On hate, moral cowardice, tolerance and priorities

Following last Wednesday's entry entitled "Hate campaigns and tarnished reputations", and my comments on The Times online's report entitled "Hunters call for end to 'hate' campaign", Sylvana Zarb Darmanin's further replies confirmed my deep suspicion that two major stumbling blocks preventing the comprehension of animal rights theory are usually a lack of grasp of ethics and moral philosophy, and sometimes a lack of comprehension of language. Ms Zarb Darmanin unfortunately seems to exhibit both, for how would one otherwise explain her latest comments?

For instance, Ms Zarb Darmanin writes:

"Mr. Cassar, I was glad to read that you have finally confirmed to all and sundry that you are an extremist. Indeed you are tarnishing the reputation of the law-abiding hunters.

As implied, these individuals practice something which is LEGAL whatever way you try to put it.

You mention that you have a right to expose injustice - WHERE IS THIS INJUSTICE?

Remember, there are laws regulating this activity which the law-abiding hunters respect. You have a right to your opinion, however you cannot consider yourself to be superior and impose your opinion on others.

I also have my opinion on various injustices committed, however, I am not that presumptuous to expect that I get my way on such things and neither show hatred towards other human-beings.

Going through your various comments to date, I find it rather hard to understand how you harbour such love towards birds, yet show such hatred and disrespect towards fellow human beings.

Honestly, Mr. Cassar, I just cannot comprehend this!!!".

Well, first of all, I never confirmed that I am an extremist. All that I said was that I am viewed by animal abusers as an extremist.

Ms Zarb Darmanin insist I am tarnishing the reputation of law-abiding hunters. All I am saying is that all hunters needlessly kill animals. I never said that legal hunting is illegal. I only believe it should be. If Ms Zarb Darmanin insists that I am tarnishing reputations by telling the truth, there is not much more I can say, and will let the readers judge for themselves.

Ms Zarb Darmanin asks where is the injustice. The injustice is in the practice of unnecessarily killing animals. That she does not see a problem with this does not make the practice just.

Regarding imposing opinions, anyone who understands basic science, knows that opinions cannot be imposed. One cannot force beliefs or opinions into anyone's mind. To be influenced (which is the most a campaigner can hope for), one needs to be at least receptive to new ideas.

Ms Zarb Darmanin says that she also has her opinion on various injustices committed, but says that she is not that "presumptuous" to expect that she gets her way on such things. Being morally convinced of an injustice and doing nothing about it, is usually called moral cowardice.

As for hate, I do not harbour hate against anyone. I only harbour hate against unjust practices.

I would have expected Ms Zarb Darmanin to understand, and recognize her mistake, particularly in her claim that she would tolerate injustice, and her calling "presumptuous" anyone who would expose or challenge injustice. Alas, the opposite is the case.

Ms Zarb Darmanin writes:

"Please, Please, Mr. Cassar – STOP YOUR INSULTS. One is judged through one's words and actions! Implying that one is ignorant or a coward make your argument no much better. Not doing anything about certain injustices is definitely not cowardice BUT respect and tolerance towards others.

Incidentally I hold the human-being above all others. As for your not harbouring hate against anyone but only harbouring hate against unjust practices, you seem to harbour quite an amount of hatred against me, even though I am not a hunter (an unjust practice in YOUR opinion).

An explanation as to the mix-up in your priorities (as requested in my previous comment) would definitely have been more appropriate than rude insults".

Well, to start with, I didn't insult anyone. It is Ms Zarb Darmanin herself who said (twice) that she would do nothing about injustice. To moral people, doing nothing about injustice is moral cowardice. If one tolerates injustice, that says more about them than it says about me.

Let us see once again what Ms Zarb Darmanin is saying here. Ms Zarb Darmanin says that she also has her opinion on various injustices committed, but goes on to say that, however, she is not that presumptuous to expect that she gets her way on such things.

