Some animals are more equal than others

I was pleasantly surprised upon reading a few comments to the article "Council condemns barbaric attack on dog" in The Times online (May 26), where a few comments from Pierre Agius went beyond the usual concern for only cats and dogs, and spoke of other non-human animals (and I include insects in "animals") whom most humans habitually kill without even a thought.

The short article in question, reporting on a barbaric burning of a dog, informed us that:

"Unknown persons between Saturday and Sunday burned a dog in the area of Triq il-Qasbi, San Gwann, the locality's local council said this afternoon.

In condemning the barbaric act, the council urged the police to investigate and arraign whoever was responsible. It also urged anybody having any information on what had taken place to come forward.

Mayor Rene Savona Ventura said he found the dog on Sunday evening. He said 'it' appeared to have been put in a bag and set on fire. The position of the dog's mouth indicated 'it' had been alive (when set alight)".

While I would like to unequivocally state that such an act is truly barbaric, and should be unreservedly condemned by all, I certainly appreciate that there is apparently a growing trend of Maltese citizens who think beyond just cats and dogs, and understand the fact that unnecessarily killing a dog is no different from killing a pig, a fish or an ant.

Among the several comments rightly condemning the murder of the dog, for instance, Pierre Agius wrote:

"My first reaction to this is of course to condemn the perpetrators without reservations and hope that one day such people will get caught and a good example made out of them.

However I cannot but smirk at all the people writing here and I ask them one by one, it is well and good condemning this act, heroic I say. (But) as soon as you finished writing your contribution, and noticed the cockroach walking along your hall, did you step on it and murder it? What about the colony of ants coming out of your walls, did you spray poison at them? The flies and mosquitoes, did you let them live? The little mouse out in your garden...did you make it pass through hell before it died in your rat mouse trap? The lizard living happily on your bedroom ceiling, did you squash it with your broom?

I don't do any of the above and that is why I can really condemn the dog killing. Can you really condemn this act and then kill without reservations all those insects?".

Of course, Mr Aguis is very correct. While many people are saddened and angered at the killing of non-human animals such as cats and dogs, they feel no regrets in unnecessarily killing other beings whom they label as "pests", such as mice, ants and cockroaches. Here it is perhaps opportune to point out that if such creatures are not desired in our homes, there are actually humane ways of dealing with the "problem".

The first thing to do is obviously to ensure that your home, especially the kitchen, is kept clean and that no food is left on kitchen tops or other places that are easily accessible to insects and other animals.

Other humane ways are installing humane insect or rodent repellents. In the case of rodents, for instance, one may find on the market apparatuses that emit sounds that are inaudible to humans but audible to mice and rats. The noise repels them, and so they leave from whence they came. So if one happens to have a store or garage where mice or rats usually make a visit, one might consider installing such an apparatus.

One could also consider using humane traps, where mice may be trapped without harming them, and then having them released elsewhere. Of course, one should check on the traps on regular intervals, and not leave the rats trapped for days, weeks or months.

An effective harmless and natural repellent for ants, for instance, is mint. The planting of some mint - either in pots on window sills, or in your front garden, will ensure that no ants enter your home. In any case, if a few make it inside, one can always gently pick them up and take them outside.

The point is that there are many ways of removing undesired animals (if that happens to be the case) from your home without harming them.

Going back to the news item and its comments, both for the fact that I did not know that Mr Agius had posted another comment which had not yet been published in The Times online, and also because I wanted to open the topic to include other animals, I wrote:

"Pierre Agius makes a valid observation, although I'm actually surprised that he mentioned animals whom most people see as 'pests' and not other animals one will usually find burned on the dinner plate.

And even though intelligence is irrelevant in moral matters such as the right to life, it should perhaps be pointed out that, for instance, animals such as pigs are actually more intelligent (in the human measure of intelligence) than dogs".

The subsequent comments are food for thought for most "animal lovers".

