On commodifying hunting dogs and other animals

Audrey Callus writes the following letter in today's The Malta Independent:

"I was shocked and angry when I read a headline (The Malta Independent, April 24) that a good number of dogs are expected to be put down if the situation (hunting ban) persists. As I could not believe that what my eyes were reading was true, I went on to read the relevant article and this confirmed the facts as outlined in the title and further elaborated that since 'some hunters have as many as four (dogs) or even more... as a consequence, a good number of dogs are expected to be put down if the situation persists'.

Do these people realise what they are saying? Do they have a heart or did hunting make them heartless and the notion of killing does not have the same meaning to them as it does to normal people? This is truly shocking and a further affirmation of how low these people can go to try to blackmail the whole population in backing them to get their spring hunting back.

Dogs are not commodities to be used to one's own whims and requirements. Once a dog is taken into a family it should be treated like a member of the family and not disposed of when it is not required any more. All the hunters who have this intention should really be ashamed of themselves. This makes us, the anti-hunting lobby, even more adamant in condemning hunting and those who have this hobby".

Now, of course, I am in perfect agreement with Ms Callus on this. However, it will not go without saying that all sentient animals are not commodities to be used to one's own whims.

If dogs are sentient individuals, (which they are), are not cows, chickens, pigs, fishes and all other animals also sentient individuals, with the right not to be treated as things or commodities? Taking into account that the consumption of animal bodies or other "products" derived from their bodies, are not necessary for our health and survival, does this not make the use and killing of any non-human animal, for pleasure or convenience, equally heartless?

Millions of non-human animals live miserable lives culminating in an untimely death just for the sake of our pleasure and convenience. These animals have as much a right not to be treated as commodities as your average family dog. And yet, many people who would be shocked by the killing of a dog, which is reasonable, yet do not even think about where the commodified animal flesh on their plate, or the animal skin they wear on their feet or backs, comes from.

Sentient animals are not commodities or things. Treating them as such violates their basic rights. Let us be consistent in the way we think and act. What you would not do to your family dog, why do it to the cow, chicken, pig or fish?

Comic writing and the Great Siege blues

One look at the hunter federation (FKNK) website, and one may judge for oneself whether to call "comic writing" this blog or else the official website of the FKNK.

In the FKNK news section, under the heading "Patriotic Maltese", dated April 22, you will find the following:

"PRESS RELEASE:

The following hate mail is how some 'patriotic' Maltese citizens have been gullibly led to believe that their supposedly fellow Maltese, rural Maltese land owners, should be thrown-off their property. SHAME ON YOU.

The Federation for Hunting & Conservation - Malta (FKNK) yet again warns BirdLife (Malta) & Co. that no Turk, no-one hailing from Bermuda, none other coming from any country around the world, and no Maltese has any right to claim any sort of possession, nor interfere or molest with the liberty that Maltese rural land owners have the right to enjoy on their private Maltese properties.

Since last January, the FKNK has been warning the local competent authorities about the dangers of this provocative, malicious and confrontational man-hunt plan that BirdLife and their busybody foreigner friends organised in a premeditated fashion.

FKNK Council".

Now, let us ignore the xenophobia that is glaring in this "press release", something that we have gotten quite accustomed to. Let me just make a passing comment on the hilarious fact that most of the same hunters who believe that there should be no interference from some Birdlife members, just because they are "Turks" or from Bermuda, nonetheless worship a God who was born in the Middle East. Let's ignore all this. But what is the FKNK saying here?

In essence, the FKNK is saying that this purported "unpatriotic" email, described as "hate mail", instigates people to throw hunters off their property, to claim the hunters' possessions, and "molest with the liberty" and the right of land owners to enjoy their private property.

Upon reading the above, I was expecting the email to be a sort of Bakuninite anarchist call for revolution, seizure and re-distribution of property, and the overthrow of government. However, it transpires that the email in question, reproduced on the FKNK's press release complete with name and email address, is nothing of the sort.

The email, entitled "Vote against spring hunting", says:

"Dear All

The Times Online has a poll regarding whether the Maltese Government should open the Spring hunting season. Please click on http://www.timesofmalta.com and vote to keep it closed if you would like to stop or reduce hunting in Malta. The Kaccaturi (hunters) are activating all their members to vote to open the season and they are winning.

Since yesterday, the gap has closed, so can you vote and possibly pass this email around to anyone you may know who is interested in getting our countryside back in spring and stopping this illegal slaughter of migratory birds.

It only takes a couple of minutes! Please vote!".

The poll has since been closed, but there's another one on the same topic at the time of writing.

So the email only calls for people to vote against spring hunting in an opinion poll. It is not about another Great Siege of Malta, under the direction of BirdLife Turkish Sultan Tolga Temuge. It's not about throwing the hunters off their property. It's not about taking away the right of hunters to enjoy their land. No, its not even about forcibly converting all Maltese hunters into Muslims. It only asks for the government not to open the spring hunting season, which would be in violation of EU regulations, until the European Court of Justice (ECJ) takes a final decision on the issue.

In the meantime, the ECJ has decided that there will be no spring hunting this year, and the Maltese government has already made it clear that it will comply with the ECJ decision. Of course, we still have to see whether this will be a temporary measure or a permanent decision, meaning the end of spring hunting in Malta. But in view of the fact that the Maltese government had not officially opened the spring hunting season this year, and add to this the later decision of the ECJ that there will definitely be no spring hunting permitted this year, what this means is that this year, spring hunting in Malta is definitely and unquestionably illegal.

Therefore, one wonders what all this fuss from the FKNK about this supposed "man-hunt" from BirdLife Malta is all about, when spring hunting is after all, illegal. Is the FKNK, who has until recently always maintained that it opposes all illegal hunting, now saying that hunters should be allowed to hunt illegally this spring? Would there be any "man-hunt" or "provocation" if hunters made use of their property without hunting illegally? Is the FKNK suggesting that criminals and law-breakers should be left alone to break the law, as long as they do it on their own property? Is the FKNK saying that "foreigners" should not be allowed to go to the Maltese countryside, just in case they might report criminals and law-breakers to the police? Is the FKNK defending criminals now?

And what makes the quoted email "hate mail"? Or unpatriotic, for that matter? Has voting in a Times poll suddenly become hateful or unpatriotic? No wonder most, if not all, newspapers ignored this "press release". And to think that some people might wonder why the FKNK is losing its case in the European Court of Justice!

Dear hunters, with friends like the FKNK, who needs enemies?

Now that, is what I call comical!

European Court bans spring hunting this year

The European Court of Justice has decided to uphold a request by the European Commission to ban spring hunting this year until a final decision is taken by the court on the future of spring hunting.

"The overwhelming majority of the Maltese are against spring hunting. It is now time for law enforcement against illegal bird shooting and trapping to be stepped up so that this ban will be effective", BirdLife president Joseph Mangion said.

The court, headed by President of the Court, Vassilios Skouris, had been deliberating on the interim measure since April 2, when the last oral submissions by lawyers for the Maltese government and the Commission were made behind closed doors.

The Maltese government, against the will of the majority of the Maltese population, had argued that spring hunting should be allowed in terms of a derogation negotiated as part of the EU accession package. Of course, the Maltese government has never produced any official document stating in unequivocal terms that the EU would guarantee that spring hunting would be retained in Malta, and the EU had always insisted that no such agreement, that spring hunting was to be retained, has ever been made with the Maltese government.

Hearings before the court for a final decision on the future of spring hunting have not started yet, and so it remains to be seen whether the European Court of Justice will declare that spring hunting would be abolished indefinitely.

Speciesism is the plague

Some hunters have recently described this blog as "comic writing". While thanking some of them for the publicity they are giving me, going as far as putting a link to this blog in the comments section of The Times (online version), I must say that perhaps I should start paying royalties to some of them, for, if this blog is comic writing, I owe much to them for supplying me with most of the humour.

A case in point is David Borg Cardona's letter in today's The Times, entitled "Turtle doves are a plague", where he goes as far as shooting down his own argument in his same letter.

Mr Borg Cardona writes:

"One cannot but notice on the way to Tripoli airport the plush fields by the perimeters of the smooth highway with the thousands of turtle doves devouring all the newly planted crops. My thoughts go back to the Libyan farmers who are prohibited from owning shotguns or cartridges. Without exception these poor dwellers are aggravated by all the damage done to their sprouting produce resulting from an ever increasing pest or what they rightly consider to be as a 'plague'. Anger is strongly vented by all the farmers across North Africa where turtle doves demolish the farmers' livelihood, which in turn trickles down the grapevine increasing consumer prices.

Ask the hundreds of Maltese hunters who have been to the Fayoum region in Egypt. Farmers plead with them to hunt from dawn to dusk and kill as many doves as they can. Here I cannot but think of Daphne Caruana Galizia, I.M. Beck, Ira Losco, Winston Zahra and all the rest of the tribe publicly squawking for a spring hunting ban on a species that is by no means far from extinction but is multiplying by the thousands".

