of the best "welfare" and veterinary care, animal circuses still remain animal slavery.

The exploitative animal circus business rests on the subjugation of wild animals who are either kidnapped from their natural habitats, or alternatively forcefully bred (raped) so that the offspring (and probably also the non-human animals' parents) are made to perform in the slave shows.

As for the Maltese authorities, the common misconception is that the authorities speak of "animal rights" when in actual fact, when and if they do, they would be deceiving the public. The authorities cannot speak of animal rights for the simple reason that they do not believe in animal rights. At most, they believe in "animal welfare", though the use of this term is also equivocal in the sense that the welfare of all animals requires no less than the respect of their rights, including the right to life and liberty. Of course, with all the government's talk of giving due attention to "animal welfare", one would have expected that, after years of protest and information campaigns (making ignorance no excuse), the government would have made it a point not to issue further permits for animal slave shows (circuses).

More information on circus animal slavery can be found in "Circuses - Modern slavery".

I once again wish to remind everyone who is opposed to both human and non-human animal slavery to join us on Wednesday 12th December at 6pm in our public protest in opposition to this rights-violating practice that treats rights-bearing non-human animals simply as human property to be used and abused for the financial gain of their human exploiters. We meet near Hotel Phoenicia, Floriana, Malta.

Unwanted pets

Furtu Caruana writes another letter, also in today's The Sunday Times, mentioning the "animal circus" though with another intention in mind.

Mr Caruana writes: "On November 25 you (The Sunday Times) carried a report regarding a protest held by the Circus Animal Rights Coalition. This coalition is made up of various animal lovers' organisations.

I have three cats, all males, all neutered. One is 11 years old and the other two will be four in January.

I would like to challenge any of these animal lovers to take these pets off me. They are driving me round the bend. I too love animals but I cannot stand them any longer.

Who is going to take care of them? I can be contacted by e-mail at furtutalunited@onvol.net".

First of all, Mr Caruana is mistaken in his belief that the Circus Animal Rights Coalition is made up of various "animal lovers'" organizations. I, for one, do not consider myself an "animal lover" (whatever that means). Animal rights is a question of justice, not charity or affection.

Mr Caruana "challenges" those who oppose animal slavery to take his pets off him, since he says that they are "driving (him) round the bend". Amazingly, he follows the challenge with the claim that "(he) too love(s) animals but (he) cannot stand them any longer". I would hope that if Mr Caruana had any children, despite "loving them", he would not dump them on other people because he "can't stand them any longer". But of course, most people would say that children are "not animals". This is both false and irrelevant. First of all, humans are animals. Secondly, when one takes a sentient individual under his care, one should face up to one's responsibilities. If this includes postponing change of home (see below), so be it.

Of course, Mr Caruana's letter in today's The Sunday Times (reproduced above) is a far cry from the email he sent to me personally on Tuesday 13th February of this year. In this email, Mr Caruana had written: "I have a slight problem with my two, three year old male cats. Since I lost my wife recently, and now I am on my own, I am looking for a smaller place. I found the ideal one, a small corner flat, but unfortunately it has not got neither a yard nor a balcony. Hence it is going to be impossible for me to keep these two cats. Can you help? My phone number is xxxxxxxx or xxxxxxxx. Thanks. Furtu Caruana".

Of course, I had forwarded his email to all my contacts in the hope that a better home would be found for Mr Caruana's cats. Unfortunately, Mr Caruana's cats are not the only cats in need of a good home, and as long as irresponsible people will continue breeding (and selling and buying) cats (for whatever reason), the problem will not end any time soon.

Mr Caruana, apparently, is one of those who believe that to advocate for the rights of others, one has to adopt all those others on whose behalf one is advocating. This is as absurd as believing that an anti-racist would have to open his home for all the people of other races who would wish to come in; a feminist would similarly invite in all women; an anti-child abuse campaigner would have to take in all abused children into his home; and so on. I am sure that Mr Caruana would understand that this is unpractical as well as an absurd expectation. The most effective way to fight an injustice is to fight it at its source. With regards to the animal rights issue, this involves challenging the property status of non-human animals and campaigning against all animal use (including breeding, selling and buying non-humans).

But perhaps I should give Mr Caruana the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he simply made the wrong choice of words in today's letter. After all, one doesn't challenge those whose help one desperately needs.

While hoping that Mr Caruana will find homes for the cats he no longer wants despite "loving them", I hope he also understands that non-human animals are not objects simply to be discarded or dumped when they become a "nuisance". I also hope that he understands that animal sanctuaries are not in a position to allow inside their premises any number of non-human animals which humans very conveniently and immorally dump out of their homes. There are limitations which include funds, number of volunteers to care for the animals, and sufficient space to take care of hundreds of such animals. Considering that Mr Caruana is finding it difficult to take care of just two cats, I am confident that, provided that today's letter and his email to me are genuine, he will understand that caring for hundreds of animals is a much bigger task, and hence, taking more into one's care is regrettably not always a possibility.

