ANIMAL RIGHTS MALTA'S BLOG

"I call for humans to have at least equal rights with animals"

2009-08-01T10:55:00.019+02:00

In an anti-abortion letter in The Times of Malta of July 29, Gerry Cowie somehow thought he would serve his anti-abortion agenda by saying absurdities such as "I call for humans to have at least equal rights with animals. For too long they have come a poor second!".

My reply was the following:

If Gerry Cowie were to reverse that statement, this would necessitate compulsory veganism.

No, Mr Cowie, non-human animals do not have it that good. "Animals" are not just cats and dogs.

Millions of non-human animals are killed every year for food, and not only do few people complain, people actually pay others to kill these millions of animals.

And to put things in their proper perspective, while abortion is illegal in Malta (so what's the point of the letter?), the killing of millions of sentient animals for food or clothing is not.

Humans clearly do not come out as a "clear second". Humans are not considered legal property.

Dismiss this as extremist if you wish, but I am only stating facts without even making any moral judgement on the issue. People who think non-humans have it better than humans in Malta are simply deluded.

To the above, Gerry Cowie chose to reply as follows:

"Mr Kenneth Cassar has totally missed my point about rights and twisted it rather badly! My rather tongue-in-cheek comment about equal rights is merely an extension of my parallel between how we treat humans as opposed to animals".

A self-defeating loaded short comment full of misrepresentation and incomprehension, to which I replied:

How have I missed your point? And how have I twisted anything? All I mentioned was facts which you conveniently evaded.

Your "tongue-in-cheek" remark is completely off the mark, as I have demonstrated. Of course, you can always say that human life is more important (though one should ask...more important to whom? Certainly not to the non-human animals themselves).

Perhaps you should also note that the abortion of non-human foetuses is legal in Malta. So is the killing of any pet for whatever reason, provided it is done by a vet. So how exactly do non-humans have it better?

People are expected to do a little research before making wild and unsubstantiated claims. Tongue-in-cheek comments where the killing of innocent sentient beings is concerned, are certainly not appreciated, even when done to serve another agenda. I am sure you would not appreciate a tongue-in-cheek comment where it concerns the killing of innocent sentient human lives.

You may once again say that I'm missing and twisting the point about rights if you wish. You clearly have no idea about moral and legal rights, as well as the difference between the two. Don't meddle in topics you don't understand.

It would also help if you indicate to whom you were referring when you mentioned "sarcasm from those who oppose human life". I see neither sarcasm nor "opposition" to human life here. As JJ Meli has said (but of course, with different people in mind), "many of us start to comment against a person without actually reading properly what would have been said in his letter. At least we must admit that some of us are always ready to blog our idea's which could be bad. My advice is read it again and then comment". You would do well to heed JJ Meli's remark.

"My rather tongue-in-cheek comment about equal rights is merely an extension of my parallel between how we treat humans as opposed to animals".

The above quote from your comment shows very clearly that you did not even try to understand mine before 'shooting it down'. Your tongue-in-cheek comment about equal rights is completely off the mark precisely because it 'is merely an extension of (your) parallel between how we treat humans as opposed to animals'.

Just in case you have not got it yet, here is how we treat non-human animals: We abort their foetuses legally if we wish to do so; we kill them legally whenever we wish to (at the vet's); we force many of them to work for us, and kill them when they cannot work any more; we conduct painful terminal experiments on millions of them; we lock millions of them in cages for life; and these are just some of the legal things we do to them.

Do you still believe that your "parallel" helps in any way? I don't think so. Only a tiny minority of lucky non-humans live a life close enough to what most of us would take for-granted.

To which, Mr Cowie replied:

"Humans are not animals. You do not seem to want to accept the point I am trying to make here.

Human beings are often badly treated! Sadly many humans cannot 'take life for granted' since it is so easily (and 'legally') taken from them. Humans must come before animals. Those who believe otherwise truly are quite simply deluded.

Sadly society often places animals before people! So, back to my original point, which you do not appear prepared to accept:- It is high time we gave humankind the importance that some extreme animal lovers are prepared to give to animals!

I think your angry response serves only to add weight to my argument. I think you too would do well to read Mr Meli's other remarks since he clearly puts human beings first. If you value human life above animal life then please say so!

Perhaps you should make your point more clearly in future if you don't want what you say to be misinterpreted, if that is your issue here.