Pierre Agius, for instance, in reply to J Borg and myself, wrote:

"J Borg - Why can't I compare insects to dogs? Are some (animals) more equal than others?...Of course I am trying to bring an analogy here and in no way condoning the horrible, inhuman act of killing or even hurting dogs. Why are cows ok to slaughter but dogs not? Why rabbits yes and cats no? Why do you kill a cockroach and at the same time condemn someone who kills a dog?

That is a dilemma to me (well not to me cause I don't kill insects but to you). Is it ok to kill a dog and eat it as they do in some eastern countries? I am not saying that the above is correct I am just saying that many people who profess to love animals then murder insects / rodents etc... without any remorse whatsoever. Who says the dog is more equal than a rodent or an ant in our house? What right has a dog or a cat over a lizard?

To Kenneth. I mentioned insects for various reasons. Firstly out of space, The Times online limits you to 200 words. In my second contribution (which was as yet unpublished) I mentioned both cows and pigs I believe. But I wanted to drive a point here. Nowadays people have started to have some sort of moral dilemma about large fry but have no moral issues with squashing a roach.

A lady earlier on mentioned reasons of spreading disease. Sorry Miss. You and I spread disease as well whenever we cough and sneeze. Should I be stamped to death?

I repeat what I said in my second contribution...this is a moral dilemma to many people. Animals over insects? (lets not call them pests because that has different connotations to different people). Why kill grasshoppers like they are an international enemy? What right do I have over the world over and above the hopper? Intelligence? So Intelligence equals oppression and murder I suppose?"

Of course, Mr Agius makes some very valid points in his comments.

And incidentally, from the point of view of thousands and perhaps millions of other species, humans are the worst pests on the planet, destroying their habitat and polluting the environment. Let's all quit being pests and try to live a life that spares as much as possible the lives of others, while caring for the planet we inhabit, for our sake and for the sake of all other creatures. Of course, I will concede that it is perhaps impossible to live life without killing anyone, (unintentionally stepping on an ant is one good example). However, it does not require much effort to at least stop intentionally and unnecessarily killing other animals. After all, killing a human in self-defence, or accidentally killing someone, is one thing. Getting hold of a gun and going on a killing spree is quite another!

The plight of non-human refugees

Following the SPCA's Barbara Cassar Torreggiani's letter in yesterday's The Times, thanking the government for the provision of funds for a neutering campaign and asking for volunteers to assist in the campaign, today's The Times publishes three letters on the same topic, and also publishes a news item saying that the Grand Hotel Excelsior has bought and distributed food for the non-human refugees at the Association for Abandoned Animals.

Sylvia Zammit, from the Island Sanctuary Association, among other things, writes:

"I know from personal experience how hard it is to find a home for an unwanted dog. I speak for all the committee and the majority of the Island Sanctuary Association volunteers ‒ the reason we have more than one dog (and cats too!) is because we too could not admit the strays we find, to our sanctuary, nor could we find suitable homes for them. In the circumstances, our only option was to keep them ourselves...

We campaign against cruelty in the hope that people like the dog's owner (who abandoned him in the first place) would learn what it means to be a responsible pet owner.

We campaign in favour of neutering in the hope that every puppy born would be assured of a good home, instead of being faced with an uncertain future on the streets or being killed because no one wants him or her...

It does not make sense to expect the handful of volunteers involved in animal welfare to make up for the lack of action of the rest of the population!

If more people would actively involve themselves, instead of expecting the government to solve the problem (or the overworked and understaffed sanctuaries!) we might change the situation".

Stefanie Calleja, among other related things, writes:

"People are letting their own dogs go for walks unattended and if they are not neutered they increase the population of stray dogs. Others just abandon their pet as if it were an object rather than trying to find another suitable home for them. As a result, people are putting pressure on animal shelters but we have to keep in mind that the latter work is on a voluntary basis. They have to contend with lack of space and financial problems, and few people are committed enough. I am one of those volunteers. In spite of that, when I come across stray dogs I do my best to find them a good home, picking them up, neutering them and giving them to their new owners rather than trying to pass on the problem to someone else.

