Does abolishing hunting mean cruelty to "hunting" dogs?

Danica Rosso, stating from the outset that she comes from a family of hunters, writes a letter in today's The Times, which she entitles "Spare a thought for hunting dogs".

Ms Rosso writes:

"I come from a family of hunters; my father is a hunter, my uncles are hunters and my grandfather was a hunter. Although I am not a hunter myself, I have on a few occasions accompanied my relatives on their hunting excursions and have come to appreciate what this hobby means to them and what a big part of their lives it plays. I would not like to go into the matter of the EU or the government's unfulfilled promise regarding spring hunting, but I would like to voice one of my concerns.

Nobody has yet spared a thought for hunting dogs. Dogs who have been exposed to hunting become enamoured with this hobby; this love is locally known as 'in-namra'. At the beginning of spring, hunting dogs display an unequivocal longing behaviour - a longing to be out in the country and do what they do best: hunt. Indeed Malta has its own breed of hunting dogs, 'il-kelb tal-kaċċa'.

Now I ask, is it not cruel to deprive these dogs of their true love and of their natural instinct?

Are BirdLife and all those opposing spring hunting animal lovers or are they only bird lovers?"

Ms Rosso's excuse or justification for allowing hunting out of concern for the "hunting" dogs is of course ridiculous.

Dogs who have been exposed to hunting do not become enamoured with this "hobby". That belief is just a simple case of anthropomorphism (giving human qualities to things or animals that do not have those qualities).

It is true that some dogs might have retained a hunting instinct, even though domestication of dogs and the consequent feeding of dogs by humans puts this generally in doubt, and has meant that most dogs are now seen to show no interest in hunting at all, provided that they are well fed. One, after all, rarely sees dogs chasing pidgeons in our public gardens, for instance (unless, of course, they are hungry strays).

It must also be noted that "hunting" dogs who accompany hunters in Malta do not hunt the birds themselves (that would be a preposterous suggestion which would require that dogs be capable of flying). This would be easy to test - one would simply need to go "hunting" with one's dogs without any guns or other weapons, and see for oneself whether the dog hunts or not. "Hunting" dogs simply fetch fallen (shot) birds whom the human hunter kills. A dog wouldn't care if the collected "object" was a bird or, for instance, a rubber ball.

As for Ms Rosso's claim that at the beginning of spring, "hunting" dogs display an unequivocal longing behaviour - a longing to be out in the country and "do what they do best: hunt", this is a very simplistic way of seeing things.

Since dogs are capable of cognitive association, they are capable of associating the "hunting season" with the fact that during this season they will generally spend much more time in the countryside with their "owner".

The "unequivocal longing behaviour", that Ms Rosso mentions, is a "longing to be out in the country", but that's as far as the longing goes. Since dogs' unfortunate status today is that of being human property, they depend on their "owner" for even simple (but necessary) enjoyments such as an outing to the countryside. Of course, an outing to the countryside is still possible irrespective of whether hunting is practiced or not. It all depends on the hunter "owner", and whether he/she would treat the dog as a companion or just as a hunting tool.

It also bears stressing again that "hunting" dogs who accompany hunters in Malta, do not hunt. They simply fetch dead birds whom the human hunters kill. Therefore, Ms Rosso's claim that "hunting" dogs long to "do what they do best: hunt", is clearly false. If "hunting" dogs do not hunt at all, then hunting cannot be "what they do best", since they actually do not even do it at all.

So, to answer Ms Rosso's questions:

"(I)s it not cruel to deprive these dogs of their true love and of their natural instinct?"

No, because first of all, hunting is not their "true love". An outing to the countryside and playing games with their "owner" is. Secondly, "hunting" dogs accompanying hunters do not hunt anyway. They only fetch dead or dying birds. The collection of dead birds can always be substituted by the collection of balls, frisbees, and other toys.

"Are BirdLife and all those opposing spring hunting animal lovers or are they only bird lovers?"

I won't speak for BirdLife, but those, like me, who oppose hunting for animal rights reasons do not do so just out of "love" for non-human animals. We oppose hunting as a matter of justice. In essence, this means that no sentient individual should be exploited or killed just for someone else's pleasure, be that someone human or non-human.

The question is not: "should we choose the dog over the bird or the bird over the dog?". The question is: "should we sacrifice the greater interest of a bird (life itself, the denial of which precludes further enjoyment of all other interests) for the significantly lesser interest of a dog in fetching dead birds, especially when this practice can be replaced with an equally satisfying (for the dog, not the human hunter) practice of fetching inanimate objects? And even if fetching rubber balls was not as satisfying for the dog as fetching dead birds, should we permit the ultimate harm to birds (killing them) just to satisfy the significantly lesser interest of a dog's pleasure in fetching things, be they animate or inanimate?

People who truly care about all animals will know the answer to my questions. The rest will go on seeking ways to justify the unjustifiable, even using "concern" for the dogs they claim to respect, in a feeble attempt to justify the killing of other animals whom they clearly do not respect, and kill or find no problem with killing.

Brussels asks court to ban spring hunting

The Times' Ivan Camilleri reports:

"The European Commission yesterday formally presented its case against spring hunting in Malta to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg.

It asked the Court to declare spring hunting in Malta illegal and to issue an urgent decision, or interim measures, barring the Maltese authorities from allowing any hunting to take place during spring until a final decision is made by the ECJ.

If issued, the interim measures will affect the coming season that would normally start by the end of March.

'The first and original case will take up to two years to be decided. However, interim measures are much faster and will only take between a week and some months. In this case, it is expected that a decision will be taken before the coming spring hunting season can start', a spokesman for the ECJ told The Times yesterday.

The formal decision by Brussels to seek an end to spring hunting in Malta was taken by the College of Commissioners last month following various written warnings sent to the Maltese authorities since June 2006.

'The case against Malta has been registered as number 76/08 and the president of the Court will assign the case to a judge at the same time as he deals with the request for urgent measures', the spokesman said. According to ECJ procedures, a request for interim measures is decided by the Court's president. The ECJ spokesman explained that, according to procedures, the president will inform the Maltese authorities of the request and ask them to submit their defence in writing.