'Don't meddle in topics you don't understand!' Animals and humans - two different things. Your own parallel is sadly out of kilter with mine!".

Incredible. So much confusion and ignorance of basic facts of biology and evolution, to say nothing of the (I cannot put it more kindly) silliness of the belief that non-humans have it better than humans and that humans put non-human animals before other humans. So I could not help but reply in the following way:

You claim that humans are not animals. That explains a lot. Further debate with someone who doesn't know that Homo Sapiens is an animal species, would be a waste of time. But I'll answer your points anyway because they once again misrepresent (intentionally or otherwise) what I actually said.

1. True, humans are often badly treated. So are non-human animals.

2. True, many humans cannot 'take life for-granted'. So do much more non-human animals.

3. Humans cannot come before animals because humans are animals.

4. I am not an animal lover (whatever that means).

5. My response was not at all angry. It only exposed your lack of knowledge on the issue of animal rights and the treatment of non-human animals.

6. Every individual (and species) values its life above others (except for extreme altruists).

7. You have ignored and failed to address the proof I gave that we treat non-human animals much worse than we do humans.

8. Your 'argument', put simply, was that we treat 'animals' better than humans. I gave you enough evidence that the opposite is the case. The onus is on you to prove me wrong. You haven't even tried yet.

I expect more nonsense from Mr Cowie, but I am still undecided whether I will bother to reply. How can one conduct an intelligent debate with someone who still believes that humans "are not animals"?

On hate, moral cowardice, tolerance and priorities

2008-06-20T07:28:00.012+02:00

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

2008-06-18T17:24:00.006+02:00

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

2008-06-04T08:48:00.007+02:00

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".

Some animals are more equal than others

2008-05-28T08:27:00.009+02:00

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

2008-05-27T09:29:00.008+02:00

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"

2008-05-16T13:54:00.003+02:00

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?

2008-05-11T15:25:00.005+02:00

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

2008-05-08T10:57:00.005+02:00

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.

On commodifying hunting dogs and other animals

2008-04-28T10:14:00.006+02:00

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

2008-04-26T16:30:00.003+02:00

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

2008-04-25T09:20:00.004+02:00

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

2008-04-22T11:50:00.014+02:00

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

2008-04-19T12:25:00.006+02:00

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

2008-04-17T10:00:00.007+02:00

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

2008-04-14T16:40:00.004+02:00

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

2008-04-14T14:00:00.008+02:00

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

2008-04-12T14:00:00.013+02:00

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

2008-04-05T14:05:00.015+02:00

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

2008-04-04T12:15:00.019+02:00

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

2008-04-01T15:45:00.018+02:00

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

Hunting, like all animal abuse, simply should not be

2008-03-30T18:00:00.010+02:00

Mark Mifsud Bonnici, secretary of the "St Hubertus" hunters, writes a letter in today's The Sunday Times (entitled "Hunting as it should be") in which he both seeks to defend the practice of legal hunting by correctly claiming that the meat bought from supermarkets is also the product of killed animals, and also to condemn illegal hunting, for, in his own words: "The few irresponsible hunters must be reined in, if for no other reason, not to be used by unscrupulous anti-hunters to tarnish Malta's international reputation".

I will of course not waste much space arguing that it is our democratic freedom of the press that allows anyone to report on any illegality - illegal hunting being no exception - and that there is nothing to be scrupulous about when reporting on facts.

Mr Mifsud Bonnici writes:

"In the past, hunting was the prime source of food for mankind, and all men were hunters. Development has brought about a change in this instinctive practice. City dwellers who obtain their food from supermarkets have lost their primeval instinct and unknowingly ignore the fact that all meat is not born in plastic bags, but reared, fattened and slaughtered in abattoirs.

These people, far removed from the unpleasant realities of life and conditioned by the fictional trappings of modernity, are usually the first to condemn hunting as a barbaric, obsolete practice.

Hunting has now evolved into a regulated form of relaxation and recreation enjoyed by many people worldwide. It also provides the hunter with a source of healthy food. In fact the benefits of eating game (sic) are steadily being promoted as part of a healthy diet".

Mr Mifsud Bonnici then veers his letter in the direction alluded to above, which, for reasons I will explain shortly, does not necessitate reproduction on this blog.

Mr Mifsud Bonnici echoes my thoughts in the first paragraph, although I draw a totally different conclusion.