Now, remember that Ms Zarb Darmanin does not believe that killing birds is an injustice, so when she says that she has her own opinion on various injustices committed, she is limiting the injustices to those committed on humans. To make matters worse, she goes on to insist that "not doing anything about certain injustices is definitely not cowardice BUT respect and tolerance towards others".

So does Ms Zarb Darmanin believe that moral persons should do nothing about injustices, such as discrimination at the work-place, including, but not limited to, sexual and racial discrimination? Does she believe that people should do nothing about injustices such as the incarceration of people for political or religious reasons? Does she believe that people should do nothing about the injustice of torturing prisoners, for whatever reason? But perhaps I am being too harsh. Perhaps this is not what she had in mind when she says that injustice should be tolerated out of respect and tolerance towards the unjust. If this is not what she meant, I sure would like to know what she did mean. Remember we are talking about what she believes to be injustices, and not simply differences of opinion on matters that have nothing to do with justice.

And to make matters worse, since all this is about writing letters and comments, does Ms Zarb Darmanin really believe that people should not even do as "little" as writing a simple letter or comment, opposing injustice, again out of respect and tolerance for the people performing the injustice? And she tells me that I have mixed priorities!

I also must comment on Ms Zarb Darmanin's claim that I "hate her", presumably because I choose to reply to her comments on The Times online. I do not even hate people who have done me personal harm in the past. But if she wants to believe that I see her as worse than such people, again, she might as well suit herself. If I saw every reply to my comments and letters that oppose my views, as coming from people who hate me, I would end up being paranoid and would need psychological help. Ms Zarb Darmanin is lucky in this sense. She only has me and a few others who reply to her comments opposing her views. Surely this should be no case for paranoia.

I also checked her previous comment in The Times online, and found that she didn't mention priorities. But perhaps she refers to when she said: "I find it rather hard to understand how you harbour such love towards birds, yet show such hatred and disrespect towards fellow human-beings".

Her confusion stems from two common mistaken perceptions about myself.

For one, I do not harbour any special love of birds. I just see birds as individuals with an equal right to life and liberty.

I also do not hate human beings. I only believe they have no right to murder non-humans for pleasure or convenience. Once again, I hate practices and not people. To say that someone who opposes the unnecessary killing of non-human animals is someone who hates humans is no different from saying that someone who opposed the Nazi holocaust hates Germans.

If everyone respected everyone else, (including respecting non-human animals), there would be no need for priorities. We would simply live our lives doing as little harm to others as possible. Alas, too many people insist on harming others. To claim that one should not defend the abused or harmed out of respect and "tolerance" towards the abuser is, to put it mildly, bizarre.

I'll end this entry with the lyrics of the song "If you tolerate this, your children will be next" by the Manic Street Preachers, which deal on tolerance of injustice.

The future teaches you to be alone.

The present to be afraid and cold.

So if I can shoot rabbits,

Then I can shoot fascists.

Bullets for your brain today.

But we'll forget it all again.

Monuments put from pen to paper,

Turns me into a gutless wonder.

And if you tolerate this,

Then your children will be next.

Gravity keeps my head down.

Or is it maybe shame,

At being so young and being so vain.

Holes in your head today.

But I'm a pacifist.

I've walked La Ramblas,

But not with real intent.

And if you tolerate this,

Then your children will be next.

And on the street tonight an old man plays,

With newspaper cuttings of his glory days.

And if you tolerate this,

Then your children will be next.

Hate campaigns and tarnished reputations

A quick read of some of the pro-hunting comments under The Times online's news report, entitled "Hunters call for end to 'hate' campaign", makes it clear that the task of convincing animal abusers to stop abusing (and killing) animals, is an uphill struggle.

The main difficulty seems to be either that those who gain pleasure from abusing non-human animals are reluctant to see the facts as they are, or that some of them actually lack the linguistic and logical ability to comprehend the animal rights arguments, or both, as is evidenced in some of the comments I am reproducing (and replying to) below. One may find more comments of mine as well as comments from others in The Times online's article.