The Commission will then be asked to reply. Eventually, the president can either decide straightaway or, upon the request of the injured party, appoint a public hearing. A decision then follows immediately.

The upcoming spring hunting season can theoretically start from March 21. Although the Ornis committee - entrusted with recommending to the Environment Minister when the season should open - has not yet made a decision, the government has made it clear it will abide by any decision issued by the ECJ. The Labour Party has made a similar declaration.

Yesterday's formal presentation by the Commission of the court case follows a final written warning to Malta in October 2007 on the hunting of quails and turtle doves during spring.

Last October the Commission had called on Malta not to allow spring hunting in 2008. However, responding in January 2008, Malta did not give a firm commitment in this regard and, thus, the Commission decided to refer the case to the European Court of Justice".

BirdLife billboards vandalised

Today's The Times reports:

"Two billboards featuring Maltese personalities appealing to Dr. Gonzi and Dr. Sant to stop illegal spring hunting have been vandalised, BirdLife Malta said.

The vandalised billboards, which form part of the latest action in BirdLife Malta’s campaign are on the Coast Road and on the road from Targa Gap to Rabat. Graffiti have been sprayed onto the Rabat billboard, including the words 'Drogi Drug Dealerrs [sic.]' and the poster was torn slightly in one place. On the other hand, the Coast Road billboard was torn so that only two of the faces of the fours individuals depicted are still visible.

Commenting on a spate of vandal attacks over the past year, the organisation recalled the attack on the Ghadira reserve, at the EU LIFE project site, at the FORESTA 2000 site, and finally the arson attack in Buskett which one week ago destroyed three cars belonging to BirdLife volunteers.

'We once again urge the political parties to take a strong stand against these illegal activities that our organisation has long been subject to. To date, not a single person has been brought to justice and this is sending a very dangerous message. BirdLife is committed to its work for the conservation of our natural habitat and will not be silenced by these criminal acts or threats', Tolga Temuge Executive Director of Birdlife Malta said".

Birdwatchers' cars burnt at Buskett - BirdLife demands action

The Sunday Times reports:

"Three cars belonging to birdwatchers were destroyed by fire at Buskett early this morning. The cause of the blaze was not immediately clear. The vehicles were a Ford Fusion, a Honda Odessey and a Pajero Jnr.

The incident happened at around 6.30 a.m. The fire was put out by the Civil Protection Department. No one was injured and no further damage was caused.

Magistrate Consuelo Scerri Herrera is heading an inquiry.

BirdLife Malta said two of the cars belonged to members of its council while the third, which had a diplomatic plate, belongs to an American citizen who started volunteering with the organisation a few months ago.

The three volunteers were carrying out scientific ringing studies in Buskett. They arrived on site at around 5.45 a.m. and headed off to a nearby field to start their work. Just a few minutes after, they heard a bang. Within 15 minutes fire engines and Police had arrived on the scene. BirdLife Malta's Executive Director Tolga Temuge also arrived at the scene shortly after.

BirdLife said it had been informed by the Police that the incident was most probably a criminal act.

Mr Temuge said: 'This is not the first time such a thing has happened. Our reserves as well as the EU Life project site were vandalised, 3,000 trees and shrubs were uprooted and sawed down at FORESTA 2000 and to this day not one single person has been brought to justice. This inaction is giving a dangerous message that these criminals can get away with what they are doing'.

BirdLife said that 10 days ago it sent a letter to the Commissioner of Police copied to the Office of the Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment George Pullicino informing them about messages with an increasingly threatening tone posted on a website forum. BirdLife had requested action from the relevant authorities but it had received no communication from the Police.

'We demand urgent action from the government to bring these criminals to justice. What are they waiting for, someone to get seriously hurt?' Temuge concluded".

The concept of personhood

The abortion debate currently taking place through letters in The Times sheds light on the relative argument in favour of non-human animal personhood and animal rights. This is what should clearly follow from Mark Azzopardi's definition of personhood in his letter in today's The Times which he entitles "Concept of personhood" (which I reproduce below in its entirety).

Mr Azzopardi correctly links the idea of human rights to the concept of personhood. I deem it appropriate to point out that to follow Mr Azzopardi's good logic in the case of personhood would naturally suggest that personhood cannot non-arbitrarily be denied to sentient non-human animals. Please keep this in mind while following Mr Azzopardi's reasoning and arguments.

Mr Azzopardi writes:

"Jacqueline Calleja (The Times, February 7) gives me credit for the concept of personhood, based on the possession of mental faculties, although she is undoubtedly aware that this is the view of most modern secular bioethicists.

In modern rights-based societies, from the moment of birth and throughout life, the question of personhood does not arise and all human beings are considered legal and moral persons with legal and moral rights, until death. Whether they are children with a low IQ or adults with senile dementia, no reason to question their status exists and society makes no distinction between one citizen and another.

Even a neonate, who does not yet have self-awareness and, as a result, interests, has its rights held in trust for it by society and, should its parents not wish to look after it, other adults willing to fill their shoes could easily be located. The same applies to babies who survive premature birth or intentional abortion.

Patients in a persistent vegetative state present an ethical minefield, as there are those who believe that these patients should be allowed to die and others who hold that they should be kept alive at all costs. Several court cases involving such patients have cited considerations such as the quality of life, the wishes of family members, the use of hospital resources and professional responsibilities to reach a decision.

The case of the unborn child is markedly different. In this situation, the viability of the foetus is directly dependent on the pregnant woman, not on society. Although this presents no problem should the woman wish to take her pregnancy to completion, it becomes the subject of ethical consideration if the pregnancy is unwanted.

In this scenario, many bioethicists believe that the moral rights of the foetus, which on the basis of its mental development has not attained the status of personhood, are overridden by the full moral rights of the woman. It is only with the wiring up of the cerebral cortex, which occurs between the 25th and 32nd week of gestation, that the foetus develops sentience and consciousness, thereby achieving the status of personhood.