I have personally always maintained that perhaps subsistence hunting (hunting for food) might actually be less cruel than buying meat from supermarkets, the meat usually coming from animals who are confined in small unnatural spaces for their whole lives before actually being killed. In fact, on January 27, I wrote: "In terms of suffering for the animals concerned, most probably a 'clean' shot from a hunter causes less suffering than a life in a modern 'farm' and the actual execution of the non-human animals to obtain their skin and flesh or other 'products'. Humane slaughter is a myth".

That said, considering that veganism is an option, this does not exonerate hunting. One should not accept an unnecessary "lesser evil" just because opting for the "greater evil" would be worse.

As I wrote on January 27, "hunting most probably was a necessity to our ancestors, both as a means of defence from predators, and as a means of sustenance and clothing. However...we do not need to kill any animals for clothing and food (anymore). Humans can live a perfectly healthy life on a vegan diet, and similarly, the skin of non-human animals is not necessary to clothe humans, particularly when there are sufficient clothing options available that are not made of dead animal skins".

It must also be pointed out, that hunters in Malta are not subsistence hunters, and all of them buy meat from supermarkets.

As for the rest of the letter, I will spare you my own commentary, since it does not concern abolitionist animal rights activists (please note that neither BirdLife nor Proact are animal rights (AR) organizations - animal rights organizations oppose all kinds of animal killing, including that the product of which ends up in what Mr Mifsud Bonnici correctly describes as ending up in plastic bags in supermarkets).

It is also worth mentioning at this point that not only has there never been an animal rights activist in the Ornis Committee criticized by Mr Mifsud Bonnici in his letter (the committee was set up to study and give recommendations to the government on hunting regulations), but there actually can never be one, for the simple reason that an animal rights activist would by definition stick to his uncompromising conviction that no animal should be unnecessarily killed, be the animal a member of a numerous species, protected species, or otherwise.

It is perhaps also worth stressing that an animal rights activist would not bother with numbers (fabricated or true), since to animal rights activists, every animal matters.

That said, animal rights activists, being members of a democracy, concede that democracies function through majority rule. This essentially means that education is the only key to a gradual elimination of all animal abuse, while legislation is the means by which the regulations against abuse recognized to be such by the non-AR majority are to be enforced.

AR activists are also intelligent enough to recognize that now that we have become members of the EU through a majority vote, we have willingly handed over some of our "sovereignty" to the EU. This, in effect, means that Malta must abide to EU regulations, for better or for worse. The spring hunting issue is no exception.

Hunting dogs are no dummies, but neither are we

2008-03-27T12:45:00.012+01:00

Fabian Borg of the Federation for Hunters, Trappers and "Conservationists" is the next to write to The Times in reply to my letter of March 11, where I made it clear enough that:

"The question is not: 'Should we choose the dog over the bird or the bird over the dog?', but: 'Should we sacrifice the greater interest of a bird (life itself) for the significantly lesser interest of a dog in fetching dead birds'".

But apparently, both Ray Zammit and now Fabian Borg, missed that point entirely. Below, I am reproducing Fabian Borg's reply in full. But since Mr Borg's letter misses the point entirely, and deals only on "hunting" dogs' overall experience of hunting, some of this blog's readers would be excused if they skip Mr Borg's letter completely (the content of which is morally irrelevant even if mostly true) and proceed to my reply which won't be too long, since the entire "justification" for hunting out of "concern for the hunting dogs" could easily be refuted in a few sentences.

Mr Borg, in his letter "Hunting dogs are no dummies", writes:

"Hunting dogs do what they do best: Hunt. In view of the letters by Kenneth Cassar and Joe Aquilina (March 11) one needs to stress the facts that prove the above statement.

Comparing dummies to game birds is just another gimmick which can blind those people who are not familiar with the subject. I believe that Mr Cassar especially, given his knowledge of animals, should know better. For example, he should know about the particular scent released by a migrating game bird, which is not even comparable to that of a bird raised in captivity, let alone to a dummy.

When saying that dogs hunt, it means they participate in full before, during and after the taking of the bird. Flushing dogs, such as Pointers are used to hunt quail and not just to fetch the dead bird. Quail is very hard to flush, especially in spring, because of the dense grass and high wheat stems, not to mention wasteland in which the quail blends in perfectly to an invisible level. Attempting to hunt quail without a well-trained dog is a non-starter, indicating the origin of the old Maltese proverb that "għas-summien kelb ta' mitt lira u senter ta' sold" (in the case of quail, [what you need] is a Lm100 dog and a one penny shotgun).