In reply to one of my posts, for instance, Sylvana Zarb Darmanin writes:

"Mr Cassar, one must realise that most of the human being’s practices might bother others at one time or another. It then depends on how tolerant one is. I am bothered by many behaviours and acts of other human-beings, as I am sure others are bothered by what I sometimes do. That is absolutely normal. If we are to live peacefully together, we have to put up with these things and respect all individuals.

Unfortunately, some people are all the time pointing fingers and tarnishing other people’s reputations. They would be wise to sit down and think of the many things they do which irritate people. Only then will they start showing respect and tolerance towards others".

Of course, I agree that all practices will bother someone at one time or another. However, the (hunting) issue in question is not simply a case of "bother", but a question of rights. I have no right to launch a campaign against people who wear a brown t-shirt, even if brown t-shirts bother me. However, when it is a question of gross violation of rights, things somewhat change drastically.

However, perhaps, even in cases of rights violations, generally one should not resort to violence or personal hate-campaigns (perhaps it should be pointed out that the only people who resorted to violence in the recent past are hunters, albeit a small minority), but we should limit ourselves to educational and awareness campaigns with the clear intent of convincing a majority - legislation might then, in time, follow. I can see this already, slowly but surely, happening.

One can be tolerant towards a person and intolerant towards a practice that violates rights. To tolerate injustice, however, is to perpetuate and compound injustice. When saying "If we are to live peacefully together, we have to put up with these things and respect all individuals", Sylvana Zarb Darmanin is obviously leaving non-human animals out of the equation.

Regarding tarnishing reputations, I value truth. If truth shows a person to be in the wrong, it is that person's actions that are tarnishing his or her own reputation. Hunters kill non-human animals. If by saying so, and thereby saying the truth, I am tarnishing their reputation, I wonder if Ms Zarb Darmanin believes I should lie, and say that hunters don't kill non-human animals. If, on the other hand, this is not what Ms Zarb Darmanin expects from me, then is it perhaps possible that by claiming that I am tarnishing hunters' reputations by saying that they kill non-human animals, she recognizes that unnecessarily killing non-human animals tarnishes one's reputation, and therefore, if one sees the logic, hunting is wrong? But perhaps I am giving Ms Zarb Darmanin too much credit. Perhaps all Ms Zarb Darmanin means when complaining about tarnished reputations, is that hunters are above criticism.

Moral persons have an active duty to expose injustice, and I'll keep on doing just that.

Then, following my reply, Ms Zarb Darmanin wrote:

"Don't you think you are infringing on the rights of the law abiding hunter? This traditional pastime (hunting) is practised throughout the world. It seems that only the Maltese anti-hunting lobby are being so intolerant towards these hunters. As usual you are tarnishing the reputation of the law abiding hunter and I feel you have absolutely no right to do so. That is what call disrespect to the people around you. You may accuse law breakers, and I will join you in this, BUT placing all hunters in one basket and accusing them unjustifiably is definitely a shortcoming!

That is injustice indeed. Mr Cassar, it appears that my comments invariably hit home. This has been going on for years. Is it a case of la verita' offende? (the truth hurts?)".

Ms Zarb Darmanin's reply raises further questions, such as: Is someone who opposes killing, infringing the rights of the killer, even in cases where the killing is done legally? Are people who oppose capital punishment infringing the rights of the executioner? Are people who oppose torture and killing conducted by dictatorial regimes infringing the rights of the dictators? I don't think so.

That something is practiced throughout the world does not necessarily make it right. Human slavery was also once practiced throughout the world. We abolished it. If Ms Zarb Darmanin thinks that only the Maltese anti-hunting lobby opposes hunting, she needs to spend some time browsing some international abolitionist websites.

And, once again, how am I tarnishing the reputation of the law abiding hunter, when all I am saying is that hunters do not have the right to deprive innocent and sentient animals of their lives?

How does one tarnish reputations by saying the truth (that hunters kill birds)?