So Mr Borg Cardona seems to suggest that Maltese hunters should be permitted to hunt turtle doves, because he says that turtle doves are a plague in Africa. Now, leaving aside the fact that there are other more humane methods of controlling bird populations, (contraception in food, for instance), it is ironic that Mr Borg Cardona shoots down his whole argument when he writes:

"But alas the 'trumpeters' both in Malta and the EU are blind to the fact that turtle doves are an uncontainable plague. Can any of the anti-hunting clans or organisations convince me that the shooting of a few thousand turtle doves over Malta during spring is going to affect the millions of doves or deplete the species that inhabit North Africa, some of which cross the Mediterranean in April? This is the bottom line folks so let's be sensible please".

So yes, dear Mr Borg Cardona. Let us be sensible. You say that hunting turtle doves in Malta will have a negligible effect on the turtle dove population. So, to be sensible, how can one bring up the "argument" of turtle doves being a plague in Africa, as a justification for hunting them in Malta, when, in Mr Borg Cardona's own words, "shooting of a few thousand turtle doves over Malta during spring is (not) going to affect the millions of doves or deplete the species that inhabit North Africa".

That's one argument shot down by Mr Borg Cardona's own gun.

Mr Borg Cardona also writes:

"Before arriving at the airport I concluded that those who support the ban on spring hunting and claim that 'God's creatures' should not be destroyed (say this to any farmer and he will tell you who God's creatures really are) must either live in cloud cuckoo land or have no perception of what damage is being done by this pest".

Well, Mr Borg Cardona, if one believes in God, no matter what any farmer will tell you, one will necessarily believe that every living individual, human or non-human, is "God's creature". On the other hand, unbelievers, or the more sensible believers, will tell you that all creatures are the product of evolution, and that every animal, if one goes back far enough, has evolved from one, or at most a few, common ancestors. The person who lives in cloud cuckoo land is the one who holds the completely unscientific, and therefore irrational and non-sensical, view that humans are somehow not animals.

Mr Borg Cardona also writes:

"Turtle dove hunting in Malta during spring is a long standing traditional pastime for thousands of citizens and is a form of outdoor activity that provides relaxation and enjoyment".

I assume that in saying that turtle dove hunting provides relaxation and enjoyment, Mr Borg Cardona does not mean relaxation and enjoyment to the birds. Hunting may be a traditional pastime, (as was going to the Colosseum in ancient Rome), and it may well provide relaxation and enjoyment to a minority that derives pleasure from a practice that unnecessarily kills sentient individuals. However, the fact that a practice may provide pleasure, is not in itself a justification for the practice to continue, particularly if the pleasure derived requires the elimination of all future pleasures, (and life itself), of others.

And yes, by others, I mean the birds. Speciesists may hold the irrational belief that non-human animals do not matter morally, but I have yet to meet a rational justification for the holding of that claim that would not deprive some humans from having the right to life.

Mr Borg Cardona writes:

"Are not foxes, crows and wood pigeons shot by farmers across European countries simply to prevent another form of destruction to their livestock (sic) and livelihood? These too are 'God's creatures' however the 'squawkers' turn a blind eye on this issue".

Perhaps Mr Borg Cardona is not paying enough attention. If he actually reads this blog, and makes an effort to understand it, he will actually find out that this blog is all about defending the rights of all animals, including humans. So no, I do not turn a blind eye on any issue that involves the violation of rights of individuals.

That said, I will immediately acknowledge that, nature being amoral, one will always find instances where rights will conflict. One such instance is the example Mr Borg Cardona gives, where the right of humans to grow crops for their own consumption might conflict with the right of other animals to eat. However, if one cares enough, one will always find more humane ways to deal with such situations, other than simply shooting the other to protect one's food.

As for "livestock", these animals should not have been bred by their human exploiters in the first place, so the problem of "protecting livestock" from predators is of the human exploiters' own making. As for the question of livelihood, when one recognizes a practice to be immoral, the earnings derived from that practice are recognized to be immoral earnings, so one should seek gainful employment elsewhere.

Now, how about this for true comedy?

And next, someone who would do his "cause" a better service were he to learn to read and write properly, instead of calling what he does not understand "comical", writes the following comment in reply to my comments in The Times (online):

"Again, K. Cassar is performing the usual escape from facts. First of all I can't believe how a person like you wish to turn all the people into vegetarians. You can't even accept that even the dental formation of the human is created in such way to consume meat. I must not enter the discussion of veggies since although I may laugh at them I prefer to tolerate them. In some way or another I admire vegetarian friends as I see it impossible to go on without devouring meat products.The leading argument that you don't seem to accept is here Mr.Cassar - the fact that there is no alternative solution for Spring hunting. Those like you should reveal their agenda of prohibiting hunting and as you surely may know, this is against social tolerance. It sounds unfamiliar how you are working against the killing of breeding parents and then would tolerate the shooting of the newborns!!!"

Let me start by remarking that one does not say "performing the usual escape" from facts. If anything, one should perhaps say "ignoring the facts", or at most "escaping from the facts". No wonder he does not seem to comprehend anything that I say. That said, he refrained from enlightening me as to how I am ignoring or escaping from facts, and what are the facts that I am "escaping from".

He says he cannot understand how I can wish to turn everyone vegetarian. What's so hard to understand? It doesn't require a university degree for one to understand that someone who respects the life of all sentient individuals, would wish that no one exploits, or kills, any such sentient individual. Not rocket science at all, just common sense.

He mentions "dental formation" in support of eating meat. I will at once concede that our teeth are formed in a way as to enable us to eat both fruit, grains, and vegetables, as well as cooked meat. However, a moral person does not simply do something just because he or she can. It could be argued that males are generally speaking physically stronger that females. However, this does not justify the subjugation of females to males. I doubt that he would get the point, but its always worth a try. What matters is that our bodies are perfectly capable of obtaining good health from a vegan diet. This is all that matters. When he writes that he sees it impossible to go on without devouring meat products, he is only displaying his ignorance. He should seriously start reading some good books.

He says that he might laugh at vegetarians, but would prefer to tolerate them. Trust a semi-literate person to laugh at someone such as Albert Einstein, who was a vegetarian! Now that would be comical!

He says that what I don't seem to accept is that there is no alternative to spring hunting. Actually, what he fails to see is that it is precisely because there is no adequate alternative to spring hunting that I support its abolition. If there were an adequate alternative, banning spring hunting would be a waste of time, as the same birds would be killed during another season.

My agenda, unlike what he thinks, is not hidden at all. My agenda is the elimination of all exploitation and murder of any sentient individual. I would rather believe that killing someone is less tolerant than a rational argument in support of a just cause.

He concludes his comment by saying that "it sounds unfamiliar how (I am) working against the killing of breeding parents and then would tolerate the shooting of the newborns!!!".

Now this is truly hilarious. Let's ignore the fact that I am not working against the killing of just "breeding parents". But where did he get the ridiculous idea that I tolerate the shooting of newborns? Were it not for the fact that he has a serious problem with expressing himself, and were it not for the fact that he does not understand most of what I write in simple English, his last comment would be libellous. But then again, I'd rather laugh than waste my time in court.

Now, where shall I send my payment for the amusement these two kind hunters have provided the readers and listeners of this blog?

What's new and not so new on Animal Rights Malta's Blog

Those of you who are not first time visitors might have noticed a few added features to Animal Rights Malta's Blog. I hope that these new features will help make your visit more pleasant and useful.

The latest addition, added yesterday, is odiogo's audio feed. Now, visitors to this blog may also listen to the newer posts, apart from just reading them. This may be done simply by clicking on the "listen now" button beneath each article's header. Visitors may also add the audio feeds or podcasts to their own podcast players, or even download each audio feed to their computer. All you need to do is click on the Odiogo button on the right hand side of the blog, and follow the instructions. One may also listen to the audio feeds through the Animal Rights Malta toolbar. For more information on this free toolbar, there is also a link beneath the Odiogo button. The audio feeds to each blog post may take some time to be updated, but who am I to complain? It is a free service after all.

Another new feature on Animal Rights Malta's blog is the Google search where one can enter any particular keyword and search both the blog or the web.

A not so new feature which might be useful is the Answer Tips feature, where, if you double-click any word, you will be given the word's meaning. This might be useful especially for people who are not so fluent in English.

Finally, you will have noticed that I have amended the links to other blogs to include each blog's latest post. This way, visitors to the Animal Rights Malta Blog who also visit the other linked blogs, will know when these blogs are updated.

Oh, and I nearly forgot. Comments have now been enabled.

And for those of you who are already listening to this post through the Odiogo feed, or through the Animal Rights Malta toolbar, I hope you will appreciate that this service, kindly provided free of charge from Odiogo, is a computer-generated service. So some mistakes in pronounciation, especially of Maltese words or names, will be made. And no, the voice is obviously not Kenneth's voice.

So if you're listening to this through audio, make sure you also visit www.animalrightsmalta.blogspot.com for more information. If, on the otherhand, you are reading the blog, you might wish to try out the audio or any of the other new, and not so new, features mentioned.

Thanks for listening, or reading, as the case may be.

On thinking before writing, and some clarifications

Yesterday, The Times reported the following:

"A shotgun thought to belong to a hunter has been found hidden in the grass at Kennedy Grove, Salina, not far from popular picnic areas.

The gun, which was loaded, was stowed in a long, unlocked plastic tube.

Eyewitnesses said people in the area had regularly noted bird shooting from this bird sanctuary but had not actually seen anyone carrying a gun coming out of the grove.