In the US today, 98 per cent of abortions occur within the first 15 weeks of gestation and 99.9 per cent within the first 27 weeks. Third trimester abortions are rare and sought only because of a physical threat to the woman or gross abnormality of the foetus. In my opinion, abortion of the foetus for gross abnormality is only ethically justifiable in situations which are incompatible with life, such as anencephaly, or others with a low rate of survival and an extremely poor quality of life, such as trisomy 18, which has a 10 per cent first year survival rate and trisomy 13, which has a 28 per cent rate. Both conditions are accompanied by severe retardation, limb and organ deformities and a general inability to see, hear or smell.

On the other hand, spina bifida and Down's syndrome are both compatible with life and sufferers of these conditions may lead perfectly happy lives, once the appropriate surgical interventions have been undertaken.

Ms Calleja is entitled to her opinion and that of the contemporary Catholic Church that personhood occurs at conception. But she must concede that opinions vary. If she were Jewish, she would believe that life began at birth or, if she were a traditional Muslim, she would believe that ensoulment occurred at 120 days of gestation. Perhaps, had she lived in the 13th century, she would have agreed with Popes Innocent III and Gregory IX, that abortion is homicide only when the foetus is 'formed'".

Without going into the merits of whether abortion is ever justifiable, or into which cases might justify abortion or not (I leave that conclusion to the reader's own consideration of whether Mr Azzopardi has argued his case convinvingly), some things naturally flow from Mr Azzopardi's claims with regards to personhood, irrespective of whether personhood is a relevant criteria for justifying or condemning abortion. In any case, the argument for human personhood as a sufficient criteria for recognizing rights does not necessarily close the possibility that other criteria may also be relevant for granting any non-sentients rights as well, provided that these other criteria are both valid and do not deny sentients their rights.

Mr Azzopardi says that "in modern rights-based societies, from the moment of birth and throughout life, the question of personhood does not arise and all human beings are considered legal and moral persons with legal and moral rights, until death. Whether they are children with a low IQ or adults with senile dementia, no reason to question their status exists and society makes no distinction between one citizen and another.

Even a neonate, who does not yet have self-awareness and, as a result, interests, has its rights held in trust for it by society and, should its parents not wish to look after it, other adults willing to fill their shoes could easily be located. The same applies to babies who survive premature birth or intentional abortion".

Now, if personhood is to be taken for-granted for all human animals irrespective of low IQ, senile dementia, etc, does this not strongly suggest that all sentient non-human animals should be equally regarded as persons irrespective of levels of mental faculty?

If sentience is sufficient for acknowledging the moral rights of humans (irrespective of levels in mental cognisance) and consequently protecting them with legal rights, what is it that justifies treating sentient non-human animals any differently? Only speciesist discrimination, the sort of which would justify racism, sexism and all other sorts of prejudiced discrimination, would deny non-human animals rights simply because they are not human. For, if sentience is all that matters in recognizing humans as persons (not to be confused with people), shouldn't the same measure be applied with respect to non-humans?

And no (just in case anyone reduces the argument to the following absurd conclusion), by claiming that we should accord and acknowledge non-human animal rights because non-human animals are sentient too, we do not mean giving non-humans the right to vote, or the right to drive, just as we equally don't give human children the right to vote, or blind humans the right to drive.

By claiming that all sentients have rights, the only rights we would be claiming on behalf of the rights-holding animals are rights that matter to them, and that do not infringe the equal or more fundamental rights of others.

Therefore, by according the right to life and freedom from human exploitation to non-humans (as we do to human persons), we are recognizing rights that matter to them. Similarly, by denying them "rights" which do not matter to them or actually harm others, we would actually be acting consistently, since we equally deny blind humans (for instance) the "right" to drive because this would harm others (apart from themselves).

But just as we accord and recognize the right to life and the right not to be treated as property to all sentient humans (irrespective of IQ levels, etc), there is no non-speciesist way of denying the same rights to also sentient non-human animals.

Addendum:

Since the condition called Trisomy 13 is mentioned in Mr Azzopardi's letter (which I reporduced in full) on which I commented and led the arguments for the rights of persons to the recognition of animal rights, a google alert on the term "trisomy" has brought up this blog entry.

I have been alerted to this by Therese Ann from a Trisomy 13 support organization. It is only fair to reproduce her email here, as well as sending her the link she requested.

Therese Ann wrote:

"Your blog came to me under google alerts for trisomy 13 '...and trisomy 13, which has a 28 per cent rate. Both conditions are accompanied by severe retardation, limb and organ deformities and a general inability to see, hear or smell'.

I'd love to have the actual link to the article you cite here....These children have many abnormalities but are a delight and joy to their families. They are a bit of work compared to the typical child but they are beautiful souls... Many more would survive if some parents did push for medical intervention. Some opt to just hold their child due to the many complications, and or some just don't want to abort and yet don't want a difficult future ahead of them so palliative and comfort care is their choice.

Sadly though, we still have many families who are only offered termination and induction when they are given the prenatal diagnosis. For those families who don't find us, and the hope this site provides, it is very sad. For those that do find the site, can create memories with their loved one, whether it is an hour, day or months.

To see many living kids with trisomy 13, visit http://www.livingwithtrisomy13.org and be sure to view our living and treasured memory album pages.

Blessings,

ThereseAnn"

Needless to say, reproducing the email and sharing the link to the Trisomy 13 site does not necessarily mean that I agree with everything stated on that website. That said, this does not necessarily mean that I oppose any or all that is provided on the site. People are encouraged to visit the site (if they so wish) and form their own opinions.

Evolution of a t-shirt slogan

In response to BirdLife Malta's latest anti-Spring Hunting campaign T-shirts with the inscription "Stop Illegal Spring Hunting", worn by 13 local media personalities and shown on billboards and posters, the hunters' federation (FKNK) has issued a press release which includes a spoof t-shirt design showing the inscription "Stop illegal hunting always, not just in Spring".

The FKNK "slogan" of course is intended to send a double message, the first being that the FKNK is opposed to illegal hunting, and the second being that spring hunting is not illegal. I shall be commenting both on this, and on the FKNK media release further down.

Now, every person who is knowledgeable on evolution knows that natural selection does not generally tolerate waste. This, in short, means that any species' biological attributes that are "wasteful" in the sense that they are "burdensome" and do not bring about any clear benefits, are usually "selected out" (discarded) by natural selection. Of course this usually takes some time (perhaps thousands or millions of years). I am purposedly trying not to be too technical so that the neanderthals still around will understand.