Another shelter must be built, much bigger than the one there is at Floriana (SPCA), giving the dogs or cats another chance and not putting them to sleep because they are hurt, sick or old. The government must give harsher punishments to those who abandon or mistreat their pets. Especially those who are abusing of them by breeding them for money while keeping them in a pitiful state locked up in garages or on roofs. We must control this kind of breeding, we must change the mentality that if we want a pet we have to buy a pure breed one. There are plenty of dogs and cats in sanctuaries who are waiting for the love of a family and by homing one you will not only be saving the life of that dog but of another stray dog who will take its place".

And Sharon Hurdle, among other things, writes:

"The Stray Animals Support Group (SASG) in Malta was set up by a number of people who have been involved in animal welfare all their lives. The main activities are providing food for abandoned animals, helping with medication and operations, rescuing and providing recovery facilities for injured cats, neutering stray cat colonies (with post-operation recovery facilities), re-homing abandoned cats and dogs and, of course, fundraising to make all these things possible.

SASG endeavours to find homes for some of the animals in its care. They have a selection of cats and dogs suitable for homing".

And in the same issue, The Times reports that "Staff at the Grand Hotel Excelsior in Floriana have collected funds and bought food supplies for the Association for Abandoned Animals (AAA) in anticipation of their visit to founder Freddie Fenech's animal shelter in Marsa.

Well over 100 dogs have found refuge at the shelter and are cared for by over 40 volunteers.

These dedicated animal lovers even nurse sick dogs in their own homes not to jeopardise the health of the other dogs.

The hotel said most of these dogs have had unfortunate beginnings and some horrific stories have been told about how these dogs found their way to the shelter.

The Grand Hotel Excelsior will continue to support this cause, and feature one dog in the staff newsletter every month, in the hope of finding it a home".

Now, you might have noticed that I have called the "stray" and abandoned dogs collected by sanctuaries or found in the streets "non-human refugees". I have used the word "refugees" on purpose, for two reasons. The first reason is that most cats and dogs are truly refugees, who, like human refugees, face severe hardships through no fault of their own. The second reason is that the solution for both human and non-human refugees is the same one.

Like in the case of human refugees, the problem of non-human refugees, if it is to be ever solved, must be dealt with at the source of the problem. In the case of non-human refugees, the source of the problem is the prevalent human perception that non-human animals are human property, where humans see nothing wrong in using non-humans as breeding machines just so that (in the case of pet animals) humans have a steady supply of pets who, at best are used for companionship, and at worst are used for dog-fights, as guard-dogs, or in extreme but common cases, for vivisection.

As long as non-human animals are considered to be human property, any commendable work done by committed animal sanctuary volunteers and other committed and kind individuals, only serves to alleviate the symptoms. And when one deals only with the symptoms, the malady remains or returns.

The situation is no different from the one dealt with by those working with human refugees, where as long as hardship, poverty, torture and other abuses persist in their countries of origin, the refugees have no alternative but to keep on risking their lives to escape (and end up on our shores). Despite all the hard work done by volunteers to alleviate the suffering of refugees and to defend their rights, there will be no end to their plight unless the Western supposedly "civilized" world steps in to tackle the problem at source.

In the case of non-human refugees, the only permanent solution to the problem is the realization that non-humans are not disposable human property. This in effect means that humans have no right to breed, use, sell or buy non-human animals as if they were consumable goods.

Failure to understand non-human animals' right not to be treated as human property will only mean that non-humans will continue to be enslaved and trafficked (by breeders who use their dog slaves as breeding machines and sell their offspring), and used by humans who buy them (and therefore see them as little more than mere objects), to be discarded when the novelty of having a "cute" pet wears off.

In the meantime, a few kind and responsible individuals work against all odds to help non-human refugees, by providing them shelter, feeding them and paying for their medication, and sometimes, perhaps as a thank-you gift, facing harassment from people who should know better.