They alerted BirdLife who in turn contacted the police.

The gun was found in marshland after a search by members of the Administrative Law Enforcement unit (of the police)".

Now, I had intentionally not commented on this news report, for reasons which will be explained further down. However, a comment from hunter Fabian Borg needs a clarification.

Mr Borg, commenting about the news report in the online version of The Times, among other things, writes:

"Dear Franco Farrugia and Co...What I hate, and I hope that all of you (unless maybe a couple) agree, are those statements which come out almost spontaneously stating - BAN HUNTING , COLLECT GUNS, SHOOT AT HUNTERS, CRIMINALS etc. One must think before writing and not continue to throw stones just because others are doing so".

Like I said, I have refrained from commenting on this news item...until now. I have done so for two reasons.

1. I do not believe that the many should be punished for the actions of the guilty few.

2. I would rather let the police do their work and find the culprit.

However, just to make it clear where I stand, I would like to comment on Mr Borg's statement quoted above.

1. Mr Borg will already know that I am one of those who would like to see a total ban on hunting, including the collection of guns. However, my reason for this is not because of an irresponsible person like the one in this case. Like I said, the many should not be punished for the actions of the few. I shall not repeat my reasons for wishing hunting to be abolished - I have written extensively about this in my blog and in letters to The Times.

2. Regarding "shoot at hunters", only an irresponsible person would say that. One who believes in the right to life of all individuals can never incite others to kill anyone except in self-defense.

3. Regarding "criminals", since not all hunting is illegal (although in my opinion, all hunting is immoral and should be illegal), not all hunters are criminals (where criminal is defined as those persons who break the law). However, those who hunt illegally are criminals. But again, the many should not be punished for the actions of the few.

So yes, Mr Borg is correct in saying that one must think before writing and not throw stones just because others are doing so. In fact, he will notice that I have ignored this issue in my own blog (until now), since I believe that it is a case for the police, and the issue should stop there.

So when Mr Borg says "unless maybe a couple" (see quote above), I hope he was not referring to me as one of the "couple". In that case, he may wish to change the "couple" to "just one", if even that is the case, which, to be honest, I don't think it is even so. Franco Farrugia, the person Mr Borg mentions by name, never said "shoot at hunters", so Mr Borg should follow his own advise, think before writing (his comment in Mr Farrugia's regard could be libellous) and not throw stones just because others are doing so.

Perhaps Mr Borg might think that I am being inconsistent, saying that the many should not be punished for the actions of the few, when I am all for the abolition of hunting (including of course spring hunting).

However, Mr Borg might appreciate the fact that I am not for the abolition of hunting as a sort of "punishment", but only because I am a firm believer in the right to life of all sentient individuals. This is why I oppose any form of hunting (and any other activity that unnecessarily deprives sentient individuals of their life or liberty), be it legal or illegal.

Addendum:

I hereby note that according to the hunters' federation (FKNK), a comment on the online version of The Times (later removed by The Times moderator) was posted by someone (not Franco Farrugia and obviously not myself) that said: "the only solution to stop illegal hunting is to deploy the army with shoot to kill orders at anyone in possession of a gun".

Of course, allowing for the high probability (to put it mildly) that such a comment was not intended to be taken seriously (considering that no Maltese government would order the army to do so), I must immediately say that such comments are not conductive to a serious debate.

That said, what I wrote in the above article still stands.

Also, I am glad that Mr Borg has posted another reply on The Times online, where he explains that he does not consider me to be one of the "maybe a couple" (see quote above). Therefore, its only fair for me to reproduce his further comment here.

Mr Borg writes:

"Kenneth Cassar, I was not referring to you as part of 'maybe a couple'. I believe we are just two persons on opposite sides of a river just on the legal hunting issue. I surely appreciate most of your work as I believe you would appreciate mine when this is limited to conserving my part of Malta's landscape for anyone to enjoy the sight and wild animals to live in. My land holds many local animals like hedgehogs, wild rabbits, variety of snakes, lizards, chameleons, weasels (ballottri), not to mention nesting birds like a variety of warblers and sparrows. Then there are other unwanted visitors like pests, mice and rats which I try to eliminate but that will always find you opposing it. True ?

Thanks for your comment and unless you noticed it our famous dog debate ended up on TV today ;-)"

Well, I certainly do appreciate Mr Borg's conservation and habitat preservation work (there is no reason for me not to trust his word on this). If only he limited his activities to this, and forgot all about hunting - but I guess that's just my wishful thinking.

Regarding the unwanted visitors he calls pests, I would rather trap them humanely and release them if they ever entered my house (or other room) and I did not want them there, but that's me.

Regarding our "dog debate" ending up on TV, no, I did not know about that. Of course, I would have no problem with that. I believe that both sides of a debate should be given an opportunity to expound their views, and then its up to the individual listener or the general public to act on what they think is right or true. Of course, it would only be fair to the listeners if, one party being absent from the debate, his views are not misrepresented. But then again, people may always find my views written clearly here.

Some comic relief

In reply to my letter, a more detailed version of which may be found on this blog under the heading "Lies, misrepresentation and confusion for the defense of slavery", hunter Mark Mifsud Bonnici, who thinks himself so important that he always writes his name in all capital letters in comments to The Times (online version), writes:

"Your letter demonstrates your strangeness when compared to all rational thinking persons. You do have a right to your opinion as much as we have a right to ours. The only difference between us is that your beliefs make you totally intolerant towards those that don't share your beliefs".

It is an unfortunate fact that people who habitually think with their guns, and not with their brain, will find my letters "strange". However, what I find truly strange, is a claim such as Mr Mifsud Bonnici's (please note that this is the way normal people write names - not MR MIFSUD BONNICI), where he says that my beliefs make me totally intolerant towards those who don't share them.

Now, hold on a second. My beliefs make me intolerant towards those who don't share them? And in what way, may I humbly ask? Do I ever go about beating up people who disagree with my views? Now I won't say that it is actually hunters who go about beating up people who disagree with their views (and destroy or steal their photographic equipment; or shoot at rangers; or vandalise neolithic temples, monuments and trees), which certainly makes them intolerant, since I will immediately concede that perhaps such thugs in the hunting community are a minority.

However, let's examine the facts for a moment. When I rationally and consistently argue that the use or treatment of non-human animals as if they were human property is immoral, it's not as if I am forcing my beliefs on anyone, am I?

I'm confident that my letters or articles will be read by people, some of whom understand and agree with what I write, some who are convinced by my arguments, some who misunderstand what I write, and some who do not even take the trouble to try to understand what I am saying, but only read my letter just so that they will have something to say in their rebuttal letter. This latter type is evidenced by the fact that some people who reply to my letters (and Mr Mifsud Bonnici is one of them), apart from contradicting themselves, sometimes go as far as quoting me in a manner that defeats their own argument (like he did in his repetition of my claim that someone advocating the rights of non-existent animals would be advocating the rights of sperm - see further down).

Mr Mifsud Bonnici, of the "St Hubertus" Hunters, whose patron saint apparently was ordered by God to stop hunting or else burn in hell, writes:

"How do you expect to be taken seriously when as you state we should care for dogs in existence and not breed, sell etc. does this not mean that after all dogs in existence die no more dogs will exist".

Now, even if someone disagrees with the proposition that we should breed no more "domesticated" animals, what makes such a claim not to be taken seriously?

Apparently, Mr Mifsud Bonnici himself takes it so seriously that he devotes some of his time to write letters and comments and struggling to find reasons that would show that by not bringing non-existent beings into existence we would be infringing animal rights, while by using and selling them as if they were human property, we would not.

Mr Mifsud Bonnici then writes:

"Or when stating that animals are raped..."

So according to Mr Mifsud Bonnici, I should not be taken seriously because I know that thousands of non-human animals get raped worldwide. This ranges from female dogs being forcibly raped to produce offspring for dog breeders (where many times these dogs are actually forcibly held in position while they are being raped) to cows being constantly raped to produce milk or offspring, where such cows (or other animals) are usually held in human contrivances designed so that they would be unable to move or escape while being raped. I should perhaps add that forced artificial insemination is also rape.

Perhaps, when he starts reading before playing the part of the "intellectual", he himself would actually be taken seriously.

Mr Mifsud Bonnici continues:

"...and that anyone might be advocating the right of sperm to become animals. Indeed Mr. Cassar, stop preaching rubbish".

Now, here, perhaps, I am starting to suspect that I am giving Mr Mifsud Bonnici too much credit. Perhaps he really is insufficiently mentally endowed to understand antecedents and their consequent. For what other explanation could there be for someone not to understand the simple fact that for one to say we would be infringing animals' rights if we do not bring non-existent animals into existence, in effect means that such a person would be advocating the right of sperm to become animals (and remember, this person who says that non-existent beings have a right to exist, is the same person who believes that existing beings - the birds he shoots, for instance - have no right to exist!).

In what other way can one bring an animal into existence except by somehow making sperm meet the egg, thereby making conception possible? Mr Mifsud Bonnici should know this by now. Babies are not dropped through chimneys by storks!

Let me explain it once more, hopefully in a simpler way.