In the case of the BirdLife t-shirt, surprisingly, it took only a few days for its slogan "Stop illegal spring hunting" to mutate into "Stop illegal hunting always, not just in spring" (with a little eugenic help from the "conservationist" scientists at the FKNK). However, since natural selection does not tolerate waste, as predicted, the slogan has in turn dropped all the "wasteful" text from the t-shirt, thus dropping "illegal", "always", "not", "just", "in" and "spring". The slogan now simply reads "Stop hunting".

The new t-shirt slogan species "Stop hunting" (desisto venatio) turns out to be a much improved species that is more adapted to its biosphere. Natural selection has dropped the burdensome "illegal...always not just in spring" because, in its usual "bio-economical" fashion, it has "recognized" that (apart from the fact that hunting is always wrong because it always unnecessarily deprives sentient animals of their lives to which they have a right, irrespective of whether hunting is illegal or not) by dropping the "legalistic" part and evolving into simply "Stop hunting", the legal/illegal issues (and their linked controversies) become irrelevant. Stopping all hunting after all necessarily stops all illegal hunting. Why go through the "evolutionarily wasteful" process of determining which hunting is legal, which is illegal, who is breaking the law, is the law being broken etc?

Moreover, natural selection has "recognized" that the ancestral (the FKNK-genetically modified form) slogan species' message that spring hunting is legal was attracting powerful predators in the form of the European Union Commission, a species which insists that spring hunting in Malta is illegal. Evolving into desisto venatio was the natural evolutionary stable solution both to the problem of attracting predators and to the problem of waste (of words). Moreover, by evolving into desisto venatio, it now sends the eco-friendly and correct message that all unnecessary killing is wrong.

But enough of joking around, and let's take a look at what the FKNK is saying in its press release of February 13.

The FKNK release says (among other things) that "In this manner BirdLife may be hoping to influence Political Parties that 'the overwhelming majority of the Maltese to be (sic) firmly against spring hunting".

Perhaps the FKNK has not seen all the opinion polls on the topic, all of them showing an opposition to spring hunting of over 80%.

The FKNK also says that "Spring Hunting has NEVER been illegal in Malta".

Well, dear FKNK, apparently this is neither what the European Commission thinks (and it is the European Union that makes the law), nor is it what over 80% of the Maltese population thinks.

Also, doesn't the FKNK statement that "Spring Hunting has NEVER been illegal in Malta" go contrary to the spirit of the same FKNK's letter in today's The Times, which includes "So it seems that Winston J. Zahra (February 10) has succumbed to the entreaties of bird fanatics and prefers to kowtow to them rather than have the European Court of Justice have its say"? Should we let the European Court of Justice have its say, or should we not, dear FKNK?

The FKNK finally challenges the media personalities taking part in the anti-spring hunting campaign to participate in the FKNK's weekly TV programme. I don't know about them, but I feel there is nothing left to discuss. The final verdict rests with the European Court of Justice, and all indicators point to an abolition of spring hunting, sooner rather than later.

Spring hunting is a closed topic. We can only hope (and work towards that end) that the end of spring hunting would in turn be followed by the end of all hunting, as well as the end of all speciesist practices that treat sentient non-human animals as if they were mere objects and/or human property. But of course, this requires speciesists to evolve.

Charles Darwin once wrote that "...animals, whom we have made our slaves, we do not like to consider our equal". The purpose of this blog is to try to hasten our positive evolution into a species that ends all slavery and sheds all prejudices and the injustices that naturally flow from a prejudiced mind. I can only hope to convince readers to play their part. The rest is up to all of us.

Dogs' deaths, the law and speciesism

Mary Shephard writes the following letter in today's The Times:

"Brigitte Calascione (Driver Who Got Away...Twice, The Times, February 4 and Helen Cassar (Shame On The Judicial System, The Times, February 8) both have expressed their disgust at the judicial system, through which an irresponsible person got away scot free, after running over Chloe, a pet dog.

I can more than empathise with Chloe's owners; my dog Peppi was savaged and brutally murdered by an Alsatian. Peppi's lung and stomach were punctured and he died the next day in spite of the love and care I gave him. Peppi was a happy, much loved family pet - he did not deserve such a cruel death.

I, too, testified in court, together with my veterinarian and eye witnesses to the horrific attack. Who would have believed that the owner of the Alsatian would be allowed to get away scot free? It would seem that the St Julians police had presented the 'wrong papers' to the court!

And guess what? This same Alsatian attacked another dog. Yet again, St Julians police were on the scene within minutes, yet again failed to proceed with the matter. This time, the reason given was that it was not up to them to make the report! Whatever the reason, yet again, an irresponsible person got away scot free.

Why does an accident have to involve a human child for something to be done? Is a dog's life of no value at law? Shame on the judicial system!"

I will start my commentary by answering Ms Shephard's last two questions.

"Why does an accident have to involve a human child for something to be done?". Simple. The answer is that non-human animals are legally considered human property. Therefore, at law, property (pet) owners may or may not be entitled to compensation for damage or loss of property (injured or killed pets), but justice for the directly harmed party (the non-human animal) never enters the picture for the simple reason that non-humans are not legally considered as persons with rights.

Compensation (if any) given to the property (pet) owner is only given after due consideration (if any) of any blame, consideration (if any) of emotional distress caused to the property (pet) owner, and consideration of the monetary value the court arbitrarily assigns to the damaged (injured) or destroyed (killed) property (pet).

As long as non-human animals are legally and morally considered to be human property, non-humans can expect no further protection than that given to other property such as a house or a car. In most cases, the protection would actually be less, since pets are usually valued much less than cars or houses.

Also, something that should be taken into account is the fact that since non-humans are morally and legally considered by most humans to be no more than human property, it is up to the discretion of the particular police officer or law court whether to give any case involving loss or damage of property (pets) more or less importance than other "more important" cases involving "more serious" crimes. After all, as a speciesist might say, "It's only a dog. Property is replaceable. Buy yourself a new pet".