As long as the property status of non-humans remains part of our culture, the life-saving work of kind-hearted volunteers will remain like a drop in the ocean. And in the meantime, some of the same people who regard non-human animals as disposable property, will keep on expecting that the few volunteers caring for non-human refugees, will perform miracles with their limited funds and resources, and will collect and care for all the non-human animals who are left or abandoned to fend for themselves in our busy streets.

Of course, there will be those who would call my simple and just solution, (that of banning the breeding, selling and buying of non-human animals), "extremist". Presumably, such speciesist people's solution, no different from the racist's solution, would be to eliminate their inconvenience by killing, or letting die, all refugees.

The irrationality of hunters and "mental violence"

David Borg Cardona writes another of his series of pro-hunting letters. I shall not reproduce it in full, only because most of it has nothing of interest to animal rights advocates and campaigners. The complete letter, entitled "The rationality of hunting", may be read in The Times.

However, some of what he wrote merited a reply, something that I did in the comments section of The Times online, which in turn produced some other replies from hunters and their few sympathizers.

I'll leave it up to you, dear reader, to judge on their merits, after you read the excerpt from Mr Borg Cardona's letter, my reply, the comments by the hunters and hunting sympathizers, and my further replies to their comments.

Mr Borg Cardona writes:

"From the start, I must make clear that this is not a plea for compassion, though some will deny it, but a call for rationality...Gone are those April days when on seeing the game bag slung across your shoulder, the neighbour would inquire about your catch, or at times ask you for "żewġ gamiem għal brodu" (a brace of turtle doves for broth). Spring hunting was taken for granted and accepted as part of life in spring.

But all of us are now portrayed as camo-clad gunmen, and branded as killing machines...

I was brought up to appreciate and nurture hunting as a way of life. It is in fact an integral part of my life and of all those who like me, are real hunters. And hunting is partly what makes us agreeable humans. Those who try to restrict, or worse, to abolish hunting, are acting against our humanity, and that is something I and my fellow hunters will never, repeat never, tolerate or accept".

It is ironic that Mr Borg Cardona mentions compassion in his first sentence, when he shows no compassion for the birds he kills.

Mr Borg Cardona writes that "gone are those April days when on seeing the game bag slung across your shoulder, the neighbour would inquire about your catch, or at times ask you for "żewġ gamiem għal brodu" (a brace of turtle doves for broth). Spring hunting was taken for granted and accepted as part of life in spring".

Yes, dear Mr Borg Cardona. Thankfully, gone are those days. Many people are coming to see hunting as it really is - unnecessary slaughter.

Mr Borg Cardona concludes his letter by writing:

"And hunting is partly what makes us agreeable humans. Those who try to restrict, or worse, to abolish hunting, are acting against our humanity, and that is something I and my fellow hunters will never, repeat never, tolerate or accept".

I honestly would like to know how hunting partly makes one an agreeable human. Does this mean that those who do not hunt are less agreeable humans?

As for his claim that he will not tolerate those who are acting "against his humanity", (does his humanity really rest on being able to hunt? - Will he lose his humanity if he does not hunt?), I thank him for letting us know that he will not tolerate the democratic right to oppose hunting and work for its abolition.

I personally not only tolerate, but respect his right to lobby on behalf of his outdated "tradition". His concluding sentence, however, shows that his letter, far from being about the rationality of hunting, is actually about the irrationality of hunting (or hunters).

And, incidentally, how will he go about not tolerating those who want hunting to be abolished? If he means by replying to letters with counter-arguments, to me that does not involve not tolerating abolitionists. But if it is not this, it would be interesting to know what he means exactly.