During quail hunting, the dog plays the most important role and, believe me, they would know what is happening and they feel satisfaction and pride after the job. The fetching part during quail hunting is the easy part as the bird would have lost its cover and the drop zone would be already identified.

On the other hand, turtle doves are very wary and dogs must remain almost motionless while the occasional dove is approaching.

This while keeping an eye on the whereabouts of the drop zone in order to obtain a quick fetch and earliest return to the hiding place.

A well-trained and experienced dog on many occasions is another pair of eyes for the hunter as a quick look at the sky by the dog would surely signify an approaching bird that might still be unnoticed by the hunter.

I trust that the little information shared above may enlighten readers that a dummy is just a dummy in whatever way you use it".

I will immediately concede that a dummy is no exact replica of a live bird, just as a vegan burger is no exact replica of a "beef" burger. However, someone who follows an ethic of respect for the rights of all sentient animals, would choose a dummy for one's dog as much as he or she would choose a vegan burger for lunch.

What I particularly find extremely strange is when someone would claim that dogs have rights (for instance, to hunt) while claiming that birds do not.

Suddenly, hunters are bandying about the word "rights" in an attempt to rally sympathy for their dogs, when their real not-so-hidden agenda is that of pursuing their own interest, which is the satisfaction they get from killing birds. Until recently, they would have sought to ridicule anyone who suggested that non-human animals have rights. I'm sure that, for instance, Ray Orland, who commented in The Times that "those are the proper 'hunting dogs' rights'!!! to find the bird and catch it finally...", would have a very interesting conversation with Daniel Xriha, who, on March 5 wrote: "Where did these 'rights' suddenly originate from? Do these 'rights' really exist? It is only human beings that have rights, and these rights go hand in hand with obligations".

And what should one make of Mark Mifsud Bonnici's comment that "Kenneth Cassar should know gun dogs have a right to hunt. The problem is he doesn't admit that they do...So my advice is, keep silent until you learn the facts before you comment as you can only make a fool of yourself by being ignorant", when, as recently as July 15, 2007 he wrote that "It is quite obvious that people defending animal rights...would resort to any means to strengthen their cause...the truth is definitely not within their vocabulary".

So do animals have "rights" (to hunt) now that it suits hunters? And would this make Mark Mifsud Bonnici someone who would resort to any means to strengthen their cause, the truth definitely not being within his vocabulary? Or should he perhaps keep silent until he learns the facts before he comments, so that he doesn't make a fool of himself by being ignorant?

Who knows? Maybe I have managed to influence some hunters in becoming "sentimentalists", "extremists", and "fundamentalists". Next thing you know, they'll tell us they are going vegan.

However, if they really understood the concept of a right, and are not saying that the dog has "rights" in an anthropomorphic way, then how can they say that a dog has rights while a bird does not?

Since rights are means of protecting interests, isn't life itself a more significant interest than just the enjoyment of a practice?

And if dogs have rights despite not being human, how can one justify the claim that birds (also non-human animals) do not have rights? Perhaps, Mark Mifsud Bonnici from the "St Hubertus" hunters, who wrote that Mr Borg's letter "might serve to explain what dogs do and feel whilst they hunt and people will learn from (his) writings", would like to explain what birds feel while they are being shot.

Rights are not a matter of personal taste - either one has rights or one does not.

The person who claims that some non-human animals have rights (for instance, dogs) necessarily believes that being human is not a pre-requisite for having rights. This puts dogs and birds on an equal footing. Therefore, like interests should be treated alike. However, more fundamental interests (like life itself) should be given more weight to lesser interests (such as pleasure).

Hunters are thus left with two choices, if they are to be at least seen as consistent, and thus be taken seriously. They should either re-consider their claim that dogs have a "right" to hunt, or else consider that the simple fact that a dog has rights means that a bird does too. And since the bird's right to life is more fundamental, it trumps the dog's "right" to hunt.

That said, since dogs are conditioned to assist hunters, they, like human children, cannot be held as morally culpable. However, adult hunters are moral persons who should be accountable for their actions. This is what makes all the difference.

Hunting dogs are no dummies, but neither are we.

Hunters' vote...it really didn't matter

2008-03-25T15:40:00.006+01:00

Carmel Farrugia, in today's The Times, writes that "To some biased people the recent general election 'proved' that hunters and trappers are 'a spent force' and the hunters' and trappers'vote 'totally insignificant and ineffective'".