If non-existent animals have a right to exist, then sperm (which is the only way animals can come to exist) has the right to meet the egg. Elementary, dear Mr Mifsud Bonnici. Of course, asexual creatures reproduce through cell division, but most animals reproduce sexually, and so my argument stands.

Mr Mifsud Bonnici concludes his comment by writing:

"As for your persistent reference to your website, apart from the free advertising you are trying to achieve I suggest that readers do log on when in need for some comic amusement".

Well, it seems that free advertising is not simply what I am "trying to achieve". It is what I have actually achieved. Of course, I take the opportunity to thank The Times for giving me the free publicity for my work from which I do not earn a single cent. In return for the favour, I promise to keep sending "controversial" letters that will provoke interest in The Times' readers.

As for readers logging on to this blog for some comic amusement, I feel I need to thank Mr Mifsud Bonnici for providing me with excellent amusement for my readers. However, since I did not ask for his services, I will not pay him anything.

So yes, dear Mr Mifsud Bonnici, keep on sending your letters and comments. We all need a good laugh every once in a while.

"Animals" should thank God for humans - and other absurdities

Apart from my letter, a longer version of which can be found at "Lies, misrepresentation and confusion for the defense of slavery", today's The Times also publishes a letter by pro-circus slavery advocate Shane Johnson.

Mr Johnson, this time, shows his "love" for "animals" by supporting and promoting not just circus slavery, but all kinds of animal abuse, including non-human slavery, rape and murder.

Mr Johnson writes:

"I am sick and tired of listening to the ramblings of people like Kenneth Cassar (The Times, April 7) about the rights of animals or the 'non-humans' as he likes to put it. How can he, or anyone else declare that a hunting dog doesn't have the right to hunt".

So, Mr Johnson says he is sick and tired of me writing about the rights of non-human animals, and yet, he declares that dogs have a right to hunt. It would be more conductive to healthy debate if Mr Johnson would decide whether non-human animals have rights or not. Do I need to point out that if non-human animals have no rights, they cannot have a right to hunt?

Also, of course, I should not need to say that if he is tired of "listening" to me, he is perfectly entitled to skip my letters and articles, as I would be very much inclined to skip the absurdities he writes, were it not for the simple fact that it is in non-human animals' interests to press on with advocating their rights, and correcting any misrepresentations of the animal rights position. But let us move on.

Mr Johnson writes:

"Only by looking at a hunting dog one immediately realises that the dog's anatomy is made perfectly for hunting. In fact, usually, all hunting dogs have keen eyesight, sharp sense of smell and hearing, a perfectly adapted body to run, crawl, swim or whatever the particular game the hunt requires, and are perfectly camouflaged to blend in with the surroundings".

So Mr Johnson says that the dog's anatomy is perfectly made for hunting. I shall not waste much time in showing how the human anatomy could equally be described as being perfectly made for murdering other humans, and that it is only the recognition of the rights of others that keeps most humans from doing so.

I shall only stress that even if what Mr Johnson writes is correct, where exactly do guns fit in with the dog's anatomy which he says is perfect for hunting? If the dogs' anatomy is so perfect for hunting, why do hunters insist on taking their guns with them. Why not simply take their dogs to the countryside, and let them do what "their anatomy" is "perfectly made" to do? The answer is simple. Their "anatomy", without human guns, is useless for hunting birds, which makes Mr Johnson's claim that their anatomy is perfectly made for hunting to be false - not that this matters, anyway, as I have shown above in my example of human murder.

Mr Johnson goes on to say:

"How anyone can look at a dog like that and not understand that that dog's function in life is to hunt, baffles me. One might as well point at a Cheetah and declare that it shouldn't be hunting!"

So Mr Johnson compares "hunting" dogs to cheetahs, when we all know that "hunting" dogs do not usually kill "prey" - that task is left to the human hunters. As for the cheetah, it is not her "function" to be hunting. Hunting, in the case of the cheetah, is her only means of survival. Not so for the "hunting" dog.

Mr Johnson then says:

"Now at this point I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not in favour of hunting and am not trying to condone hunting in any way, but the fact is that hunting has been going on since the first animals appeared on this planet and certain dogs are made specifically for hunting".

Oh sure, Mr Johnson does not condone hunting - and yet he takes the trouble of mentioning that hunting has been going on forever and that dogs were "specifically made" for hunting. Mr Johnson would perhaps be more credible if he was at least a little more honest.

However, let's address this question. He says that hunting has been going on since animals first appeared on the planet, as if this, in itself, justifies hunting. Perhaps Mr Johnson would like to note that rape, murder and theft have also been going on since "the first animals appeared on this planet", yet, I would like to believe that Mr Johnson does not condone rape, murder and theft.

As for dogs being "specifically made" for hunting, I can picture the scene: God, having created the "hunting dogs" (no, modern dogs are not selectively bred by human breeders - you have all been fooled), exclaims: "Let there be hunting!".

Mr Johnson then goes on to say:

"I personally do not think it would be fair for a human (or non-animal) like Mr Cassar to deny the right of a dog to hunt. The stark truth is that people who share Mr Cassar's opinion, believe that animals (sic) should not be owned by humans at all. This extremist manner of looking at animal welfare doesn't help animals (sic) at all because it is so far-fetched from reality that it will never help to educate people about the true needs of animals (sic)".

Me, a "non-animal"? What am I then? A robot? A plant? A virus? An angel, perhaps? This confirms what I wrote last Saturday, that "It takes humility to understand animal rights". As long as people like Mr Johnson persist in their irrational pretenses, and do not realize that the earth revolves around the sun, the earth is not flat, and "man" is not the centre of the universe and all that matters, such people will never understand animal rights and their implications. It is like explaining evolution to a Neanderthal.

So a person who has not yet realized that humans are animals, says that my views are "far-fetched from reality". Amazing! But I digress.

Mr Johnson says that the stark truth is that I believe that non-human animals should not be owned by humans at all. This is correct. However, Mr Johnson's reasoning that this does not help non-human animals just because it is "so far-fetched from reality", would have denied human black slaves their ultimate liberation, that looked "so far-fetched from reality" before it happened. The true needs of all animals cannot be addressed as long as they are treated as merely human property.

Mr Johnson then says:

"Since the beginning of time man (sic) and animals (sic) (to say "man and animals" is like saying "dogs and animals" - totally absurd!) have co-habited with each other and the truth is that most of the time both man (sic) and animal (sic) have benefited from this deal, where humans could see to the safety and well-being of the animal (sic) whereas the animal (sic) could carry, hunt for or protect the human beings that own them".

Mr Johnson claims that humans and non-humans have always "co-habited" and most of the time both "man" and "animal" have benefited from this deal. Perhaps he should pay a visit to a slaughterhouse - this would immediately change his mind.

And in any case, even in the best case scenario, such as that of well-kept pets, what's missing in the matter is choice on the part of the owned. The excuse that "humans could see to the safety and well-being" of the non-human animal in return for forced labour or companionship is no justification, especially since it is mostly humans who forcibly breed non-human animals for the use of their bodies or their forced labour.

This mentality would justify the breeding of human children for the express purpose of slavery, were it not for the fact that the people who usually find nothing wrong with this in the case of non-humans are speciesists. But of course, many racists would similarly find nothing wrong with breeding black children for the express purpose of slavery. Such is the effect of prejudice, where any use is justified as long as the used is a member of an "out-group" and the user is more powerful than the used.

Mr Johnson then goes on to say:

"Why else would a horse have the perfect body for a rider to sit comfortably on him if its purpose was not to carry humans? Why is a camel capable of walking for hours and hours in the desert without drinking, and yet is also capable of carrying a person on his back? Why is a dog so inclined to develop a strong relationship with his owner if dog and man haven't been made to live together".

So Mr Johnson asks why else would a horse have the perfect body for a rider to sit comfortably on him if its purpose was not to carry humans? Mr Johnson should perhaps note that the female sexual organ is likewise perfect for rape, but we see rape as a grave violation of human rights.

Of course, this does not mean that I equate rape with horse-riding (though it should be pointed out that millions of non-humans are habitually raped worldwide to provide a steady supply of offspring to be used for human entertainment, "meat" or "dairy"). It simply goes to show that a body being "perfect" for a purpose does not necessarily justify its use.

Similarly, the adult human body is equally capable of carrying heavy weights, constructing such majestic buildings as pyramids. It is worth remembering that the pyramids were built entirely through slave labour. Would Mr Johnson justify this just because slaves have the physical strength to build pyramids? I don't think so.

Mr Johnson has got everything backwards. To name one example, the fact that horses' backs are shaped in a way that enables humans to ride on them does not mean that the horse's back was "created" that way so that humans may ride on them. It only means that humans are able to ride horses only because the shape of their backs and their physical strength makes this possible. It says nothing about whether it is justified or appropriate for humans to do so. And just in case someone who thinks the way Mr Johnson does is not yet convinced - if horses were "created" for riding, why would they require "domestication"?

As for the question of why a dog is so inclined to develop a strong relationship with his owner if dog and "man" haven't been "made to live together", again, this is as absurd as it can get, and such a statement can only come about from someone who has not yet grasped the concept of evolution.

Perhaps, Mr Johnson, who seems to believe that God specifically created each individual animal (humans included) with an "express purpose", could explain how such a God would "create" a lion who seems to be "made" with attributes best suited to kill a gazelle, and at the same time "create" a gazelle who seems to be "made" with attributes best suited to escape from the lion.