All hunters unnecessarily kill birds (or other animals). That is why I put them "in the same basket". I only accuse them of killing birds, which is the truth. If they didn't kill birds, they would not be hunters, and their reputations would not be tarnished.

In the meantime, Stef Zarb Darmanin (a relative of Sylvana perhaps?), writes:

"Although I am tolerant towards law-abiding hunters, I can understand that some people have different opinions. However I cannot comprehend why these people are defending birds and not other animals. Can you please enlighten me about the difference in the killing of birds, fish, cows, pigs, rabbits, chicken, and many other animals?

Finally, what about snails which people who enjoy the countryside often also enjoy destroying rubble walls in order to find? Incidentally, these poor snails are kept in captivity for quite a long time without any food, and then cooked alive!".

I of course agree with Stef that there is no difference in the killing of birds, fish, cows, pigs, rabbits, chickens, snails and all other animals. However, BirdLife Malta (the organisation the original article is about) is not an abolitionist animal rights organization. That is why it deals principally and perhaps exclusively on issues regarding illegal hunting of birds. I, on the other hand, am an abolitionist animal rights campaigner, and thus I defend the interests and rights of all animals.

Strangely enough, if one is consistent in defending all animals, one is called an extremist. If, on the other hand, one is not morally consistent, and defends only some animals, one is criticized for being inconsistent. So apparently, the choice is between either being morally inconsistent or being seen as an "extremist". I'd rather choose the latter, since justice requires moral consistency, and I am a strong believer in truth and justice. Hunters may keep complaining of "tarnished reputations". My principal concern is not my own reputation, but that of saving lives. If someone sees saving lives as a "hate campaign", perhaps they need some re-education.

Apologies for placing the picture of a hunter with a gun. I sincerely hope it does not tarnish the hunters' reputations.

On strays, neutering, breeding and the property status of non-human animals

Christine Peters writes a well-intentioned letter entitled "Neutering/spaying should start with pets" in today's The Times. However, while the main gist of the letter is well-reasoned and well-intentioned, I feel I must voice my disagreement with some of her proposals, some of which I see as not workable in our speciesist society, while others are simply counter-productive or unfair.

Ms Peters writes:

"At long last something good is about to start happening to help the poor homeless animals and to reduce the immense over population of strays and abandoned animals. It is about time!

In reference to starting with the strays, however, in my country we have a saying: 'The horse was saddled backwards'.

So I suggest that this neutering or spaying and chip campaign should begin with privately-owned pets first.

To prevent these pets' offspring from being abandoned on the streets of Malta, should there not be free neutering and spaying and chip registration (or some financial help) for pet owners?

Much of the problem to do with overpopulation of dogs on the streets of Malta stems from owners irresponsibly allowing their pets to roam the streets un-neutered and un-spayed. The next stage could then be the neutering and spaying of the strays".

Let's ignore the fact, perhaps unknown to the general public, that a few years back, some foreign vets were actually prohibited by the government from offering the service of free neutering of stray animals, and the fact that this would have reduced significantly the amount needed to cover the expense of a national neutering campaign, (although, of course, this would have meant that local vets would have made less money from privately neutering animals themselves, at a charge which would be paid either directly by the public, or indirectly through a government scheme paid through our taxes). Let me limit myself to the main gist of this letter.

There are two types of pet-owners. There are those who own pets for altruistic reasons. These usually adopt dogs or cats from animal sanctuaries or shelters, animals who are many times already neutered or spayed, and thus saving their lives, or making it possible for sanctuaries to save more lives. The second type are those pet owners who own pets because they are either pet enthusiasts (petophiles), or else wish to make money out of their owned animals. Because this second type generally sees non-human animals as human property, they would usually see a neutered or spayed cat or dog as "damaged property". And since many of this second type of pet owners would want to make profit out of their animal property, it is not to be expected that these would spay or neuter - and thus "damage" or "make useless" their means of making a profit.