I'm not sure whether Mr Farrugia would consider me as one of the "biased people". But then again, who can be more biased about hunting than hunters themselves? All I can say is that although I truly believe that hunters and trappers are a spent force (actually they were never a force to begin with), and that the hunters' and trappers' vote in the last general elections was totally insignificant and ineffective, I certainly do not mean to say that their votes might not have swayed the election result one way or another. Of course they did, in exactly the same way that every other voter's vote did.

What I actually mean, which is what I wrote on February 6 (before the general elections) is that no matter how hunters vote, and no matter which party is elected to government, this would not change the fact that the decision on whether to abolish spring hunting or not rests entirely in the hands of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). So in this sense, it is very true to say that on this issue (spring hunting), hunters and trappers are truly a spent force and that, as I said on February 6, their votes do not matter, just as my vote did not matter too.

Mr Farrugia then says that "It is incredibly naive to think that the votes of hunters and trappers and their families amounting to well over 30,000 do not make a difference in Maltese elections which can be won or lost by a few hundred votes. In the last election the hunters and trappers were at liberty to vote as they wished and one cannot say what they did".

I have to agree with Mr Farrugia here, but again, I must point out that though it is true that no one can tell how the majority of the hunters voted, one can still say with certainty that no matter how they voted, this will not change the fact that the final say on spring hunting is in the hands of the ECJ. This also comes clearly from Mr Farrugia's next statement, where he writes that:

"The positions of the Nationalist Party and of the Malta Labour Party were practically identical on the spring hunting issue, both declaring they would abide by the decision of the European Court of Justice and that both parties if elected to government were prepared to defend spring hunting at the ECJ".

Again, nothing new.

Mr Farrugia then goes on to say that "If one thing can be stated objectively, this is that this election has proved nothing conclusively about the hunters' and trappers' vote. The only party with a clear-cut anti-hunting policy failed, yet again, to obtain even one parliamentary seat. This alone should by now hopefully send a clear message to the leaders of both major political parties, who were so scared of losing the so-called environmentalists' votes. If ever such votes had any true value for the self-proclaimed environmentalists, then Alternativa Demokratika should have had a voice in Parliament for 18 years".

Perhaps here it will suffice for me to repeat what I wrote on February 6:

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

So if, as Mr Farrugia suggests, "If ever such votes had any true value for the self-proclaimed environmentalists, then Alternativa Demokratika (AD) should have had a voice in Parliament for 18 years", what would one make of the fact that when the hunter federation's secretary contested an election, most of the hunters themselves did not vote for him? Of course, Mr Farrugia would perhaps contend that most voters do not vote on single issues, but this cuts both ways. Just as AD were not elected due to several factors too complicated to go into here, and not due to their stand on hunting, Lino Farrugia similarly did not get elected not due to his obvious support for hunting, but for other reasons only hunters themselves would know.

Mr Farrugia then writes: "More importantly on this particular occasion the hunting federation (FKNK) did not think it appropriate to direct its members to vote for a particular party. The government just elected, now more sensitive to the wishes of an electorate of which hunters and trappers form a decisive chunk, will be more cautious on all matters, hunting included. It cannot afford to ignore the message behind an election result giving it just a wafer-thin majority. One lesson the new government has hopefully learnt is not to give too much importance to the bleating of people known for their extreme anti-hunting sentiments".

Perhaps someone should remind Mr Farrugia that Malta is now a member of the European Union (EU). This effectively means that we must abide by EU regulations. Has it not occurred to Mr Farrugia that the only reason why both the Nationalist Party and the Malta Labour Party, who usually disagree on all things except an increase in the salary of their representatives in parliament, miraculously agreed on abiding by the ECJ's decision on the spring hunting issue? Has it not occurred to Mr Farrugia that the only reason why these two eternal enemies agreed on this issue is because they both recognize that the final decision is not theirs to take, but the ECJ's?

Contrary to what Mr Farrugia says, one lesson the new government has hopefully learnt is not to give too much importance to the bleating of people known for their extreme pro-hunting sentiments, when neither the pro-hunting, nor the anti-hunting advocates have any say in the matter. And this is what people like me have been saying for years. It is only a matter of time until we are proven right. I cannot stress this fact too much: hunters may take revenge on any party by voting for another party, but this won't change the fact that both the Nationalist Party and the Malta Labour Party have absolutely no power to decide on the spring hunting issue.