And while he's at it, perhaps Mr Johnson could explain why such a God would introduce pain in the equation, where a lion, who (unlike us) has to kill the gazelle to survive, induces severe pain and suffering to the gazelle. I'm certainly not that sadistic. It is evolution that explains these matters satisfactorily. Perhaps Mr Johnson would be interested in reading a few books.

Mr Johnson also says:

"Let's go one step further and imagine how uncivilised and how primitive man (sic) would still be nowadays if he didn't have the horse to help him travel from one place to the other, if he didn't have the dog to help protect his livestock (sic), if he didn't have the cat to help control rodent infestation on his ships during long voyages in the days before cars, planes and motor-powered ships were invented?

When trying to understand matters of nature one must look closely at nature and the answers are there to be seen.

It is also true that nowadays thanks to our modern world, the role of the animal (sic) is not so important for our survival as it was in the past, but the relationship between man (sic) and animal (sic) still exists and in most cases this relationship benefits both parties. Of course each owner is morally and legally responsible for the proper upkeep of his/her particular pet or working animal and as such, should be punished by law and not allowed to keep animals if he/she ill-treats the animal/pet".

Mr Johnson asks how primitive we would still be if we did not use non-human animals. Many aspects of our civilization and its "progress" would not have been as they are today without the use of human slavery (read some history). Of course, Mr Johnson would not condone human slavery just because it is useful. The same applies in the case of all sentient animals.

I, of course, agree with Mr Johnson where he says that when trying to understand matters of nature one must look closely at nature and the answers are there to be seen. However, as my example of the lion and gazelle above shows, one should not derive moral values from "nature".

As for the claim that the relationship between humans and non-humans still exists and in most cases this relationship benefits both parties, this is blatantly false, as I have already alluded to by pointing out the example of slaughterhouses. More often than not, it is actually the case that whenever humans encroach on non-human animal space, the human is always the better for it, while the non-human is most of the time made worse-off.

Mr Johnson concludes by saying:

"The point that humans should not own animals (sic) is so far-fetched and incorrect that it scares me that people representing animal welfare groups can come up with such theories. I am sincerely afraid that animal welfare groups with such extremist views can cause more harm than good on this island where some owners could do much better in making sure the animals (sic) in their care are kept in the best mental and physical shape possible".

Mr Johnson should note that I do not represent animal "welfare" groups (I only represent animal rights). I would only like to ask in what way "our theories" are harmful to non-human animals.

Does Mr Johnson mean to say that a theory that, if put to practice, would end the forced labour, rape and murder of non-human animals, actually harms them, while a theory that would perpetuate their use and abuse would actually benefit them?

Does he not realize that what he is saying is as ridiculous as claiming that a rapist benefits the raped, the slave-owner benefits the slave, and the murderer benefits the murder victim?

And they call me an extremist!

It takes humility to understand animal rights

On the question of what qualifies anyone for having rights, and on the insistence of hunter Fabian Borg that rights hinge on responsibilities and the ability to defend one's interests, I had explained that Mr Borg's reasoning would deny rights to the most vulnerable humans.

Mr Borg, then, failing to understand the implications of his own views (I'm being generous here, assuming he really did not understand, instead of the alternative, which would be that he understood but simply does not care as long as it serves his exploitation agenda), replies that it is me who is comparing human offspring and other humans to "animals".

Of course, this is stating the obvious. However, I only compared like with like, which is not to say that humans are non-humans (which would be nonsense), but only to say that humans are animals and like many humans have two eyes, many non-humans also have two eyes; many humans have two legs, and so do many non-humans; some humans lack responsibilities and the means of protecting their own interests, and so do some non-humans (I did not say, for instance, that some humans, like some non-humans, have wings with which to fly - a claim that would be blatantly false). But all these attributes (or lack of them) are irrelevant to the question of whether individuals have rights, and if rights hinged on these (or other irrelevant) attributes, this would disqualify several humans from having rights.

The only difference (which Mr Borg seems to conveniently ignore) is that I only mention actual and true similarities for the express purpose of defending the rights of individuals who cannot claim them themselves (and this includes vulnerable humans), while Mr Borg insists that such a pointing out of similarities are inadequate (while failing to mention one reason why this would be so), only because it serves his own agenda of persisting in exploiting (and killing) non-human animals.

I'm sure that no mentally disabled person would take offense at my claim that despite limited or no responsibilities, he or she still has rights that cannot be violated except in exceptional cases like self-defence. On the other hand, I'm sure that they (or their carers) would be gravely offended by a claim (like Mr Borg's) that for one to have any rights, one should have responsibilities and the means to defend one's own interests.

Of course, it is very convenient for non-human animal exploiters to ignore the similarities of some or all non-humans to some or all humans.

Mr Borg, in a comment in the online version of The Times writes:

"Kenneth, it is you that is comparing Human offspring and other Humans to Animals".

Presumably, Mr Borg uses a capital "H" in "human" and a capital "A" in "animals" to stress that somehow, in his anti-scientific view, humans are not animals. This mistake is understandable from people who still believe in a flat earth, or that the sun revolves around the earth, or that "man" is the centre of the universe and all that really matters, but all rational and intelligent people should by now have understood that humans are an animal species.

If Mr Borg finds this offensive, it is only ignorance that makes him find it so. I would only hope that Mr Borg lacks humility and not intelligence, and that he comes to realize, sooner rather than later, that he, like all humans, is an animal. A little humility might make him see a clearer and truer picture of the universe.

Mr Borg goes on to say that:

"It is animal nature to feed and take care of all offspring and humans are part of it".

Now this, of course, seems to contradict the view that humans are not (or somehow distinct from) "animals", which kind of shows that Mr Borg is either simply confused or unwilling to concede the point when it ill serves his agenda.

But then, Mr Borg says:

"On the other hand it is only humans who take care of their handicapped offspring and the mentally retarded humans since you had the interest of mentioning them. As you may know any handicapped animals (sic) or mentally retarded animals (sic) born in the wild are never to be seen which show that animals (sic) are not capable to be responsable (sic) and defend their handicapped offspring/relatives and these are either abandoned or fall as prey almost immediately. This further proves the lack of responsability (sic) in animals. Responsability (sic) is a human thing".

Of course, the claim that only humans take care of their handicapped offspring is simply untrue. There have been several evidenced reports of non-human animals taking care of other handicapped non-humans. Of course, in a culture where violence in film is relished (as blockbuster movies will attest to), you won't find much on this in wildlife documentaries. Blood and gore sells more than altruism. One would have to read some literature on zoology for documented instances of such altruism among non-human animals.

Mr Borg's claim that any handicapped non-human animals born in the wild are never to be seen, is simply untrue. Of course, I would instantly concede the point that many or most handicapped non-humans fall prey to predators, but this, as Mr Borg himself partially understands, is not because non-human animals necessarily do not care about their handicapped offspring, but simply because many non-human animals are not physically capable of defending their weaker offspring (or other animals) from stronger predators.

So, Mr Borg's claim that:

"This (that many handicapped non-human animals fall prey to predators) further proves the lack of responsability (sic) in animals (sic)" and that "Responsability (sic) is a human thing", does not logically follow.

As I explained, the fact that many handicapped non-human animals become easy prey for predators does not necessarily derive from any irresponsibility on behalf of other animals of the same species, but actually is the result of that species being physically weaker than the predator species, which would make any attempted defence of its handicapped members futile. Without the invention of weapons, if humans were to live in a jungle replete with lions and tigers, most probably, disabled humans would find themselves in a similar predicament. I hope that, in that case, Mr Borg would not conclude that humans in that case would not care about their less fortunate offspring or companions, and that such offspring or companions would not have rights.

In any case, this is all besides the point. I have already shown that being responsible is not necessary for having rights, otherwise this would disqualify several humans from having rights.

Of course, one could hold a hierarchical view of nature, where "lesser" beings may be sacrificed for "higher" ones. But again, the "justification" of such a view would equally (to be consistent) justify a hierarchical view of humanity, where "lesser" humans may be sacrificed for "higher" ones. And again, if consistently applied, this would put several vulnerable humans in danger of being used (or even killed) for the benefit of stronger or "more intelligent" humans.

It is also interesting to note that it is exactly such hierarchical views that make many people see killing humans (or other animals) for God as morally justified (if not sometimes morally required). Since a hierarchical view of nature would seem to justify the use (and even killing) of "lesser" beings for the benefit of "higher" ones, and God (for believers) being as high as anyone can get on the scale, religious fundamentalists actually use this rationale to justify killing innocents if this serves the purpose of "glorifying" God or "furthering his interests".

If all people disavowed all hierarchical views of nature and saw each individual being as a possessor of inviolable rights (except in cases like self-defence), that would be the end of the phenomenon of fundamentalist suicide bombers. But I only mention this to show where such hierarchical views of nature could in theory (and sometimes in practice) lead to.

Like I said in "Dogs, birds, humans and their rights", far from being null and void (like Mr Borg claims), the animal rights view is the only view that gives adequate protection to all beings, particularly the most vulnerable, including of course the most vulnerable humans, where sentience is sufficient for one to have moral rights, and where all individuals are treated as ends in themselves and not as means to others' ends.