Therefore, Ms Peters' suggestion that there should be free neutering and spaying and financial help for all pet owners is both unfair and unworkable. This is because, first of all, many pet owners would not want to neuter or spay their animal property anyway, for the reasons mentioned above. Secondly, people who can afford to pay high prices to purchase a pure-breed and thus satisfy their petophile urges, instead of saving a life by adopting from an animal sanctuary, should be expected to pay for their own expenses connected to their hobby or slave-trade. After all, no one would expect the government to subsidise other hobbies.

Moreover, as Ms Peters herself writes,

"In the animal sanctuaries of Malta all animals are neutered and spayed. AAA is a very good example. Here every single dog and cat is neutered or spayed and chipped and provided with documentation to this effect as soon as they arrive at the AAA".

Therefore, this makes it clear that what should perhaps be done is the following: The government should devote some of the funds to help the animal sanctuaries in their feeding, medical neutering and micro-chipping expenses, while people who would want to adopt an abandoned animal from a sanctuary would not need to spend anything on neutering or micro-chipping, as this would already have been seen to by the sanctuary in question.

As for those who insist on buying "pure-breeds" from animal exploiters, these should actually be discouraged from doing so, and not actually encouraged through government financial assistance or subsidies.

Ms Peters concludes her letter by writing:

"It is necessary to start with the breeding kennels and private owners to avoid overpopulation and even more animals ending up on the streets of this island. Breeders should have to declare their business and pay tax on their profits.

I urge the minister to rethink".

Of course, it would truly be necessary to start with breeding kennels. Closing them down, although unrealistic in a speciesist world, would be a major solution. As for animal exploiters declaring their slavery business and paying taxes on their exploitation profits, this goes without saying, although it would still leave the non-human animals in the same situation of abuse, albeit perhaps making it a little more expensive for the slave traders.

Therefore, I too would urge the minister to rethink, although knowing full well that all politicians are speciesists, I know that my suggestions would not be put into practice.

This leaves the task of diminishing or ending animal exploitation in the hands of the public. After all, the government need not actively close down animal breeders for animal exploitation to end. All that is required is for breeders to have no customers, thus making their slave-trade unprofitable. And this applies to all forms of speciesist use of non-human animals, be the use for food, clothing, entertainment or experimentation.

For an institutionalized exploitation to persist, all it requires is a sufficient amount of customers. For an institutionalized exploitation to end, all that is required is for people like you to stop using products or services that rely or include any sort of animal exploitation.

Speaking of which, Philip Leventhal from the Columbia University Press (that has recently published Gary L. Francione's new book "Animals as Persons: Essays on the Abolition of Animal Exploitation") has yesterday brought to my attention an article by Wendy Lochner, senior executive editor for Religion, Philosophy, and Animal Studies, where she writes:

"Why animal studies now? Like many people who are interested in the fate of animals and of the Earth, I came to this issue from an activist animal-rights perspective. My background is in philosophy, and I eagerly read and absorbed the arguments of Peter Singer and Tom Regan. As I read further I became hungry for approaches that moved even further toward commonality, and I embraced the absolutist views of scholars such as Gary Francione".

Gary L. Francione being the currently most eloquent and uncompromising advocate for the abolition of the property status of non-human animals, I personally cannot wait to read his latest book.

I would strongly suggest to anyone who cares at all about non-human animals to get hold of a copy of any or all of his books for, among other things, a thorough explanation of how, as long as non-human animals are seen to be human property, there will be no end to their abuse and exploitation.

As Gary L. Francione says,

"The central position of my rights theory is that we have no justification for treating animals as our property just as we had no justification for treating other humans as slaves. We have abolished human chattel slavery in most parts of the world; similarly, we should abolish animal slavery.

But what does that mean in the context of nonhumans? Should we 'liberate' animals and let them wander freely in the streets? No, of course not. That would be as irresponsible as allowing small children to wander around. We should certainly care for those nonhumans whom we have already brought into existence but we should stop causing any more to come into existence. We have no justification for using nonhumans - however 'humanely' we treat them".