Kenneth Cassar's animal rights letters

Create your own blog

2008-05-17T02:16:00.000-07:00

Hunter Mark Mifsud Bonnici, who has recently taken the habit of posting off-topic comments on hunting in The Times' blogs, has recently suggested (on Fr Joe Borg's blog) that The Times allocates a blog specifically for hunters.

Of course, for one to expect The Times to allocate a blog for all single-issue campaign is to expect too much.

However, all is not lost for Mr Mifsud Bonnici, for if he takes some time to browse the internet, he will find several free services for creating one's own blog. I use Blogger. And who knows? If he does create his own blog (and not wait for others to do his own work for him - the ban on spring hunting means he probably has more free time on his hands), I might consider putting a link to his blog at www.animalrightsmalta.blogspot.com.

How about that, Mr Mifsud Bonnici?

Shooting turtle doves

2008-04-26T12:18:00.000-07:00

So David Borg Cardona first builds up a whole argument saying turtle doves should be shot because they are a plague to Libyan farmers, and then shoots down his entire argument by saying:

"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?"

Animals: Slaving or serving?

2008-04-14T07:16:00.000-07:00

It says a lot when people have to resort to misrepresentation to "prove" a point. Raymond Zammit (Hunting Dogs And Slavery, April 5) says that I claim that we should set all "domesticated" animals free. Then he contradicts himself a few lines down by quoting me as saying that "we should... not set all dogs free where they cannot cope on their own".

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 is clear from my claim 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.

As regards Mr Zammit's "worry" about the extinction of "domesticated" animals, he falls in the same trap as has Mark Mifsud Bonnici (April 1). 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 would be advocating the "right" of sperm to become animals.

A non-existent "animal" has no "right" neither to exist nor to not exist. The thinking that it would somehow go against rights not to bring animals into existence would bring us to the absurd conclusion that humans have an active duty to have as many offspring as possible (since doing otherwise would deny millions of sperm their opportunity to become human).

Mr Zammit worries about animals bred to be slaughtered for meat, becoming extinct. I 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 (not to mention their offspring taken away, being constantly raped to produce offspring for slaughter, etc). But then again, logic is not the speciesist's forte. The only reason why such people 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 the issues. I would suggest a list of books that may be found at www.animalrightsmalta.blogspot.com.

Mr Zammit replies to my question regarding how dogs can be expected to hunt high-flying birds by themselves. His answer, much to my satisfaction, is that they can't.

Regarding hunting being the purpose of hunting dogs or else we would not call them so, Mr Zammit should 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. The treatment of anyone as property makes that someone a slave.

The rights of non-humans

2008-04-07T07:14:00.000-07:00

Fabian Borg from the hunters' federation (April 4) says 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 both 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.

Hunting dogs are no dummies but neither are we

2008-04-01T07:11:00.000-07:00

I refer to Fabian Borg's letter of March 27. 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 claims 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. Maybe we have influenced them to become "sentimentalists", "extremists", and "fundamentalists".

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? 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 prerequisite 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 reconsider 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.

'Hunting' dogs and their rights

2008-03-31T07:06:00.000-07:00

Ray Zammit (March 24) assumes I am ignorant about anything related to animals. I admit 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 grateful if Mr Zammit explains to me how "hunting" dogs can possibly hunt high-flying birds without the aid of wings or guns, instead of simply saying that I am making a fool of myself.

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.

If Mr Zammit is interested in learning more about animal rights and its implications, he is welcome to visit www.animalrightsmalta.blogspot.com, where he will find a list of books. Reading might help him to either change his views or else make informed criticism.

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), 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 dilemma to vegetarians and vegans because, to eat meat, one would still have to breed non-human animals and feed them on plants. Veganism would still kill fewer plants and/or animals.

Finally, while I humbly thank him for the compliment, I would like to assure Mr Zammit that there is no such thing as an animal rights guru. I am simply as a person who, for completely altruistic reasons, shares with others what I learn through reading and experience, including the scientific knowledge that humans are an animal species and that simply assigning a purpose to someone (be it dogs or humans) does not make that practice necessarily right. One should remember that the "purpose" of human slaves prior to abolition was to serve whites. Still, we all know that human slavery is wrong.

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.

Dogs and hunting

2008-03-11T07:04:00.000-07:00

Danica Rosso's justification of hunting out of concern for the "hunting" dogs (February 29) is of course ridiculous. Dogs exposed to hunting do not become "enamoured" with this "hobby". That belief is just a simple case of anthropomorphism.