Lies, misrepresentation and confusion for the defense of slavery

Blunders from a speciesist pro-slaver

Raymond Zammit once again writes a letter in today's The Times, asking questions that have already been answered, making contradictory claims, making deceitful assertions while himself actually uncovering his deceit in the same letter, and much more speciesist blunders.

It says a lot when people have to resort to lies and misrepresentation to "prove" a point. Such is the tactic used by Mr Zammit.

In today's letter entitled "Hunting dogs and slavery", Mr Zammit writes:
"If anyone thought slavery has been abolished, they're in for a surprise. According to Kenneth Cassar (The Times, March 11), animal rights dictate that 'breeding, selling and buying non-humans for human purposes is treating them as property, and therefore as slaves'.

So his advice to anyone owning a pet, or breeding any animal for human consumption, should be to set them free and let them lead a life in liberty".

Mr Zammit implies that in my opinion, we should set all "domesticated" animals free. Perhaps, Mr Zammit is too keen on misrepresenting my views to note that he himself, in this his own letter (see further down), quotes what I wrote on March 31 (in The Times), where I said that "regarding his assumption that I implied dogs should all be set free, I would like to put Mr Zammit's mind at rest that the animal rights view is that we should stop breeding, selling or buying any more dogs, while we should continue taking care of the ones already in existence and not to set all dogs free where they cannot cope on their own". This makes his repetition of the same allegation nothing more than a blatant deception. And what makes it worse is that he knows full well that it is untrue since he himself quotes me as claiming the exact opposite!

Mr Zammit goes on to say that:

"Mr Cassar does not consider the love for a cherished pet as being acceptable. According to him, anyone owning a pet is a slave owner. Therefore, it follows that anyone owning a pet shop is a slave trader. A vet would qualify as a slave doctor".

To put things into perspective, while Mr Zammit's claim that according to me, anyone owning a pet shop is a slave trader, is true, it does not follow that anyone owning a pet is a slave owner, or any vet is a slave doctor. This comes as very clear, to anyone with sufficient IQ, from my claim, noted by Mr Zammit himself (see further down), that we should care for the "domesticated" animals already in existence. Some people adopt homeless non-human animals for altruistic reasons (ask the animal sanctuaries), and not simply to have them as possessions. Of course, breeding, selling and buying non-human animals is treating them as property, and therefore as slaves.

Mr Zammit continues:

"Mr Cassar goes on to state that the animal rights view is that 'we should stop breeding, selling or buying any more dogs, while we should continue taking care of the ones already in existence'. In plain language, dogs should no longer be bred after the ones we have die out.

How's that for championing animal rights! The same argument when applied to all other bred animals would simply mean no more animals. This statement clearly shows the extremism behind his reasoning".

There you have it. Speciesist hunter Mr Zammit saves me the trouble of proving his deceit, by proving it himself. For how could I ever claim that we should set all dogs free (which I never did) while at the same time claim that we should continue taking care of the dogs already in existence (which I actually did claim)?

As regards Mr Zammit's "worry" regarding my claim that we should breed no more "domesticated" animals, he falls in the same trap as has Mark Mifsud Bonnici (The Times, April 1).

Again, like I said in "On advocating the rights of sperm, and other absurdities", since I am not suggesting that any animal be killed, it follows that by claiming a right of 'not-yet-existent' animals to exist, he is advocating the 'rights' of sperm to become animals.

A non-existent animal (if something non-existent can even be called an "animal") has no "right" neither to exist nor to not exist. I am not saying we should kill any dogs here. I'm just saying that we should breed no more. If this means that we are breaching some "potential" beings' "right" to come into existence (meaning that non-existent beings have a right to exist), this would bring us to the absurd conclusion that humans have an active DUTY to have as much offspring as possible (since doing otherwise would deny potential humans - millions of sperm - their opportunity to "claim" their "right" to exist!).

Furthermore, since Mr Zammit is worried about animals bred to be slaughtered for meat becoming extinct, I personally would think that such animals would rather prefer not having lived at all, than living a short miserable life that is ended by the knife. But then again, logic is not the speciesist's forte, and the only reason why people like Mr Zammit are surprised at my views, saying things like "how's that for championing animal rights" only goes to show they have absolutely no idea on animal rights. I would suggest a list of books which may be found on this blog (on the topic of human/nonhuman slavery, I would highly recommend Marjorie Spiegel's The Dreaded Comparison).

Mr Zammit then goes on to write:

"Mr Cassar still insists on asking 'how dogs manage to hunt high flying birds without wings or guns'. The answer is that, in preference to waiting for their hunting dogs to evolve wings, hunters normally help their dogs by using their guns. In the case of ground game (sic), hunting dogs do not need to evolve wings, so they scent, trail, set, point, and flush the birds, but still need to be helped by the hunters and their guns to be able to get their game (sic). God forbid, the hunters would have to wait for them to evolve wings for that purpose too.

Hopefully this explanation goes some way to satisfy Mr Cassar's 'eager(ness) to learn'".

So Mr Zammit here replies to my valid question as to how dogs can be expected to hunt high-flying birds on their own. His answer, much to my satisfaction, is that they can't. So perhaps, much to Mr Zammit's disappointment, I have learned nothing new from his higher wisdom. He only confirmed what I already knew.

Mr Zammit then says:

"What hunting dogs do best is hunting. This is their specific purpose in life, and it is right and proper it should be so, otherwise one would not be justified in calling them hunting dogs".

So according to Mr Zammit, it is justified to use dogs as "hunting dogs" because "this is their specific purpose in life, and it is right and proper it should be so, otherwise one would not be justified in calling them hunting dogs".

Mr Zammit should perhaps note that pre-abolition slave traders also claimed that to be slaves is black people's purpose in life, and that it is right and proper it should be so, otherwise one would not be justified in calling them slaves. However, just as calling slaves so does not make it justified to treat them as slaves, similarly, calling dogs hunting dogs does not necessarily make it justified to use them as hunting dogs.

Mr Zammit's argument with respect to non-humans' "rightful" purpose was very prevalent with regards to black humans' "rightful" purpose prior to the abolition of human slavery. Here are a few quotes that make the argument sound very familiar:

"(In the South) our people have practically solved their natural relations to the inferior race, and placed or rather retained the negro in his normal condition, ...in domestic subordination and social adaptation, corresponding with (negroes') wants, their instincts, their faculties, the nature with which God has endowed them". - J.H. Van Evrie, MD (1863)

"A state of bondage, so far from doing violence to the law of nature, develops and perfects it; and that, in that state (the Negro) enjoys the greatest amount of happiness, and arrives at the greatest degree of perfection, of which his nature is capable". - R. R. Cobb (1858)

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Mr Zammit then says:

"As any other dog lovers, my family and I treat our dogs with great care and affection. The love we have for our animals goes far beyond simply assigning them a purpose. Hunting for me and my dogs is the sharing of a relationship which is tantamount to being symbiotic.

Slavery is total degradation, deprivation and drudgery. How Mr Cassar can think in these terms of an animal that is cared for and loved is beyond reason. His assertion that dog ownership equals dog slavery is a gross non-sequitur. And yet, thriving on making a fool of himself, it seems he will insist on such comparisons".

So Mr Zammit claims that he treats his dogs with great care and affection. I have no reason to doubt this. However, one should note that a "well-treated" and "loved" slave is a slave nonetheless. The "symbiotic" relationsip between Mr Zammit and his dogs is one that is imposed on the dog. The dog cannot do otherwise than obey his master. One should also note that by the simple act of breeding dogs, humans perpetuate the dependency of dogs on humans (more on this in the blog entry "Slave parades, speciesist "pure-breeding", and other non-human breeding").

Regarding Mr Zammit's concluding sentence that my "assertion that dog ownership equals dog slavery is a gross non-sequitur", I agree, since I already explained that dog ownership does not necessarily mean dog slavery. It all depends on the purpose of ownership. So his final remark that "thriving on making a fool of (myself), it seems (I) will insist on such comparisons", only makes a fool of himself.

Again, to be perfectly clear once and for all: adopting non-humans for altruistic purposes does not amount to slavery. Breeding, selling, buying and using (not to mention killing) non-humans as property for purposes we arbitrarily assign to them, definitely is.

In the words of Jeremy Bentham (The Principles of Morals and Legislation, 1789),

"(Slaves) have been treated by the law upon the same footing as in England, for example, the...animals are still. The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which could never have been witholden from them but by the hand of tyrranny. (Some) have already discovered that the blackness of skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may come one day to be recognized, that the number of legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate...(T)he question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?"

A very enlightening comment

Meanwhile, reading my comment to Mr Zammit's letter in The Times, in a typical response of someone who can't even spell, construct a good sentence or ask a question that is not counter-productive to the message he wishes to convey (let alone debate history, philosophy and ethics), Mr Frank Grech writes:

"Mr. Kenneth Cassar, I suggest that you go and live on the moon where no other animal exist (sic) and therefore no slavery!!!! By the way I hope you are a vegeterian (sic)!".

Well, not to waste too much time on such idiocy, my only short reply would be that my going to the moon would solve nothing, since people like him would still be enslaving and murdering non-human animals here. A better suggestion would be for him to go to the moon. All non-human animals (and quite possibly several humans) would fare better for it.

