Animal Rights

23/05/2007

RSPCA’s Freedom Food scheme lists a number of facilities in which animals are bred for producing food. The animals that are kept there are not supposed to be subjected to grim conditions of confinement, which may encourage some consumers to eat them instead of other animals. This has aroused some criticism after some footage which showed alleged ghastly conditions on three farms in Norfolk which were included in the RSPCA’s listing as Freedom Food. The RSPCA has suspended these three farms from this scheme. It has been questioned, nevertheless, whether it should continue with this scheme at all, given a case such as this and the difficulties to prove that similar cases are not actually taking place elsewhere. The RSPCA has refused to do so.

The RSPCA is an animal welfare organisation which does not oppose the use of nonhuman animals, so it is understandable that it follows this policy. But the fact is that this course of action (promoting the consumption of certain animals which have not been bred in particularly harsh conditions) is also followed by many who ultimately oppose the use of nonhumans altogether. Even among those who wholeheartedly embrace vegetarianism it is not strange to find support for these initiatives. This is fully understandable since it shows concern for the animals that we cannot stop from being bred for food. On the other hand, the fact that animal defenders recommend certain animal products certainly leaves little room for the public to consider that it may be morally objectionable to consume them.

Spreading veg(etari)anism by explaining the arguments against speciesism seems to have a much more significant impact in making a difference for the animals. It is unfortunate that it is seldom chosen as the way in which activism should be carried out.

23/05/2007

A new animal welfare law has been discussed in Spain. It will set some basic rules for the farming, transport and slaughter of animals bred to be eaten, as well as for those used for experimentation.

This law will not affect those animals that are killed in bullfights, neither those who are hunted, fished or so-called “companion animals”.

Some practices will be forbidden by this law, such as the killing of nonhumans for doing films or TV advertisements. But what the law basically will do is to regulate the way in which nonhumans are used for purposes which will remain perfectly legal. Those who cause “unnecessary harm” to nonhuman animals will have to pay fines of up to € 100 000 / £ 68 000 / $ 135 000. The question, of course, is how to define what an unnecessary harm is (for instance: since a vegan diet is perfectly healthy, and killing animals to eat them harms them, their breeding for this purpose should be considered a case of unnecessary harm). According to this, it seems that the impact of the law in the situation nonhumans endure will not be really significant. Perhaps we can point out, in any case, that it reflects a social awareness concerning the issue which is growing in many countries.

23/05/2007

Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. has been the target of many protests after they held a promotional event in Athens to advertise one of their newly released videogames. At the event, a goat was decapitated in order to recreate the atmosphere of this videogame, which features mythological gods, violence and gore.

The fact that many among the videogaming community, who aren’t necessarily involved in the defence of animals, have shown their dislike and indignation towards this killing is something to greet.

24/05/2007

Hiasl, who is around 25 or 26 years old now, was kidnapped from his birth place, in Sierra Leone in 1982 when he was just a baby. He was then transported to Austria to be used as a laboratory tool for AIDS and hepatitis research. At that moment he was discovered and, since he was being carried illegally, he was sent to an Austrian animal sanctuary where he has been living until recently. The sanctuary now faces bankruptcy and Hiasl’s future is once again uncertain. He might be actually sent to the laboratory to where the researchers had initially intended he be held. In order to protect Hiasl from this grim destiny, he needs to have a legal guardian appointed to him yet presently only humans possess a legal right to this. In order to save Hiasl his defenders now face the task of showing to the judge that he is not different in any relevant respect from humans. This case is very interesting since it shows an attempt by activists to blur the speciesist ideological line which distinguishes in moral and legal terms between humans and nonhumans. On the other hand, it is really unfortunate that in order to defend a sentient being it is necessary to show that he or she is in some respect similar to humans. His or her sentiency should be enough.

24/05/2007

More than a year ago in this newsletter, we informed you that the South African government was considering whether to kill a massive number of elephants. It has been claimed that elephants are growing significantly in number, however, other measures such as moving them to less-populated areas, expanding the existing parks or contraception have not been properly considered. In any case, the overpopulation of elephants cannot be a reason to kill them anymore than human overpopulation is a reason to “cull” humans.

More than 14,000 elephants were killed in the South African Kruger Park between 1967 and 1994

01/10/2007

Knut is a young polar bear who was born earlier this year in the Zoo of Berlin. Knut became famous since he had to be taken care of by his keepers, because his mother rejected him. As it is not difficult to imagine, being put in places completely unnatural to them causes these animals to display behaviours of this sort.

The director of the Zoo, Bernhard Blaszkiewitz, defended the breeding of animals such as polar bears as necessary for their conservation. Claims of this kinds cannot be accepted. It could be pointed out concerning this that the reason why zoos have and breed nonhuman animals is a different one (i.e., to earn money, since they are businesses). But the main point is a different one: as Rights for Animals have maintained in previous issues of its newsletter, the conservation of a certain species does not justify harming those who belong to it, just as we would not accept the incarceration of innocent humans just for the sake of the conservation of their ethnic group.

Knut has now grown and has been transferred to another enclosure, in which other bears used to be captive. These animals were sent to another zoo so that Knut could be located there (with all the corresponding stress that this entailed for them). Many of those who visit zoos are sympathetic towards nonhuman animals, and are in fact completely unaware of the kind of hell in which those who live in zoos spend their lives. Of course some of the visitors see nonhumans as a mere objects of curiosity, not as beings with their own interests. But many others simply believe, naïvely, that nonhumans are happy living in zoos and perhaps being watched by visitors. This is particularly evident when zoos have some particular “attraction”, such as baby gorillas, pandas or, as in the case of the zoo of Berlin, polar bears. In fact, many of those who have been attending lately the zoo of Berlin have been attracted by the idea of seeing Knut. This will make it possible that all the animals which are captive in this zoo will keep on going with their sad lives there.