Meanwhile, a certain D. Cachia writes:

"As for Kenneth Cassar, why does hunting lack compassion towards non-human animals, as you insist on calling them? I think the bird's mother will surely miss her son, or the bird will miss going to bird University because a heartless hunter shot him. Boo hoo hoo. Maybe they should start wearing bullet proof vests, and then they wouldn't have any problems! If this seems exaggerated and farfetched to you, please realise that this is the only logical conclusion of your attempt to humanize birds".

First of all, I insist on calling non-human animals "non-human animals" just for the simple fact that they are non-human animals. It's not too puzzling at all.

Why does hunting lack compassion towards non-human animals? Simple. It is for the same reason that would make me lack compassion if I decided to shoot an innocent human being just for pleasure.

As for "humanizing" birds, I am doing nothing of the sort. But if D. Cachia takes some time off killing non-human animals and starts reading some good books on evolutionary biology and zoology, (nothing to do with zoos, by the way), he or she would learn that all sentient and conscious beings (who have a brain and nervous system) care about their own life (a life that D. Cachia chooses to violently end for them) and would rather live than die, given the choice.
And why mention "bird university"? Does this mean only intelligent humans have the right to life?

Meanwhile, M. Cardona writes:

"To the abolitionists I dare ask; why only here in Malta and not everywhere else in the EU? Is the local practice of such an encompassing magnitude and effecting global avian populations? My appeal is seeking a truthful and unbiased answer. Then and only then may you some day come to the realisation that the local efforts with foreign intrusion are just that; misplaced and counterproductive efforts as regards global protection of a species, when the same efforts could with the co-operation of the hunting fraternity, yield better protection for those species really in need!".

So M. Cardona asks abolitionists "why only here in Malta and not everywhere else in the EU? Is the local practice of such an encompassing magnitude and effecting global avian populations?".

M. Cardona's first question is presumptuous, and assumes that we do not care about the killing of birds (or other animals) outside of Malta. But since we live in Malta, we think globally and act locally.

As for the second question, it shows that M. Cardona has no idea on what it means to be an abolitionist. An abolitionist opposes any and all exploitation and killing of any animal (human or non-human). Therefore, M. Cardona's question on whether local hunting effects global avian populations makes as much sense to an abolitionist animal rights advocate as much as the question of whether killing a single black child effects the black population, makes sense to an anti-racist one.

Finally, Sylvana Zarb Darmanin writes:

"Mr. Cassar, you seem an expert on compassion - is this the type you show towards hunters and the pro-hunting individuals? Intollerance, vindictiveness and infliction of mental violence are bad traits in a human being. Unfortunately these bad traits are all existent in the anti-hunting individuals and their foreign masters. Group up and learn to co-exist with others who hold different views".

So Ms Zarb Darmanin tells me that I "seem an expert on compassion". Perhaps I am. In any case, I am certainly more compassionate than hunters. I live a lifestyle that is totally free of purposeful killing of any sentient being. If she does not call that compassion, she may as well suit herself.

Regarding showing compassion to hunters, I do not harm hunters in any way. I only campaign for the abolition of a practice, (or practices) that harms to a much greater degree, (kills and exploits), than any abolition of a hobby could do. That hunters enjoy hunting does not make me uncompassionate just because I would want to stop them from hunting, just as that thieves enjoy stealing does not make me uncompassionate if I don't allow them to steal from me or others.

As for intolerance, vindictiveness and mental violence, I can only say the following:

I am certainly not vindictive. I do not care about what people do, unless what they do harms innocents.

Regarding mental violence, I am only voicing my opinions. If they have the desired effect, it could only mean that I am making sense and that many people are agreeing with me. If not, then what makes no effect cannot be mental violence anyway.

Regarding intolerance, I am all for freedom of speech (which includes hunters' freedom of speech), which is not what could be said of David Borg Cardona, who says that "Those who try to restrict, or worse, to abolish hunting, are acting against (his) humanity, and that is something (he) and (his) fellow hunters will never, repeat never, tolerate or accept".

So who's intolerant?