As for the second question: "Is a dog's life of no value at law?", the answer is actually very simple as well. Again, since dogs are legally nothing more than property (conceding owners' emotional ties - but emotional ties could also be claimed with respect to inanimate objects such as an object that belonged to a dead relative or loved one), the value of dogs (at law) is the value arbitrarily assigned by any presiding judge, which could range from next to nothing (as in the case of "stray" dogs - having no owner and therefore "no value" or "negative value" if seen as a nuisance), to perhaps a few hundred Euros in the case of eugenically designed property such as "pure-breeds". In any case, the value does not reflect the animal's own worth to herself (which is priceless), but is only the value that is arbitrarily reached upon after considering the property (pet)'s worth to the owner or to possible property buyers.

"Animal lovers" (and I don't consider myself one - to say I'm an animal lover makes as much sense as saying that I'm a black lover if I support equal rights for black humans, which I incidentally do) should stop deluding themselves. In a speciesist society where non-humans are legally and morally seen as human property, there can be no animal rights law. Yes, you read right. A single animal rights law is not only improbable - it is impossible. Property cannot have rights.

And what if most of us come to see non-human animals as persons in their own right, and therefore not human property? Ah, but then a lot of things most of us see as normal would need to change.

If non-human animals are not human property (and of course, they should not be, since they are individuals in their own right, who value their own lives irrespective of the arbitrary value we assign to them according to what benefits us), then we would have to stop breeding them as if they were our property. We would also have to stop killing them just because we enjoy the pleasure of the taste of their flesh, or the comfort or fashionable look of their skins. We would have to stop putting them in cages so that we enjoy looking at them or seeing them perform stunts we "teach" them to perform through coercion and violence. We would have to stop vivisecting them, a practice which if applied to humans we would describe as sadistic torture. You can't have the cake and eat it too.

Non-human animals are either human property or they are not. If they are human property, then we shouldn't be at all surprised with the "lenient" court sentences as applied in cases where pets are attacked by other non-humans, or run-over by cars, since such cases would be at most cases of propety loss or damage. But then, if pets are no longer to be considered "just property", what rational arguments shall non-animal rights "animal lovers" bring up to justify the exclusion of dogs from property status while retaining the property status of other animals such as pigs or cows?

If Ms Shephard's dog Peppi was "savaged and brutally murdered" and "he did not deserve such a cruel death", what makes it any different in the case of, for instance, cows? Aren't cows also savaged and brutally murdered? Do they deserve such a cruel death just because to most people, their flesh tastes good? Is it fine to have cows raped and their offspring taken away and, if not killed, preserved to be raped in turn for their milk? Do "animals" only have "rights" when it suits us?

Animal rights, if taken seriously, are not a matter of personal emotional ties, or even charity. Animal rights are a matter of strict justice. Animal rights entail no less than the recognition of each sentient individual as someone (as opposed to something) who values his/her own life, and whose value does no hinge on any value we arbitrarily place on them according to whether they benefit us more as "companions", slaves, or butchered carcasses.

Animal rights is about a complete denial of property status, and without the right to life and liberty (rights that are not applicable to property, as was evident in the era of black slavery), all other pseudo-rights are meaningless.

Ms Shepard concludes her letter by writing "Shame on the judicial system!", somehow expecting from our judicial system anything more than what is normally or legally expected from it. I would actually say: Shame on all of us who still see and treat any or all non-human animals as human property, whose welfare depends on our whims and on whether we are better off by their being treated badly, less badly or well, and on whether they should be allowed to be free or enslaved, live or be murdered.

If we ourselves do not treat non-humans otherwise than as our property in our daily lives, how can we expect the justice system to do otherwise? A country's laws reflect the opinions of its citizens. Unless we change ourselves and abandon all our (racist, sexist, ageist, homophobic, speciesist and all other) prejudices, we cannot expect the system to do as much.

Let us be consistently "pro-animals" (animals includes humans, who are also animals themselves) before we start expecting the justice system to be "pro-animals" itself. Let's shed our speciesist prejudices. Petophilia has no part to play in the the advancement of animal interests. It indirectly harms the animal rights cause, by promoting the view that non-human animals' worth hinges on our arbitrary preferences, apart from directly harming pet animals themselves.

Justice requires no less than the shedding of all prejudices and arbitrary discrimination. Justice requires that all sentient animals be considered as having an equal right to life and freedom from human control, manipulation and use. As long as the overall majority remain speciesists, we will never see true justice, be it in the law courts, or outside the courts' walls.

Spring hunting and probable fines

"Stop Illegal Spring Hunting" campaign goes on

Today's The Sunday Times reports: "A number of Maltese personalities have joined Birdlife Malta's campaign against spring hunting and are calling on the leaders of the two main political parties to take a common stand and abolish the practice once and for all.

The message on the billboards and media campaign, launched yesterday at the Radisson SAS Hotel, St George's Bay, is clear: 'Dr Gonzi, Dr Sant, stop illegal spring hunting now'.

The personalities who will feature in this campaign are: artists Kenneth Zammit Tabona, Maurice Tanti Burlò and Celia Borg Cardona; hotelier Winston J. Zahra; magazine editor Sarah Puntan-Galea; columnist Andrew Borg Cardona (I.M. Beck); entertainer Gianni Zammit, television presenters Moira Delia, Ray Calleja and Pauline Agius; physicist Edward Mallia; percussionist Renzo Spiteri; and actor Alan Montanaro.

Birdlife expressed its appreciation for the support shown by these individuals for its campaign against spring hunting, which backs the European Commission's stand that there is no need to open the season in Malta during this period.

The Commission last month expressed its intention to request an interim measure to stop spring hunting this year should this prove necessary. Taking a cue from this, Birdlife is putting the political parties on the spot to spare Malta the embarrassment of having the case resolved in the European Court of Justice.

'The Government and the Opposition should not attempt to put the weight of the decision to stop spring hunting in Malta on the European Commission and Court of Justice, when it is undeniable that a spring hunting season in Malta is unjustified', Birdlife Malta president Joseph Mangion said.