As for Mr Grech "hoping" that I am a vegetarian (not vegeterian), that's a very strange wish, coming from someone who most definitely isn't. Well, a visit to this blog would certainly answer his "question", or, as he puts it, make his "hope" come true.

Dogs, birds, humans and their rights

Fabian Borg, from the hunter federation (FKNK)'s education committee (no less!) writes a letter in today's The Times which he entitles "Hunters, dogs, birds and rights".

Mr Borg writes:

"Kenneth Cassar of Animal Rights Malta (The Times, April 1), while conceding that a dummy is no exact replica of a live bird, proceeds to get lost once more over his own argument, not mine, about the 'rights' of dogs.

Anyone looking for the 'rights' of dogs will discover they have none. If they had, they would have not only responsibilities, but also the means of protecting their interests. Mr Cassar himself unwittingly confirms this by stating that 'rights are means of protecting interests'. Since dogs do not have the means to protect their own interests, people have to assume responsibility for their protection and welfare. It is, therefore, a question of animal welfare, and definitely not of non-existent animal 'rights'.

And so we go back to where this correspondence all started: Danica Rosso's letter. Assuming she is a law-abiding licence holder, it is the lady who has a right and a responsibility to hunt with her dogs. The ultimate satisfaction for her and her dogs is to engage in a real hunt, not half of one, or just as unsatisfactory, a dummy 'hunt'. At this point let me say I have no time to waste on an explanation, particularly for someone who expects dogs to have 'wings to hunt high-flying birds'.

Since Mr Cassar puts 'dogs and birds on an equal footing', it follows that birds have no rights either. Therefore his argument that a bird's right 'trumps' a dog's right to hunt is null and void".

First of all, let me explain once again (since some people apparently need to be spoon-fed to grasp a very simple statement), that when I said that rights are a means of protecting interests, I meant just that - that rights are means of protecting interests.

Mr Borg says that "dogs do not have the means to protect their own interests". That is precisely the reason why dogs depend on our recognition of, and respect for, their rights. For one to claim that those who do not have the means to protect their own interests do not have rights, leads to the conclusion that in moral questions, might means right, and that those who cannot protect themselves adequately, might as well rot, as will be explained further down.

Mr Borg says that dogs have no rights, the reason being that if they did, they would have responsibilities and the means of protecting their interests.

This argument is both fallacious and dangerous, and would deny any rights to the most vulnerable humans.

Two examples that immediately spring to mind are the rights of human infants and the rights of the severely mentally disabled. Since these have no responsibilities, Mr Borg's logic, if applied consistently, would deny these two categories of humans any rights.

The only speciesist excuse Mr Borg would have to come up with to grant these two categories of humans any rights would be simply to claim that they are humans. But this simply begs the question: why do humans have rights?

And to stress the point once again, to claim that they do so because they have responsibilities (or intelligence, or whatever) would deny rights to the most vulnerable humans. To deny rights to non-human animals and concede them to humans who are in a relevantly similar predicament is simply speciesist and prejudiced.

Mr Borg says that since non-human animals do not have the means to protect their own interests "it is, therefore, a question of animal welfare, and definitely not of non-existent animal rights".

Once again, since human infants and the severely mentally disabled do not have the means to protect their own interests, Mr Borg, to be consistent, would have to claim that in their case, to respect them is only a matter of charity, since, according to his logic, these would also have no rights.

Mr Borg says that licensed law abiding hunters have a right to hunt. If he is speaking of legal rights, then I will most certainly concede this. However, when opposing hunting, I am not speaking of legal rights, but of moral rights (which precede legal rights). Laws change. Moral rights don't - they are universal and are discovered, usually through philosophy and scientific understanding, and not created. Hence, changes in public opinion often precede change in laws - a case in point being the abolition of human slavery.

Since human infants and the severely mentally disabled both have rights despite having no responsibilities, there is no unprejudiced and just reason for someone to deny rights to non-human animals who also have an interest in living and not suffering, despite, also like human infants and severely mentally disabled humans, not being capable of protecting their own interests from other humans.

Far from being null and void, the animal rights view is the only view that gives adequate protection to all beings, particularly the most vulnerable, including of course the most vulnerable humans.

And by the way, I'm still waiting for an answer to my question as to how dogs hunt high-flying birds without the aid of guns or wings. I take a non-reply as meaning that since dogs are no exception to the laws of nature, they simply cannot hunt high-flying birds unaided by human hunters. But who knows? Mr Borg and his "education" committee might surprise me with an alternative intelligent reply, after all.

Addendum:

After reading my commentary on his letter, Mr Fabian Borg replies:

"Kenneth, I hope you don't mind calling you by your first name since we really should be friends as we both seek enjoyment in the natural and animal kingdom even though in different ways.

I think that the 'logic' you are insinuating is just ridiculous and deserves a second reading only to be sure of what is being written.

This is the worst things can get as you are bringing up arguments which compare humans (infants and people with special needs) to dogs. Animals protect their offspring even if this endangers their life. This behaviour is also present in us humans as this is a clear instinct we have inherited from our ancestors along with the hunting instinct which may be present in some and less in others. With regards to people with special needs I will not cross that line in respect of others".

Well, to start with, we don't just seek enjoyment in nature "even though in different ways". The fact is that Fabian actually seeks to kill the sentient animals I seek to protect. I don't see much common ground here.

It is only Fabian's speciesist mentality that finds offense in comparing non-humans to humans where the comparison does not imply "exact sameness".

The point is that the only logical justification (that Fabian unfortunately fails to grasp) for the recognition of the rights of all beings despite responsibilities, intelligence quotas, etc, is sentience.

Fabian seemingly finds offence with comparing humans to non-humans. What Fabian does not notice, however, is that his own logic would deny rights to human infants and the mentally disabled, since Fabian claims that it is responsibilities and the capacity to defend one's own interests which give rights to anyone. If Fabian would then say "but human infants and the mentally disabled are human", then this debunks his whole "argument" that non-human animals lack rights because they "do not have responsibilities" and are not capable of "defending their own interests". If, when faced with this challenge, the reply from Fabian is "but they are humans", then this seems to suggest that, according to Fabian, humans have rights just because they are humans. Of course, I won't repeat myself. I have already explained (above) how this argument is circular.

Fabian says that "with regards to people with special needs I will not cross that line in respect of others". I find no difficulty with crossing the line myself, since my argument actually strengthens the case for respecting human infants and the mentally disabled, and their rights. My argument goes to show that sentience suffices for respect and recognition of basic rights. The opposite argument would seem to deny these people rights.

Therefore, crossing the line, in my case, is done out of respect. As for comparing like with like, and saying that human infants and the severely mentally disabled should not be denied rights just because they cannot be expected to have responsibilities, and to be expected to be capable of defending their own interests, and claiming that non-human animals find themselves in a similar predicament - I fail to see how this could be construed as offensive in any way (except perhaps to a hardened speciesist). It's no different from taking offense with someone who says that dogs and humans both have eyes. Does this mean that humans are dogs? Of course not. And neither are dogs humans. But of course, because both have eyes, both can see. Offensive? Of course not!

Fabian only finds offense because he believes (without rational justification) that all non-human animals have no rights simply because they are not human. It is precisely that proposition that I am challenging. Recognizing non-humans as rights-holders, of course, does not debase any humans. It simply elevates non-humans to their appropriate and deserved position of rights-bearers. Recognizing non-humans as rights-holders is not about diminishing human rights, just as recognizing the rights of black people is not about diminishing white people's rights. On the contrary, recognition of the basic rights of all sentient animals strengthens the case for the recognition of the rights of all the most vulnerable humans. Far from being disrespectful, it puts respect towards the most needy on firm, rational and logical grounds - grounds that do not rely on charity, but are grounded in deserved rights.

And finally, an abridged version of the above article being published in The Times of April 7, Mr Borg comments:

"Kenneth, my comment to your response last Friday stands. The only person comparing Human infants and Mentally disabled to animals on this site is YOU !! I will leave you with that".

Well, then, I'll only conclude by repeating that both human infants and the severely mentally disabled have rights (which is as it should be) despite having no responsibilities and no means to defend their interests by themselves. It is Mr Borg who claimed that for one to have rights, one should have responsibilities and the means to defend one's own interests, and I'll quote: "Anyone looking for the 'rights' of dogs will discover they have none. If they had, they would have not only responsibilities, but also the means of protecting their interests". So I'll leave him with that.

On advocating the rights of sperm, and other absurdities

The "right" of sperm to become animals?

No, this is no "April Fool" joke. In response to my letter in today's The Times, a longer version of which may be found in this blog under the heading "Hunting dogs are no dummies, but neither are we", tireless Mark Mifsud Bonnici from the "St Hubertus" hunters comments:

"In a letter (TOM March 31) Cassar states: 'the animal rights view is that we should stop breeding, selling or buying any more dogs', indeed he cares about animal rights as by saying this he is actually denying their right to exist. When will he stop writing this rubbish!!"

Now, at face value, particularly to a reader who is unfamiliar with the issue, Mr Mifsud Bonnici's statement seems to make perfect sense. For, what sense does it make for someone who claims to be advocating for "animal rights" to propose the "extinction" of dogs (that is, if one concedes that this is actually what I am proposing, which is not necessarily the case)?