It is true that some dogs might have retained a hunting instinct, even though domestication and human feeding makes this doubtful. It must be noted, however, that "hunting" dogs do not hunt birds (to do this they would need either guns or wings). "Hunting" dogs simply fetch birds which the human hunter kills. The object they fetch could easily be a rubber ball.

Regarding the claim that come spring, "hunting" dogs display an unequivocal longing to be out in the country and "do what they do best: hunt", is a very simplistic way of seeing things.

Since dogs are capable of cognitive association, they associate the "hunting season" with the fact that during this season they will generally spend much more time in the countryside with their "owner". Since dogs' unfortunate status today is that of being human property, they depend on their "owner" for even simple (but necessary) enjoyments such as an outing to the countryside, which is still possible without hunting.

The claim that "hunting" dogs long to "do what they do best: hunt", is also clearly false. Since "hunting" dogs do not hunt at all, then hunting cannot be "what they do best".

So, to answer Ms Rosso's questions, it is not cruel to deprive dogs of hunting, for the simple reason that "hunting" dogs do not actually hunt. Also, those, like me, who oppose hunting for animal rights reasons do not do so just out of "love" for non-human animals. We oppose hunting as a matter of justice.

In essence, this means that no sentient individual should be exploited or killed just for someone else's pleasure, be that someone human or non-human.

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?"

People who truly care about all animals, and not just birds or dogs, will know the answer to my question.

Animal awareness

2008-01-28T07:02:00.000-08:00

Mark A. Sammut (January 25) unfortunately fails to address the points I raised in my letter of January 16, and instead rests his "reply" on incorrect assumptions about both me and the Education Department. Mr Sammut wrongly assumes that any teaching against hunting is done unilaterally by individual teachers out of personal choice (or worse, individual teachers are forced to teach against hunting). He would perhaps be interested to note that the Ministry of Education has long ago appointed an Animal Awareness Committee, which in turn has appointed teachers in most or all public schools to act as animal awareness teachers.

One of the instructions given to these teachers (as stated in the website http://schoolnet.gov.mt/democracyand values/) is to "Ask the pupils to think about cruelty to animals. What types of things do they think are cruel? Pupils often focus on deliberate cruelty - hitting and beating. Once they have been given a range of examples, ask them to think about the difference between: neglect - failing to look after an animal properly; deliberate cruelty - intending to do something that hurts the animal. Do the pupils think one type of cruelty is worse than the other? Ask the pupils to think from an animal's point of view. Both neglect and deliberate animal cruelty make animals suffer."

It is beyond question that hunting involves "intent to do something that hurts animals", apart from killing them.

Also, considering that the Animal Awareness Committee, that is appointed by the Education Division, itself selects the teachers who are to act as animal awareness teachers, and who, it is to be assumed, have the right to refuse the appointment, consultation or approval of the Malta Union of Teachers (MUT) is both unnecessary and beyond the MUT's powers or concern.

Mr Sammut also makes the following wrong assumptions about me. He assumes that the number of birds killed (whether sustainable or not) matter to me. They don't. Each bird has the right to life. He also assumes that where a bird is killed matters to me. It doesn't. I care much the same irrespective of whether a bird is killed in Malta or Sicily or wherever. But since I live in Malta, I think globally and act locally. Mr Sammut also wrongly assumes that human rights issues do not concern me. Of course they do. Humans are animals. This makes human rights an animal rights issue. Of course, the topic has now become too complex, partly due to false assumptions made that merit a longer reply. Whoever is interested, may find such a reply at www.animalrightsmalta.blogspot.com in the entry under the heading "Hunting and morality".

Nazis in the classroom?

2008-01-26T06:52:00.000-08:00

I refer to Aldo E. Azzopardi's letter of January 22. Hunting is wrong because it involves the totally unnecessary killing of sentient and innocent animals. Hunting involves cruelty and the violation of sentient animals' right to life and liberty, just for the sake of the perverse pleasure of killing weaker beings. If pleasure in taking innocent life was not a significant factor of hunting, hunters would concede that "clay-pigeon" shooting and photography are viable alternatives.

As for teachers " brainwashing" children, the fact remains that the majority of the Maltese population expects teachers to instil in their children values such as kindness and a sense of repulsion towards unnecessary cruelty and killing of animals, besides that teaching such values is the right thing to do. Democracies are governed by majority rule, and the majority of Maltese citizens are opposed to hunting.

Contrary to what Mr Azzopardi claims, I did not compare the evils of hunting with racism, although both stem from prejudice and disrespect towards those outside one's group. My point was, and still is, that just as a racist would complain about anti-racist education, a speciesist hunter would equally be expected to complain about anti-hunting education. But just as anti-racist education should continue despite racist protests, so should anti-hunting education, despite speciesist protests.