'Furthermore, the mandate from the Maltese people is crystal clear, as past opinion polls have repeatedly shown the overwhelming majority of the Maltese are firmly against spring hunting. The Maltese continue to be vociferous on this matter and it is wonderful to see these public figures stand up for our common natural heritage', Mr Mangion said. Birdlife executive director Tolga Temuge said this campaign went beyond politics and stressed that the political parties should not be held ransom by the hunters' vote because the majority of Maltese wanted spring hunting to end.

He also felt that times had changed and he believed hunters would not base their vote on a single issue, as had been witnessed during the elections for the MEPs.

Wearing a T-shirt, with the words 'Stop Illegal Hunting' emblazoned on it, Winston J. Zahra, Island Hotels Group operations, sales and marketing director, said he was backing the campaign for two reasons.

'First, I don't think we should be told what to do, and Malta should have the courage to take its own decisions. Second, from a tourism point of view, spring hunting is harming Malta's image and politicians should take a single joint decision on this', he said. Moira Delia, a television presenter and animal lover/activist, said she wanted to be part of Birdlife's campaign because animals and birds had no voice, but the public did and they should stand up and be counted".

Of course, I need not stress that I personally only support the above campaign for the sake of the birds themselves. Any other considerations are either secondary or superfluous. The simple fact is that birds, like other animals, are sentient individuals with the right to life and liberty. The single act of denying their right to life and/or liberty is, more than an "environmental" issue, a matter of strict justice. After all, we don't oppose human genocide for the preservation of human diversity or for other anthropological purposes. We oppose genocide because genocide is a gross violation of human rights. Likewise, hunting is a gross violation of animal rights.

Who pays the fines for hunting in spring?

Meanwhile, Arnold Cassola writes in today's Malta Independent on Sunday (TMIS):

"I refer to the article 'Thoughts about AD and spring hunting' by M. Fenech (TMIS, 3 February). The article reinforces the spin being pushed by the PN and its acolytes that now that Malta has been taken to the Court of Justice on hunting in spring, the Maltese government will fight it out in court (for a year or so?) until it loses the case. Then, when the Maltese government loses, says Mr Fenech, it will simply obey the court ruling immediately and therefore not pay any fines.

What a great way of solving the issue! What the government (and Mr Fenech) are failing to state is that, after the court sentence, hunting in spring would stop; say in 2009. But it has been conveniently forgotten that Malta would have to pay hundreds of thousands, if not millions of euros, for having flouted the law between 1 May 2004 and 2009.

Moreover, does the Maltese government expect the Maltese taxpayer to pay for the hefty costs of the court case in Luxembourg? We at AD say, certainly not!

In Italy, milk producers had flouted the law for a number of years. Now it is these milk producers themselves who have to pay millions of euros in fines. The fine is so huge (millions and millions of euros) that repayment has been spread over a period of 17 years.

When the fines are issued for the malpractice of hunting in spring from 2004 till 2009, the Maltese taxpayer must not pay. The misbehaving hunters and the politicians who deluded them must fork out the fines themselves".

Perhaps, the fines should be shared by our dear Lawrence Gonzi (Prime Minister), George Pullicino (Environment Minister), Simon Busuttil and David Casa (Nationalist MEPs). After all, it would be completely their fault if any fines would be incurred.

Moreover, I would challenge these four learned gentlemen, if they are so certain that Malta will not be fined on this disgraceful hunting issue, to produce a legally binding document saying that any fines incurred for spring hunting will be completely paid out of their own pockets. But then again, since when have parliamentary politicians in Malta been accountable for their words or actions?

Hunters, don't forget to vote - not that it matters

Hunters' federation claims 17,816 - vote membership

Today's The Times reports that "the hunters' federation, in a statement short of comment, has published a list claiming its members' vote strength is of 17,816.

The federation said that number did not include hunters' families and a further 4,000 trappers who were not given the chance to acquire a licence when the government stopped issuing licences for trapping in 2002.

In a district by district break-down of the votes held by hunters, the federation said Gozo was the biggest district with 3,000 votes, followed by 2,460 votes in the seventh district (which incudes Rabat and Dingli) and 1,304 votes in the 12th district (which includes Mellieha but does not, contrary to the hunters’ list, include Ghajnsielem)".

And yet, Lino (Carmelo) Farrugia got only 3,119 votes in June 2004's MEP elections. And thankfully, no matter which party is elected to government, the final say on spring hunting now rests on the European court. Gone are the days when the hunters' federation holds a government to ransom to obtain whatever it wants, regardless of the will of the majority of the Maltese population that is opposed to spring hunting (at the time of writing, The Times' poll stands at 90.5% opposed to spring hunting).

Hunters put in their place

Victor J. de Bono writes in today's The Times:

"I was over the moon when I read the news item Hunters' Federation Fumes Over EU Court Action. This federation and its activities are a huge disgrace to the Maltese Islands as a whole. I have on several occasions witnessed bird hunting and trapping in Malta, and I cringe at the very thought of it. Many a time, when my wife and I prepared to leave our villa in Madliena to go to church on a Sunday morning, we encountered a bird hunter crouching under the steps, with a fully loaded double-barrelled shotgun! This same individual was responsible for waking us up at 5.30 a.m. on a day when we looked forward to an extra hour in bed. This is not to be tolerated in a civilised country. It is more reminiscent of the Third World.

To this day the Maltese government has had its hands tied when it came to dealing with this barbaric practice, because of the large lobby this federation appears to have. It has taken the EU to finally put them in their place. They are naturally trying to put on a brave face by intimating that they intend to go to court to save their skins. I am quite confident that they have no chance of overruling an EU decision.

This has been one big plus of Malta's decision to join the EU. The stranglehold on the Maltese government has finally been loosened. Thank God for that!"

And Mary Kelly, also in The Times, writes:

"I was delighted on reading that the hunting of beautiful birds should be banned outright. Hunters should take up another hobby like clay shooting and leave God's creatures for people to enjoy. Well done, EU".

I only need to add that birds should be spared for their own sake, and not just for people to enjoy them. But in any case, yes, thankfully, soon enough thousands of birds will be spared when spring hunting is abolished once and for all.