Mr Farrugia concludes his letter by saying: "Hunters and trappers are the true environmentalists, the first managers of our natural habitat, and the best contributors towards what is known, to use a buzzword misunderstood by many, as biodiversity. I firmly believe that the EU Commission's mission statement to 'halt the loss of biodiversity by 2010' will not happen in Malta if the hunting/trapping seasons are not opened, especially the traditional socio-cultural season of spring".

I guess I'll have to take the above as a joke, and leave it at that. But let me conclude this commentary by making a totally unbiased statement in the hope that hunters will finally see this whole issue in perspective. Let's say the 90% or more who according to the last The Times poll have shown that they oppose spring hunting are somehow convinced that hunters are "true environmentalists", that they are the "best contributors towards biodiversity", and that to "halt the loss of biodiversity by 2010" Malta must retain the "socio-cultural" spring hunting season. Let us suppose that 100% of the Maltese population miraculously get to support spring hunting. This too will not change a thing. This issue, to stress the point once again, rests on the final decision to be taken by the European Court of Justice. Get it?

"Hunting" dogs, animal rights and breeding property

2008-03-24T16:20:00.014+01:00

Ray Zammit, in defensive-mode, writes a letter in today's The Times, in reply to my own where I explained that dogs who accompany hunters in Malta do not hunt, but simply fetch, and that this makes the suggestion by Danica Rosso that abolishing hunting is cruel to dogs, absurd.

Mr Zammit writes:

"Kenneth Cassar of Animal Rights (March 11) writes that all hunting dogs do is fetch dead birds. He might have made animal rights his crusade but he seems to be ignorant about anything else related to animals. People with even the slightest knowledge about dogs refer to such dogs as retrievers since their breeding throughout the years as an aid to the hunter has perfected their sense of finding dead game and retrieving it. These dogs cannot be considered as hunting dogs even though they play a very crucial role in the hunting world.

Clearly he has no idea that hunting dogs exist. These dogs include setters, pointers, spaniels, hounds and terriers. These purposely-bred dogs are trained to hunt, follow, chase, trail, track and retrieve birds or ground game (sic). These dogs do not need, as his warped suggestion states, "wings or guns to hunt" game-birds or ground game. They use their noses, their brains, their hunting instincts, and the training expounded on them with patience and love by people like young Danica Rosso (February 29). Before taking her to task, and making a fool of himself in the process, the least he could have done is check his facts".

Mr Zammit assumes that I am ignorant about anything related to animals. I admit that I am no expert on all things related to non-human animals, but to my credit, I am more than willing to learn, which is why I spend much of my free time reading on diverse but related topics such as animal rights, evolutionary biology, philosophy, etc, apart from learning through direct observation. In this vein, I would be very grateful if Mr Zammit would explain to me how "hunting" dogs can possibly hunt high-flying birds without the aid of wings or guns.

Call it a "warped suggestion" as he may, the onus is on him to explain how dogs (on their own) can possibly hunt birds. Common sense shows that they are not physically endowed to hunt flying animals. I would therefore be very grateful if Mr Zammit, instead of simply saying that I am making a fool of myself, kindly explains how dogs in Malta hunt. In the absence of such an explanation, rational people like myself will be entitled to hold the belief that all that dogs do is fetch. It is certainly true that "purposely-bred dogs" are "trained to hunt, follow, chase, trail, track and retrieve" birds such as pheasants or "ground game", but it would perhaps be worth reminding Mr Zammit that here we are discussing the hunting of turtle-doves and common quails. Dogs certainly cannot hunt turtle-doves. They can only fetch their dead bodies. As for common quails, if Maltese hunting dogs hunt them, the hunters might as well leave their guns at home. And while he's busy trying to explain how a dog can possibly "hunt" a high-flying bird, he might even consider addressing my question of March 11, which he conveniently ignored, where I wrote: "The question is not: 'Should we choose the dog over the bird or the bird over the dog?', but: 'Should we sacrifice the greater interest of a bird (life itself) for the significantly lesser interest of a dog in fetching dead birds, especially when this can be replaced with an equally satisfying (for the dog, not the human hunter) practice of fetching inanimate objects?'".