As to racism being universally condemned, that is a false claim. I concede that racists are perhaps nowadays a minority. Similarly, pro-hunting people in Malta are also a minority. Also, that something is practised in every country does not necessarily make it right.

I would be interested to know Mr Azzopardi's views on abortion, for instance, which is also legally practised in nearly every country but not in Malta . I assume that Mr Azzopardi, presumably being a Catholic, is still opposed to abortion.

As for schools inviting hunters so that children get "both sides of the issue" , by Mr Azzopardi's reasoning it can be argued that schools should invite prominent racists to give talks, so that children will also get " both sides of the racism issue" .

Unfortunately for Mr Azzopardi, that's not how democracies work. In democracies, practices that are generally accepted by the majority as wrong, are taught by teachers to be wrong, and the only reference to "the other side", if any, would only be made in support of the generally accepted claim that they would be wrong.

If anti-hunting education without giving the other side is "brainwashing", so are all sorts of moral education such as anti-racist, anti-sexist etc.

Would Mr Azzopardi claim that for anti-drug education to be "unbiased", teachers should invite drug dealers to give lectures on the "benefits" of illegal drugs? I think not.

As for the "pros" of hunting, the onus is on him to claim them. He has failed to do so in his letter. However, if he decides to mention them in his next letter, I would appreciate it if he mentions what's in it for the birds.

As to whether children mark questionnaires to please their teachers, I have no time to rebut conspiracy theories. I have learned that it is not worth it to lose time on wild claims, like I did on the other hunter conspiracy theory of last year, that Birdlife Malta has some "secret weapon" to use on hunters. I think that all such conspiracy theories only serve to heap ridicule on those who make them.

And yes, children, once again Mr Azzopardi has called you "boot-lickers", which, on hindsight, makes me realise that one cannot be expected to respect non-human animals if one does not even respect children.

It's right to teach that hunting is wrong

2008-01-16T06:47:00.000-08:00

I refer to Aldo E. Azzopardi's letter (January 11).

Thankfully, it is true that most school teachers are invariably against hunting. Whether they "brainwash" their pupils is another matter.

It is a well known fact that most modern teachers try to instil in their pupils a sense of the wrong and evil that is racism, and teach their pupils that it is wrong to treat members of other races differently simply on the basis of their race. Most modern rational people, parents included, would not see this as "brainwashing". On the contrary, they would expect and demand that such education be given to their children.

Now, it is to be expected that some hunters will see any teaching on the wrongness of hunting as "brainwashing". But this case is no different from the anti-racist teaching.

Similarly, all teachers should try to instil in their pupils a sense of the wrong that is hunting, and most modern rational people, parents included, would not see this as "brainwashing". On the contrary, they would expect and demand that such education be given to their children.

Of course, I would personally like pupils to be given a comprehensive education about the wrongness of speciesism and any and all speciesist practices. However, I acknowledge the fact that this is not possible as long as most people (teachers included) are speciesists themselves.

The only difference, apart from the fact that, contrary to Mr Azzopardi, I wish for progressive instead of reactionary education, is that instead of whining about the lack of holistic anti-speciesist education, I choose to do all that is in my power and ability to provide anti-speciesist education myself for any who are interested, particularly in my blog at www.animalrightsmalta.blogspot.com.

Mr Azzopardi could of course retort that public schools are paid for through our taxes, so hunters would have a "right" to demand that their tax money is not used to provide education in a direction that they do not support. However, a racist could similarly claim that he/she would not want his/her taxes to be used to provide anti-racist education. Does this mean that we should stop public schools from teaching pupils on the wrongness of racism? I think not.

Mr Azzopardi should, sooner rather than later, resign himself to the fact that tolerance of hunting will soon be just a sad chapter in our history books, and that if he does not change his "neanderthal mentality" on this issue, at least he should resign himself to the fact that democracies work through majority rule.

Regarding calling Maltese pupils "bootlickers", this insult does not even merit a reply.

As for Mr Azzopardi's belief that most pupils would fill in a questionnaire saying that they oppose hunting because they want to be in the teachers' good books, well, Mr Azzopardi's conclusion could in theory be true, unless of course the children do not have to sign their names on the questionnaire. In the latter case, it is truly no surprise that the results would show that the majority of pupils would still be against hunting. Perhaps the fact that we are now in the year 2008 CE (AD) and not 20,008 BCE (BC) is one of the major factors for such an encouraging result - one that would be predominantly against the wholly unnecessary killing of sentient birds.

With apologies to Neanderthals who, unlike "modern" hunters, most probably hunted out of necessity, and not for the perverse pleasure of killing the defenceless.