Hunters replying to sense with nonsense

It's amazing how some people are apparently not capable of rational debate (understandable when one holds an indefensible position), and instead of debating the issue, attack the person making the argument instead of the argument itself.

A case in point are the replies submitted to my comments under a letter by Dr Simon Busuttil in The Times (online version).

My reply to Dr Simon Busuttil was:

"Simon Busuttil says that 'It is strange how, at one and the same time, I have been accused by some quarters of having betrayed hunters and by others, of having championed their cause. The hollowness of these accusations is borne out of their inherent contradiction'.

Interesting. I suppose, then, that if someone says that ice is hot, and another says that ice is cold, they must both be wrong. This conclusion would of course be borne out of both claims' inherent contradiction!

Incredible!".

After my comment, Sylvana Zarb Darmanin came in, writing:

"I feel that if the EU is having second thoughts about what was agreed upon during accession negotiations, then the organisation is a cheater! I hate to say that I am part of it. A package of negotiation is a package and involved parties are bound to stick to it. The caretaker government should attack the EU accordingly and not succumb by stating that it will abide by a ruling of the European Court. On the other hand, the Opposition should state that it will defend hunters, in line with the agreement reached. I wish to hear something from this political party's side".

Apparently, Ms Zarb Darmanin has not yet realized that the EU is not having second thoughts. The EU was always resolved to abolish spring hunting in Malta. If this is not the case, I have already challenged hunters to provide a document where it is made clear that the EU promised the Maltese government it would retain spring hunting.

In fact, my reply following Ms Zarb Darmanin's was:

"Has anyone ever produced a written guarantee from the EU that it will allow spring hunting? If yes, I would love to see it, dear Sylvana".

I'm still waiting.

After my sensible request, Anthony Formosa (a member in the hunters' federation) wrote:

"Dear Mr Cassar, When are you going to stop critizing those who have an opinion other than yours? This attitude reflects extremism. If you feel deceived by the EU, and the government, than you, and all those who have the same opinion should vote for AD, perhaps they can exceed the norm of four thousand votes, otherwise stop moaning about spring hunting because you're making people sick".

To which I of course replied:

"Dear Mr Formosa, when will I stop criticizing those whom I disagree with? Never. I live in a free democracy with freedom of speech, a right which you too are using by criticizing me.

If my attitude reflects extremism, so does yours, since you are doing the same thing.

Do I feel deceived by the EU? Of course not. I voted yes in the referendum partly for the abolition of spring hunting. And that precisely is what the EU will do.

Am I making you sick? Oh, I apologize, but you can always stop reading. Again – free country.

As for electing AD, it does not matter who gets elected. Any government will now have to abolish spring hunting. Get over it".

And that sums the whole issue. No matter who gets elected to parliament (or government), it is only a matter of time until spring hunting is abolished.

Do hunters have 17,816 voters? Who cares!

On serial killers and acquired rights

Understanding serial killers

I've never had an easier letter to reply to than Aldo E. Azzopardi's "reply" in today's The Times, in "reply" to my letter of January 26 (published here on January 22). Mr Azzopardi, failing to provide any rational and logical argument in favour of hunting, tries to be funny. Of course, I too can play at his game.

Mr Azzopardi writes: "On the assumption that hunting is 'evil', Kenneth Cassar (January 26) goes on and on to justify the brainwashing of schoolchildren in this regard.

Mr Cassar also requested me to enlighten him on the pros of hunting.

I could quote from Matthew vii.6 and expand on that bit about the futility of casting pearls before swine, but I will not do that, it would sound rude. I will, instead, recount an anecdote in the life of Picasso. During an art exhibition, a visitor, with tongue in cheek, asked the artist to explain what a particular picture represented. 'Madame', replied Picasso. 'If you understood anything about art you would not have asked that question; seeing that you do not, should I spend a year explaining it to you, you would still not understand'. Or words to that effect.

'... the majority of Maltese citizens are opposed to hunting', opines Mr Cassar. If that were the case, why is it that Alternattiva Demokratika, the only political party with a declared anti-hunting agenda, has never made it to Parliament?"

Aldo E. Azzopardi very conveniently (presumably to avoid embarrassment), chose not to reply to my very simple statement that the onus is on him to mention any benefits (not otherwise obtainable) that hunting provides, other than the fun of killing birds, and assumes that my claim that hunting is evil (because it unnecessarily deprives sentient beings of their life) is just an assumption.

I could devote myself to several pages of moral philosophy in the vain attempt to convince someone addicted to killing birds to stop, but alas, I suppose this would be a futile exercise.

Like Mr Azzopardi, I could also expand on the futility of casting pearls (the ethic of non-violence) before swine, but I will not do that, since it would be disrespectful towards pigs who never intentionally harm anyone.

Regarding Mr Azzopardi's Picasso anecdote, I think it applies particularly to himself and his incomprehension of the immorality of unnecessarily causing sentient birds to suffer or die. So, to paraphrase Picasso, if Mr Azzopardi understood anything about morality and the ethic of non-violence, he would not even question the immorality of hunting, but seeing that he has no idea, should I spend a year explaining it to him, he still would not understand.

In any case, one does not necessarily have to know exactly what goes on in the mind of a serial killer (in this case, of birds) to know that unnecessary killing is wrong. A serial killer could spend hours extolling the pleasures he/she derives from the chase and the kill, and explaining in detail each step from the contemplation of the kill to the actuall killing. A serial killer who would tell the presiding Judge "if you understood anything about what goes on in the mind of a serial killer, you would not convict me" would probably be sent to a mental institution instead of a prison cell.

When dealing with sentient beings and not things, practices that may harm others, unlike playing chess or scrabble, are matters of moral concern. In morality, claiming expertise in performing immoral acts is no excuse for doing so. Moral people need not be experts in the pleasures of immoral acts in order to condemn them.

Mr Azzopardi concludes his letter, to use soccer terminology, by scoring an own-goal. He doubts my claim (evidenced even in several polls conducted by The Times) that the majority of Maltese citizens are opposed to spring hunting, by reasoning that if this were so, Alternattiva Demokratika would have been elected.