I would also like to make it clear that I have reproduced Mr Caruana's email address only for two reasons. First of all, because he supplied the information himself, and made it public both through a newspaper and email. Secondly, I honestly hope that homes are found for both cats, for their own good.

On the upcoming slave show

Elaine Mizzi writes a letter in today's The Times regarding the upcoming slave show, commonly known as "animal circus".

Ms Mizzi, in her letter entitled "Circus animals" writes: "I am writing to express my deep disappointment and concern that once again a circus, which exploits animals, will be coming to Malta. Through such shows, animals are forced to perform tricks that are contradictory to their innate instincts and behaviour, which results in substantial injuries. Besides, such performance and training most often entails learning through painful and punitive methods.

Animals in circuses have to sustain long distance travelling to get to the performance destination and during transportation they are often kept in unsuitable and precarious conditions.

The climate of the locality may furthermore be unsuitable for their natural temperament in such a way that they undergo undue suffering. These factors continue to exacerbate the already stressful conditions caused by confinement and transportation.

As a result of this, I am urging animal lovers to boycott this circus and its sponsors to show that animals should not be exploited for profit".

I have nothing to add to this letter except to stress that even in the best conditions, and with the provision of the best "welfare" and veterinary care, animal circuses still remain animal slavery. Animal circuses involve either kidnapping individual non-human animals from the wild (in itself a rights violation) and/or the breeding (rape) of such non-human animals in captivity (also a rights violation). All this, apart from the fact that non-human animals are unwilling performers in an act intended to bring profit to the human exploiters, an act which cannot be described otherwise as slavery. Not to mention that "circus animals" are invariably denied their freedom which is theirs by right. This is not just a question of concern for "animal lovers". This is a question about an injustice that needs to be challenged.

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

I also wish to remind everyone who is opposed to both human and non-human animal slavery to join us on Wednesday 12th December at 6pm in our public protest in opposition to this rights-violating practice that treats rights-bearing non-human animals simply as human property to be used and abused for the financial gain of their human exploiters. We meet near Hotel Phoenicia, Floriana, Malta.

Animal welfare laws and animal cruelty

Following Shane Johnson's letter in The Times issue of November 20, Mr Len Willock from the UK also writes a letter to The Times, mostly in the same vein.

Mr Willock writes: "I am English, a member of no particular religion, just one who considers that the welfare of all animals, including humans, should hold the same importance within the law of a country.

I totally agree with Shane Johnson's letter (November 20).

I would like to ask how a country that claims to be so strong a religious one fails to punish offenders against living beings put on earth by the same entity that they believe we humans were and that they worship in churches all the time. Surely that is not a sign of true believers.

I love Malta, a second home to me, and I have many wonderful friends there. I have been returning for over 30 years but if this barbaric treatment of helpless animals is allowed to continue without adequate punishment from the courts I will have no alternative but to ask myself whether I can feel at ease in and support a country that does not incorporate adequate animal welfare in its laws. I hope many other tourists will also do the same.

You may think that an Englishman does not have the right to encourage the Maltese courts to please punish all perpetrators of this barbaric cruelty to all of God's creatures including those that are unable to ask for themselves, but are able to bring so much pleasure to us not-so-nice humans and expect so little in return".

I will start with Mr Willock's opening claim, where he says that he considers that the welfare of all animals, including humans, should hold the same importance within the law of a country. I would assume, therefore, that Mr Willock is opposed to the use and slaughter of non-human animals for food, clothing, entertainment and experimentation. Of course, I cannot be sure of this, so I will leave it an open question, and will only add that if Mr Willock really means and understands what he says in the quoted opening statement, unless he is already so, he should seriously consider becoming a vegan, since veganism logically follows from his true claim.

If the welfare of all animals (including humans) should have the same standing within the law, this would in effect mean that any and all involuntary use of any animal should be illegal. Of course, since we live in a speciesist society governed by speciesists, we wouldn't expect all involuntary use of non-human animals to become illegal. However, a person who makes such a claim (that non-humans should have the same standing in law where their welfare is concerned) should at least make an effort to become vegan, unless one is already so. But let's move on.

Mr Willock, like Mr Johnson before him, asks how it is possible that barbaric treatment of non-human animals (cats and dogs) is allowed to continue without adequate punishment from the courts. Like I said in my commentary on Mr Johnson's letter, Mr Willock should understand that while it is a regrettable fact that cruelty to stray cats and dogs is becoming frequent (apart from the fact that it is hardly as frequent as other cruelty such as the use and killing of non-human animals for food, clothing and entertainment - unfortunately all legal), this sort of cruelty is usually performed by sociopaths on whom a financial penalty, no matter how large, would never be a deterrent.