As for co-existing with others who hold different views, that is precisely what I do on a daily basis. I expect others with different or opposite views to do likewise. I do not make laws. I can only seek to influence those who make the laws. Others have the same right. This is what we call democracy.

Of course, people addicted to killing will still call what I write, "mental violence", just as people addicted to stealing will find their possible arrest unfair. And just in case someone says that my analogy is unfair, since hunters do not necessarily steal, my reply would be that they actually steal the most valuable thing from others: life itself.

What if the myth that Hitler was a vegetarian were true?

A simple comment by Fr Joe Borg in his blog post on world poverty, where he wrote that "Some blame corrupt governments in Third World Countries, others blame climate change, still others say that higher standards of living lead more people to eat meat and put more pressure on food production; others say that the poor have too many children", has elicited the latest gem from hunter fanatic Alfred E. Zammit.

Mr Zammit, naively believing the myth that Hitler was a vegetarian (as if this made any difference to any moral claim on behalf of veganism), among other off-topic irrelevancies, wrote:

"I should like to add something that is not so well known. The first country to enact 'animal rights' legislation was Nazi Germany. Hitler himself was a vegetarian and a fanatical animal lover who disliked hunting and 'poachers' (meaning hunters). He felt depressed whenever his dog (an Alsatian named Blondi) was ill, but he did not bat an eyelid when signing the death warrant of some German officer on the front. We should ask why an animal lover could bring himself to plan and sanction the killing of so many millions of fellow humans. The answer is that some animal lovers are so extremely sensitive to the cruelty that humans continuously inflict on animals that they develop an extreme hatred towards humans. The Jewish practice of 'kosher' slaughter was declared illegal in Nazi Germany in 1934, and in order to justify his persecution of the Jews, Hitler used graphic films of how Jews slaughtered lambs. Hitler was also convinced that the future world would be vegetarian, which is perhaps one good reason why Fr Borg says that he does not augur that we all become vegetarians".

First, to dispel the myth that Hitler was a vegetarian, a claim that Mr Zammit does not support with any references or evidence, and somehow relies on hearsay from those who, failing rational arguments, would wish to discredit animal rights by associating it with one of the world's most infamous murderers.

As Michael Bluejay points out, "many meat-eaters are threatened by vegetarianism because it implies that they're doing something wrong. But armed with the (mistaken) idea that the most infamous butcher ever to live was a veggie, that allows them to easily dismiss the whole concept of vegetarianism in one fell swoop. How convenient. That's why they require no proof when they hear that Hitler was a vegetarian. That idea comforts them, so they're all too happy to latch onto it".

As Michael Bluejay further explains in his website, "Hitler's 'vegetarianism' was that doctors tried to put him on a vegetarian diet for health reasons, but he didn't really stick with it".

In his book called "Food Revolution", John Robbins writes:

"Robert Payne is widely considered to be Hitler's definitive biographer. In his book, Hitler: The Life and Death of Adolph Hitler, Payne says that Hitler's 'vegetarianism' was a 'legend' and a 'fiction' invented by Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of Propaganda.

According to Payne, 'Hitler's asceticism played an important part in the image he projected over Germany. According to the widely believed legend, he neither smoked nor drank, nor did he eat meat or have anything to do with women. Only the first was true. He drank beer and diluted wine frequently, had a special fondness for Bavarian sausages and kept a mistress, Eva Braun. His asceticism was fiction invented by Goebbels to emphasize his total dedication, his self-control, the distance that separated him from other men. By this outward show of asceticism, he could claim that he was dedicated to the service of his people. In fact he was remarkably self-indulgent and possessed none of the instincts of the ascetic".

So much for the myth, more about which one may read at http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/hitler.html

But what if Hitler really was a vegetarian, what would it matter?

Hitler opposed smoking. Is smoking to be encouraged just because Hitler opposed it?

Regarding the supposedly Nazi animal rights laws, any animal laws in Nazi Germany were not animal rights laws at all. They were animal "welfare" laws that only gave limited protection to a small minority of animals. Non-human animals were still eaten in Nazi Germany. Non-human animals were still forced to work for humans in Nazi Germany. Non-humans were bombed along with humans by Nazi planes.