First of all, a government is not elected on a single issue. But even if this were not so, a comparison of Alternattiva Demokratika's Arnold Cassola's European Parliament election result with that obtained by the hunter federation's secretary Lino Farrugia, to refresh Mr Azzopardi's memory, would indicate an overwhelming majority that is opposed to spring hunting. Arnold Cassola obtained 22,938 first count votes, while Lino (Carmelo) Farrugia got an embarrassing 3,119 votes.

But again, only a feeble mind would make such a conclusion (either way) from the result of any election in which people vote for parties with several policies in their manifestos, hunting being only one in a long list.

And speaking of Picasso, I must admit that I do not appreciate his art that much. But that is perhaps a matter of personal taste. I'd rather have a Leonardo Da Vinci any day. Speaking of whom, it was Leonardo Da Vinci himself who once said that "The time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look on the murder of men". That time, dear Mr Azzopardi, is now.

Hunters sue government claiming breach of "acquired right"

Mark Micallef, in today's The Times, reports that "The hunters' federation (FKNK) yesterday sued the government and the former EU information centre over what it termed as their betrayal on the spring hunting issue.

In an application filed by lawyer Alex Perici Calascione on its behalf, the FKNK asked the court to declare that hunters' rights are being breached by the hunting regulations introduced after Malta became an EU member.

The federation is claiming that the promise made by the government then, through a letter sent by the Office of the Prime Minister to hunters and trappers before the 2003 election, promising that spring hunting would remain unchanged after EU accession, amounted to a formal commitment.

This, the federation argues, gives hunters the acquired right to expect that the legal regime would remain the same and, therefore, that the changes implemented in the years since accession breach this right".

Of course, while acknowledging that the hunters have been taken for a ride by this government, making them promises it could never keep, to speak of an "acquired right" in this case is complete nonsense.

Suppose a friend of mine owns a car, and I believe that this friend of mine will sell me the car. I subsequently make a written promise that I will sell you the same car within six months. In the meantime, my friend never makes any commitment to sell me the car, written or otherwise.

Six months go by and my friend does not sell me the car. Do you have an "acquired right" to own the car? No. My contract with you is null and void, since the car was never mine to sell it to you in the first place.

The same applies in the case of spring hunting. Whatever the government promised hunters prior to the European Union (EU) membership referendum, hunters do not have an "acquired right" to hunt in spring, since the government had no right to promise something that was not in its competence to promise, something that the EU has made it abundantly clear it could, and as it turns out would, refuse to give.

Malta will abide by EU court's decision

Ivan Camilleri reports in today's The Times:

"The government yesterday said it would not permit hunting to take place this spring if the European Court of Justice (ECJ) upholds a request filed by the European Commission.

The Commission has asked the court to issue a temporary order barring the Maltese authorities from allowing spring hunting until a case initiated by the EU executive against Malta is decided.

Reacting immediately to an official statement issued in Brussels by the Commission yesterday, the government made it clear that it will respect any decision taken by the ECJ. It stressed that it will not be paying any fines over this question.

'The Maltese government agrees that this issue should be resolved by the European Court of Justice once and for all', the government said in a statement.

'While making its case according to the law, the government declares from now that it will abide by any decision taken by the court'.

The European Commission yesterday officially announced that it has decided to take Malta to court over spring hunting following various written warnings sent to the island since June 2006.

The Commission added that in order to make sure that hunting is not permitted even from the coming spring, it had decided to apply for interim measures to be issued immediately by the ECJ.

'In its final written warning in October 2007, the Commission called on Malta not to permit spring hunting in 2008. Responding in January 2008, Malta did not give a firm commitment in this regard. As a result, the Commission will refer the case to the European Court of Justice'.

'Given that the spring hunting season is imminent, the Commission will also apply to the Court for interim measures, asking Malta not to allow spring hunting in 2008'.

The decision by the ECJ to issue temporary measures is expected be taken in the coming weeks, well in time before the next spring hunting season is scheduled to start, around March 20.

A source at the ECJ yesterday said the court will now assign a judge to this case and the President of the court will decide what procedure to use in order to hear the preliminary submissions and decide whether to issue interim measures.

The source made it clear that it is very likely, almost certain, that the ECJ will uphold the Commission's request and issue temporary measures.

In its statement, the EU executive explained in detail what brought the issue with Malta to a head including a particular judgment given by the ECJ in 2005 which changed the scenario on how derogations under the Birds Directive are to be applied.

The Commission again confirmed that spring hunting was discussed during Malta's accession negotiations and that Malta maintained that in allowing the hunting of quail and turtle dove in spring it was acting in accordance with the possibility for limited derogation as foreseen under Article 9 of the directive. Documents in this regard were formally exchanged during the Intergovernmental Conference on Malta's accession to the European Union.

'Following a request from Malta during these negotiations, the Commission had confirmed that a derogation would be possible if the strict conditions set out in the Wild Birds Directive were met', it said.

However, the Commission said that when checks were made, particularly using data supplied by hunters, it resulted that Malta's derogation was not justified.

'In the Commission's opinion, the circumstances that would allow such a derogation, which include the absence of alternative solutions, are not present in this case, as can be borne out by the data (Carnet de Chasse figures) provided by the Maltese hunters themselves for the autumn hunting season'.

The Commission said that a court ruling at the end of 2005 involving a similar case to Malta also changed the scenario.

Meanwhile, Birdlife International and Birdlife Malta, who had been lobbying for yesterday's decision since Malta's accession to the EU, welcomed the move and appealed to both Maltese political parties to declare that they won't be permitting hunting to take place during spring ever again.

'Unfortunately, the Maltese government has missed many opportunities in the past to solve this case and to avoid European-wide embarrassment for the country', stated Konstantin Kreiser, EU policy manager at BirdLife in Brussels.

Referring to the upcoming general election in Malta and the possible political impact of this decision, Joseph Mangion, president of BirdLife Malta said that both major political parties should make their positions clear.

'Both Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi and the Leader of the Opposition Alfred Sant should declare now that they will not open a spring hunting season again. The overwhelming majority of the Maltese people believe that spring hunting should end, and that the government needs to stop this European-wide embarrassment for our country'".