But let's examine what Mr Mifsud Bonnici is saying here. Since I am not suggesting that any animal be killed, it follows that by claiming a right of "not-yet-existent" animals to exist, he is advocating the "rights" of sperm to become animals.

A non-existent animal (if something non-existent can even be called an "animal") has no "right" neither to exist nor to not exist. I am not saying we should kill any dogs here. I'm just saying that we should breed no more. If this means that we are breaching some "potential" beings' "right" to come into existence (meaning that non-existent beings have a right to exist), this would bring us to the absurd conclusion that humans have an active DUTY to have as much offspring as possible (since doing otherwise would deny potential humans - millions of sperm - their opportunity to "claim" their "right" to exist!).

Such is the absurdity that follows from the reasoning of someone who claims that non-existent (potential) beings have rights while those who exist don't.

However, I suppose that someone who sees non-human animals as property (just as slave owners used to see human slaves) will never understand that it goes contrary to common sense to say that slaves have a right to exist as slaves. Breeding, selling and buying non-humans for human purposes is treating them as property, and therefore as slaves.

Do non-human animals have rights or not? Please make up your minds.

Meanwhile, Alfred E. Zammit, also from the "St Hubertus" hunters, comments:

"Kenneth Cassar, please join some decent animal welfare organization and spare us your obsession with so-called animal rights.

Instead of dismissing my valid arguments as 'childish' , please explain what the consequences would be if one were to insist, as you do, that dogs should not be owned. Who would pay for their care? Who would feed them? Who would control them when they form packs roaming in the streets or the countryside? Which vet would be prepared to treat them without getting paid?

You believe in stray population control. Do you know that you are contradicting yourself? The word 'control' means domination, and goodbye to their 'right' to be free.

Get real, will you. It makes sense to talk about people's responsibility for the welfare of animals. But there is no such thing as animal rights. It makes sense to talk about people’s duty towards their pets. But there is no such thing as pets having a right to do as they please.

As to birds, they have no rights either. It’s the hunters who have rights over, and responsibilities for, both dogs and birds. If they abuse of these rights and responsibilities they should be penalized. This is why there are laws on animal welfare (not rights) and bird protection".

Well, Mr Zammit will find that some of his hunter friends do not see animal rights as simply "so called". They actually believe that dogs have a RIGHT to hunt. I wish that they would make up their mind, if only on this point.

He asks me what would be the consequence of dogs not being owned (who would pay the vet bills, who would feed them etc).

If he paid more attention to what I write, he would find that what I am suggesting is that people should not breed, sell and buy any more dogs, while they should care for the dogs already in existence. I think this answers his question.

As to his claim that population control (in the case of dogs) means domination, I wonder what he think of humans breeding dogs, selling them or buying them, using them for human purposes, etc. If this is not domination, I wonder what is.

The fundamental difference is that controlling stray populations is done for altruistic reasons (for the sake of preventing offspring who would suffer). One can't be more realistic. Basically, when the "rights" of stray animals to breed means that this will result in the creation of offspring who will suffer, rights not being absolute, we have a duty to prevent that suffering. It is exactly for this reason that human rights are limited by considerations on whether the "rights" of one would breach more fundamental rights of another. It is also for this reason that violence is conceded if done in self-defence.

As for pets having a right to do as they please, he should perhaps be informed that I never made such a claim.

God doing the European Court of Justice's work?

Sylvana Zarb Darmanin, then, in response to my claim that hunters (like all adult humans) should be accountable for their actions, replies:

"I strongly believe that he is the one who should be accountable for all the rubbish and incitement against hunters! I, once again, urge Mr. Cassar to stop being so patronising! Another thing, ignorance is no excuse to allow you to keep on writing rubbish. If Mr. Cassar knows the real meaning of love towards animals (in this case dogs), he would refrain from continuing with his heartless campaign against hunting dogs and their masters. Please God, the end of this week could make him realise that this heartless campaign has failed him miserably!!"

Well, regarding the "rubbish" I supposedly write, it stands to reason to expect a hunter to see what I write as rubbish (I will be level-headed here and admit - like I have done other times - that not all that hunters write is necessarily rubbish, but in my opinion, most is). That said, I leave it to the readers to decide for themselves on who makes more sense.

However, I will never accept my letters or articles being called "incitement against hunters", and I challenge Ms Zarb Darmanin to quote at least one sentence where I have ever incited anyone against hunters. I am not so childish to ask for an apology - a simple retraction would do fine.

Regarding my so called "heartless campaign against hunting dogs and their masters", again, I fail to see where I have conducted such a campaign. My only campaign, in this case, is only against hunting, and against the breeding, selling and buying of dogs (and other animals) while making it abundantly clear that we should take good care of the ones already in existence.

As for her concluding "prayer", if God were a tyrant, he would answer her prayer and stop me from defending the creatures Ms Zarb Darmanin presumably believes He created, from being blasted out of the skies by hunters.

But I suppose that by her prayer that by the end of this week God would make me realise that my "heartless campaign" has failed me miserably, she is referring to the spring hunting issue to be decided by the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

Perhaps Ms Zarb Darmanin should notice that she is treading on dangerous ground here. The final say on this issue is in the hands of the ECJ, and no one else. Perhaps Ms Zarb Darmanin should be told that her prayer could only produce one of three possible outcomes:

1. God completely ignores her, and lets the ECJ do its own work.

2. God answers her prayer, and spring hunting is not abolished.

3. God does the contrary to what she asks, and spring hunting is abolished.

I don't know about her, but I wouldn't hedge my bets on "God interfering" (if "He" would be one to interfere, I assume he would consider stopping Hitler from murdering millions of people a much more important issue than any hunter's cause), that is if she does not wish her faith to be shaken! In any case, am I perhaps alone in sensing that her "prayer to God" means that she is fearing that it would take "divine intervention" for spring hunting to be retained?

Lies and the lying liars who tell them

I was going to refrain from commenting on this blog on Steve Busuttil's own comments to my letter "Hunting dogs are no dummies, but neither are we", until he kept repeating (even after being challenged to substantiate his allegations) that I lie.

First of all, just in case Mr Busuttil doesn't know what lying really means, let me give him an example.

Suppose person "A" honestly believes that there is life on Mars, while person "B" believes that there is none. If "A" says that there is life on Mars while "B" says there is none, they cannot both be correct. However, it is not necessarily the case that any one of them is lying.

However, if "A" claims that "B" believes that there is life on Mars, "A" would be lying about "B", and vice-versa.

Now, what about Mr Busuttil?

Mr Busuttil writes:

"Unless you intend sabotaging this too through lies and brainwashing as you and your likes have done over the years...".

To which I replied:

"Regarding 'sabotaging through lies', instead of making unfounded allegations, I would invite you to mention one lie I have said (note that a difference of opinion is not necessarily a lie)".

Mr Busuttil does not take the not-too-subtle hint that when someone accuses someone else of lying, if he is honest, he should substantiate his allegation with proof. So in his following reply, he writes:

"It is the whole anti-hunting lobby that lies on a regular basis. And mind you half truths are lies too Mr Cassar".

Again, an unsubstantiated allegation. And again, I challenge Mr Busuttil - since apparently I "lie on a regular basis" and "half truths are lies too" - to mention at least one instance (it should not be too hard considering that I supposedly lie on a regular basis) where I have lied or told a half-truth (a direct quotation would be appreciated).

Now, while we're at it, let me show where Mr Busuttil himself has lied about me (apart from saying that I lied, which is a lie in itself).

Mr Busuttil writes the following:

"Your view that all hunting is illegal can only exist in your head since there are national and intenational laws that allow hunting".

A lie, to which I replied:

"I never claimed that all hunting is illegal. I only claim that all hunting SHOULD be illegal..."

Finally, Mr Busuttil says:

"You confuse hunting with slavery, how these two issues even come close to each other is clearly a sign of confusion on your part"

when in actual fact, I never compared hunting with slavery. What I compared with slavery is the breeding, selling, buying and use of non-human animals for human purposes.

So there you have it. I have only resorted to exposing Mr Busuttil's lies about me as a response to his accusation that I am lying myself. However, I did not stop at saying that Mr Busuttil is lying. I actually showed, with quotations, where he was lying, and in what way he was lying.

However, perhaps I would be asking too much if I were to expect that Mr Busuttil recognizes that he was uttering unsubstantiated allegations (lies) about me, and admits his mistake. But then again, who knows? He might surprise me, after all. In that case, apology accepted, dear Steve.

And speaking of half-truths, I wonder what Mr Busuttil makes of sperm rights advocate and hunter Mark Mifsud Bonnici's comment that "Cassar is now saying that people should not breed, sell and buy any more dogs, while they should care for the dogs already in existence", when I have been saying that for years (see "Slave parades, speciesist "pure-breeding", and other non-human breeding"). I won't repeat the arguments which make my claim a sensible and reasonable one, since they have already been made in the above article.

As for his claim that I am the only one putting forward such sensible (in his opinion, nonsense) ideas only goes to show that he has a closed "island" mentality. I would suggest a little reading.

For a list of books, visit http://www.animalrightsmalta.com/blogbooks.html