Mr Zammit goes on to say:

"The way this AR activist puts forward his misinformed views in this newspaper (The Times) is disturbing. His absurd 'explanation' about hunting dogs is typical. To top up the nonsense, he writes that 'dogs' unfortunate status today is that of being human property' implying thereby that dogs should have complete freedom and, in their capacity of 'non-human persons', be allowed to roam around freely unattended by their 'owners'! Does he realise the unacceptable chaos this would create or the cruelty it would cause? Perhaps he would care to share with readers his master plan, if he has one, as to how he intends to change the present status of dogs as pets and treasured 'human property'".

Regarding dogs being human property, and his assumption that I implied that dogs should all be set free, I would like to rest Mr Zammit’s mind that that is far from what I meant. 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.

If Mr Zammit is interested in learning more about the reasons behind this conclusion (which cannot be fully explained in a short letter in a newspaper), he is more than welcome to visit my blog, where he will find a list of books he may buy to learn more about animal rights in general, and this issue in particular. Reading might help him to either change his views, or else enable him to make informed criticism.

Mr Zammit then goes on to write that:

"Mr Cassar concludes with his usual AR ideology 'that no sentient individual should be exploited or killed just for someone else's pleasure, be that someone human or non-human'. According to Mr Cassar, hunters may not shoot birds for the table, nor should dogs and cats eat meat and fish. Besides, if scientists were to prove that all plants are also 'sentient', and in some cases they have done so already, then goodbye to vegetarianism! Perhaps we could then eat one another, with AR permission of course!".

Mr Zammit sure got right the fact that respect for animals' rights entails that we should not exploit any animal for pleasure or convenience, and this means that hunters should not murder birds for any reason. Of course, contrary to what Mr Zammit suggests, this does not mean that animals who are obligate carnivores (they have no choice) should not eat meat. However, humans and many other animals are not obligate carnivores. This means that humans who kill non-human animals for food do it just for pleasure and convenience. That's what makes it wrong.

Regarding Mr Zammit’s question regarding what would happen if scientists were to prove that plants are also sentient (a term which is commonly used both in science and philosophy – hence no need to put it in quotes), my reply is simple. Even in the unlikely event that scientists were to "prove" that living things that have neither a brain nor a nervous system are miraculously sentient (therefore having an awareness of self to some degree), this would pose no huge dilemma to vegetarians and vegans, since to eat meat, one would still have to breed non-human animals and feed them on plants (Mr Zammit should perhaps ask himself what cows, pigs etc, whom we bring into existence, eat). Veganism would still kill less plants and/or animals.

Mr Zammit concludes his letter by writing:

"Clearly Mr Cassar, the animal rights guru who professes to be a human animal, does not own a hunting dog since his peculiar beliefs would probably only allow him to cohabit with one. Ms Rosso like all other level-minded dog lovers happens to enjoy the purpose for which her dog was bred and would rather leave her dog decide as to whether it has a right to hunt or, as Mr Cassar suggests, 'fetch rubber balls'".

While I humbly thank Mr Zammit for the compliment, I would like to assure him that there is no such thing as an animal rights guru. I am simply as a person who, for completely altruistic reasons, chooses to share with others what I learn through reading and experience, including the fact that basic science teaches us that humans are an animal species, and that simply assigning a purpose to someone (be it the purpose of hunting to dogs, or the purpose of slavery to humans bred for servitude) does not make that practice right.

If Mr Zammit (or anyone else) would like any clarification on what I wrote, or would like to ask any questions, he is welcome to contact me through my blog. I will be happy to explain and inform. I would also be grateful in being corrected where I am mistaken. Being open to learning is one of the virtues I find extremely valuable. Hence, I eagerly await Mr Zammit's explanation regarding how dogs can possibly hunt high-flying birds. I might learn something from a hunter, after all.

Finally, regarding "leav(ing the) dog decide as to whether it (sic) has a right to hunt or, as (I) suggest, 'fetch rubber balls'", there actually is a very practical solution to this, which leaves the dog about whom Mr Zammit claims to be "concerned" in complete freedom. Since Mr Zammit insists that dogs are capable of hunting high-flying birds, apparently without human intervention, the solution is simply to take the dog out in the fields without any guns, and let the dog hunt to his heart's content. I'm confident that the dog will in no time look for the ball. Besides, Mr Zammit, who cares so much about his "hunting" dog's need to hunt, will be pleased to learn that the EU regulation against spring hunting applies only to humans, and not to dogs. So he may still be able to take his dog to "hunt" in spring. All that he will be required to do is to leave his gun at home.