And since humans are animals too (despite protestations from those who still insist - against all scientific evidence - that humans are not animals), Nazis tortured and murdered millions of human animals. How about that for an animal rights policy!

Mr Zammit says that "some animal lovers are so extremely sensitive to the cruelty that humans continuously inflict on animals that they develop an extreme hatred towards humans". Mr Zammit should perhaps note that this type of "animal lovers" are usually animal exploiters themselves, who have no idea on what animal rights really means.

Mr Zammit's confusion in this regard is evident when he bizarrely believes that Hitler could, in someone's wildest dreams or imagination, be considered as an "animal rights" person.

Mr Zammit says that Nazi atrocities and hypocritical propaganda is the reason why Fr Borg would say that he does not augur that we all become vegetarians. I am sure that Fr Borg is above such silly reasoning, though perhaps, he should explain what he meant by his claim that he does not augur that we all become vegetarians, as if this would bring about harm to anyone, instead of the actual opposite. Veganism, after all, rests on the principle of non-harm.

And may I remind Mr Zammit (or perhaps surprise him with the fact) that Saint Martin De Porres was a vegetarian? Would Mr Zammit say that Saint Martin De Porres was a Nazi? (It would also be interesting to read Fr Borg's thoughts on this. After all, his unthinking statement seems to imply that he would equally say that he, a Catholic priest, would not augur that we all become like Saint Martin De Porres).

Going back to Hitler, it should also be said that the fact that Hitler felt some affection towards a dog, in the same way that millions of humans, feel affection towards their dogs, while they disregard millions of other equally sentient non-human animals exploited and killed just for pleasure and convenience, Hitler felt nothing for millions of Jews tortured and murdered in his death camps. This only goes to show how mentally unstable and hypocritical he was. It says nothing about vegetarianism or veganism, even if he really was a vegetarian, which he was not.

Stalin was a meat eater. So was Charles Manson and Pol Pot. Does this say anything about other meat-eaters and their treatment of other humans? Of course not. Only fools make illogical connections where there are none.

Mr Zammit ends his comment by saying:

"Fr Joe, should pay a little bit more attention to the insidiousness of all the new-fangled ideas creeping into this fair isle of ours".

In view of the above, Mr Zammit's warning amounts to nothing but hot air, which is something I have gotten accustomed to read from people who insist on defending the indefensible, such as the completely unnecessary killing of non-human animals for food, clothing, and entertainment.

Speciesism of the utmost concern

Mr David Borg Cardona's letter in today's The Times, entitled "Species of 'least concern'", is a very good example of the speciesist prejudice that makes it possible for otherwise rational people to find nothing wrong with the totally unnecessary killing of sentient non-human animals.

Mr Borg Cardona writes:

"The letter (The Times, May 2) by Axel Hirschfeld and David Conlin, Committee Against Bird Slaughter (CABS) on turtle-doves deserves a rebuttal. Here is a typical example. In September 2007 one wounded Lesser Spotted Eagle was picked up locally. CABS arranged a free Air Malta flight to Germany for treatment, designated the bird 'rare', named it Sigmar, featured the event on the German TV station ARD and pounced on this unfortunate incident to smear all Maltese hunters hitting at this country in the process".

Nothing much to comment about so far, except perhaps that the people "hitting at this country" are the hunters who tried to murder Sigmar. However, Mr Borg Cardona goes on to say:

"What CABS did not tell the German public was that all law-abiding hunters condemn such illegalities, that the Lesser Spotted Eagle is listed by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) under the taxon 'Least Concern', that its population is between 80,000 and 110,000 individuals (2006 census), that one occurs on Malta once in a blue moon, that such a bird is usually a genetically defective straggler, that its loss far from being a threat to European bio-diversity may actually be considered beneficial for the species, and that the fuss and publicity was necessary for CABS to extract more money from a sympathetic and emotional public, unfortunately deficient in technical and ornithological knowledge".