Of course, I would support any court sentence that either deems it necessary for the safety of society (including non-humans) to lock up such people, or better still, if at all possible, that these same people are given psychological help to get them out of this kind of destructive behaviour. That said, like I also said in my commentary on Mr Johnson's letter, perhaps some soul-searching is in order here. People who are vociferous (as should be) against the unnecessary torture and killing of stray cats and dogs, should also take a good look at themselves to see whether their own harmful actions that exploit and/or kill several non-human animals every day (like, for instance, for food and clothing) is really unavoidable, particularly when it is a fact that alternatives to animal exploitation are readily available, conceding that perhaps some effort is required to live an animal exploitation-free life.

As regards to whether an Englishman has the right to encourage the Maltese courts to punish all perpetrators of this "barbaric cruelty to all of God's creatures including those that are unable to ask for themselves", I would say - of course he does. However, a boycott of a country because of cruelty that is already illegal and mostly unavoidable (since you will always have sociopaths around) is a bit rich. By any means, one should consider boycotting countries where animal abuse is institutionalised (though this would in effect mean a boycott of all countries, including one's own). However, to boycott a country simply for illegal acts committed by a minority does not make sense at all. For think about it - what would be the intended purpose of such a boycott? Presumably it would be to stop all or most illegal cruelty.

And would a boycott stop illegal cruelty? Not very likely, considering that, as I have explained, most illegal cruelty is performed by sociopaths needing psychological help themselves. And I believe that any rational person would concede that no boycott would work on mentally imbalanced sociopaths. Furthermore, think about this: What message are we sending to others each time we eat a "steak" or any other "animal product" if not that it's acceptable to confine, make suffer and kill non-human animals as long as one gets a "fair" amount of gratification from the produce of exploitation, suffering and death?

That said, here's a boycott that would actually help non-human animals: How about boycotting all products that come from animal exploitation and killing? Now that would really help countless animals, requires no laws (just one's own volition and action), and is in line with the view which holds that "the welfare of all animals, including humans, should hold the same importance within the law of a country".

On hunters' PR and paranoia and the abolition of hunting

Today's The Times editorial, entitled "Hunters' PR and paranoia" deals with the hunting situation in Malta. I shall reproduce selected quotes from the editorial, which clearly show that the Maltese public has had enough of hunters, and that the government would do well to heed the European Union's warnings and abolish spring hunting with immediate effect.

The Times editorial says: "The secretary of the Federation for Hunting and 'Conservation', Lino Farrugia, has warned members the federation would revoke any hunter's membership if such a member is convicted of illegal hunting. This followed another crass instance of a young hunter allegedly caught red-handed shooting at a strictly protected bird of prey from the middle of a major road one Sunday afternoon - despite being warned by an off-duty environment inspector not to shoot the bird.

Mr Farrugia had last month drew an extraordinary comparison between the European Union's warning to Israel about imposing 'collective punishment' against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip by reducing their fuel supplies and Malta's treatment of hunters. He felt that Malta should also have been warned by the EU on what he called the 'collective punishment of hunters' when the spring season was brought to an abrupt end by the government - following persistent violations of hunting regulations (see my own comment on this in "Collective punishment and spring hunting").

The two statements, coming within three weeks of each other, demonstrate both a remarkable paranoia on the part of the federation to the way their 'sport' is viewed in Malta and in the EU as well as a belated attempt to retrieve some of the PR ground they lost over the years - most notably over the last 12 months.

Alas, hunters have to learn to live with their paranoia. Their low public relations image, both domestically and internationally, would appear to be thoroughly justified, especially given certain statements made, including by federation spokesmen, and the irresponsible attitude of some (actually all - they all murder birds) hunters. The federation has at times been seen to be acting in a high-handed manner. And hunters - not all, granted - have behaved arrogantly and often illegally, leading the public to doubt the oft-touted argument that these are 'isolated, irresponsible actions' by a few disaffected individuals...

Finally, it would help the hunters' cause if they were to accept that, as part of the EU, Malta is bound by the Commission's directives on spring hunting and to work with the government to implement the new arrangements...".

Of course, the only moral and responsible thing for the government to do would be to abolish all hunting, since all hunting violates the right of sentient animals to live. To be credible in its claims of support for "animal welfare", what the government would need to do is not present itself with petitions collected by other people, but instead to stop persisting in it's hard-headed insistence on retaining spring hunting when the majority of the Maltese people and EU regulations would want or require that spring hunting be abolished, to name one example. Of course, having animal "welfare" laws and bans on hunting does not make a government an animal rights respecting government.

Animal rights demand no less than the total abolition of practices that use non-human animals as human property. But alas, not only does the government not go this far (which in a way is to be expected - speceisist politicians cannot make a non-speciesist government), but the government fails even to live up to it's own claims that it supports animal welfare measures. Aren't birds animals?