Putting aside the fact that this species is actually listed as a species of "least concern", which shows the inherent speciesism in society, a society that gives protection to non-human animals only if they are members of a rare species or if the non-humans cannot be profitably exploited by humans for food, clothing, experimentation or entertainment, let's see what Mr Borg Cardona is saying here.

Mr Borg Cardona is actually saying that a Lesser Spotted Eagle, who somehow makes it to Malta "once in a blue moon", is usually a "genetically defective straggler", (a genetically handicapped bird), and that his loss may actually be considered beneficial for the species. If the same logic were applied to humans, this would translate to the following: "The loss, through killing, of "genetically defective humans", (the genetically handicapped), may actually be considered beneficial for the human species". This was exactly Nazi Hitler's policy for the goal of "racial purity" and the creation and preservation of a supposedly "higher Arian race", so this repulsive idea is not far-fetched at all.

Now, of course, I am not saying that Mr Borg Cardona is a Nazi, or that he supports human eugenics. I am inclined to believe that he finds the Nazi ideology, and racism in general, as repulsive as I do. However, it is only speciesist prejudice that creates a clear unbridgeable distinction in the case of humans and that of non-humans, justly condemning such an act as the killing of genetically handicapped humans, while suggesting that genetically handicapped non-humans should perhaps be killed, (or their killing tolerated), for the supposed benefit of the species.

Like all humans, all non-human animals are individuals, and not simply numbers in a collective species. All individual animals have physical and mental experiences, and a life that may fare better or worse for them depending on circumstances and the actions of others. All individual animals value their lives in their own way. Every individual matters. The claim that one, or a few, non-human animal may be sacrificed for a "common good" would seem to suggest that likewise, one, or a few, humans may equally be sacrificed for a "common good". There is no logical reason why there should be a distinction between the case of sacrificed non-humans and that of sacrificed humans. The only thing that creates the false distinction is speciesist prejudice. After all, despite the protestations of those who fail to recognize their own essence, humans are animals too.

Mr Borg Cardona then writes:

"Here the turtle-dove has been always considered, with the quail, as the principal quarry species of hunters. Contrary to CABS's declaration, both these species are listed on the IUCN Red Data List in the category 'Least Concern', meaning they are widespread and abundant species. This information is derived from the 2007 database of the IUCN. But now, in keeping with their promise to do their utmost to ensure that the turtle-dove and the quail 'are removed as huntable species from Appendix II of the EU Bird Protection Guidelines', we expect CABS tactics to include putting pressure on the IUCN and other institutions to list both species as declining and threatened".

Again, it is only speciesism that makes otherwise rational people, assume that just because a species is "widespread" and "abundant", its members may be murdered with impunity. And while a numerous species may not be threatened with extinction, each sentient individual animal is endangered every time a hunter aims his gun at her, as much as each individual animal is endangered by the actions and purpose of the "animal farmer", butcher, vivisector, breeder, and other speciesists.

Mr Borg Cardona concludes his letter by writing:

"While CABS proceeds with its fanatical and hysterical smear campaign, our organisation is determined to ensure not only that our birds remain on Annex II, but that other species that are equally abundant and widespread will also be included as huntable species".

In other words, Mr Borg Cardona is saying that his organization is determined to include more and more sentient non-human animals in the lists of those who may be murdered just because they happen to be members of numerous species, (provided they are not humans), the motivation being that in the year 2008, we still have thousands of people who derive pleasure from killing innocent and sentient animals, as well as the prejudiced assumption that non-humans do not matter at all, just because they are not human.

Speciesism, like racism and sexism, seeks to justify the otherwise unjustifiable, by depersonalizing individuals and by dismissing the plight of "the other". Speciesism is of the utmost concern, and is the final barrier to all-inclusive moral justice and progress.