True animal rights

2007-12-21T06:45:00.000-08:00

When will people such as Shane Johnson (December 14) finally realise that animal rights means the abolition of the property status of all animals (including humans) and in essence, animal rights advocacy is advocacy for the abolition of any unnecessary and/or involuntary use of non-human animals by humans, as if they were human property?

People falling short of this goal and purpose while claiming to be "for animal rights" are either simply misinformed, deluded or dishonest.

So in short, this means that despite his claim to be "forever in favour of protecting animal rights", Mr Johnson is nothing of the sort. A fundamental animal right is the right to liberty, and property cannot have rights. At best, property can only have certain privileges which can be revoked at any time by the property owner.

The choice is simple: Either non-human animals are not property (and therefore have the right not to be used as if they were property - which means circuses violate their rights) or else non-human animals are human property with no rights. Mr Johnson concludes his letter by saying that "any animal rights group activist worth his salt should know (the) facts before dissuading people from visiting these circuses or any other organisations that use animals to entertain". To that I answer that any animal rights activist worth his salt knows the basics of animal rights theory, and recognises the simple fact that involuntary use of rights-bearing individuals is in itself abuse. This makes all animal circuses abusive of at least one basic right - the right to liberty.

For a more detailed reply to Mr Johnson's letter, please visit www.animalrightsmalta.blogspot.com, where people interested in true animal rights may also find a list of books on animal rights philosophy.

Animal rights: Who cares?

2007-11-14T06:41:00.000-08:00

I refer to Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando's opinion piece (November 9). I will suspend my judgement on his propaganda about his government's allocation of funds in last year's and this year's budget towards stray animals until the funds are actually spent and the much-publicised after-care centre for injured pets will actually come to fruition.

At this point, I will only state the obvious, which is that the "animal centre" will not actually be an "animal centre" because it will presumably deny its service to the animals who need it most. If it were to be an "animal centre" it would be filled with patients from the government "abattoir". But who cares about these animals?

As for the 40,000-plus signatures for animal welfare reforms, this could in some sense be construed as a significant achievement. However, with a population of about 400,000, and in view of the mild requests which do not require major sacrifices, one could well say that it was a huge under-achievement and kind of proves the point (disputed by Dr Pullicino Orlando) that Malta is truly not an "animal loving" country - even if we were to disregard the thousands of other animals that are not considered cute and cuddly and whom Dr Pullicino Orlando himself does not even seem to care about: He eats them.

It is only our mentality that makes a distinction between animals we feel entitled to use and abuse, and even kill, and other animals to which we paternalistically assign the purpose of being companions or pets.

As for Dr Pullicino Orlando's comment about "armchair critics", I partially agree. It is truly easy for armchair critics to send denigrating letters to the press. However, it is also easy to expect changes that do not require any kind of sacrifice on one's part and not to do anything about the changes which require positive action from oneself. It is relatively easy to speak out against others' abuses but it is much harder to stop performing your own worse abuses, like having non-human animals used and killed just so that you may have a convenient and tasty source of food when a healthier alternative is readily available.

As for his comment on schools, while I appreciate the animal awareness work done in our schools, apparently much more needs to be done. Take San Anton School's "donation" of a parrot for life-imprisonment at Razzett tal-Hbiberija, for instance.

Far from being animal-friendly, we're definitely a society that is very animal-unfriendly when one considers that most of us see nothing wrong in imprisoning, selling, buying and killing most non-human animals just for convenience, pleasure or financial gain.

Dr Pullicino Orlando would perhaps be more credible if, for instance, he makes it a point that his government permits no "animal circuses" to come to Malta (like the ones planned for next December), when there is no doubt or controversy in the claim that the only reason for such animal exploitation is pure pleasure and profit. I'm sure that, being a member of Parliament in the governing party, Dr Pullicino Orlando could help stop any future "animal circuses" from coming to Malta, like many civilised European countries have already done - that is, if he really cares about "animals".

Malta is certainly not an "animal-loving" nation. Of course, this does not mean we should "put ourselves down" or that we are worse than other countries. It simply means we should work harder to eliminate speciesism, which is the source of most animal abuse.

More on the topic may be found at www.animalrightsmalta.blogspot.com.

Respect for animals

2007-11-13T06:40:00.000-08:00

I refer to Franco Farrugia’s letter (Taking care of animals TMID, 9 November). I shall only comment on one paragraph, which I see as particularly disturbing, despite Mr Farrugia’s good intentions.

Mr Farrugia writes: “You see, there are two kinds of people and so, two schools of thought, insofar as animals are concerned. The first kind includes those who consider the presence of animals as a nuisance: as far as these are concerned, the money should be used in order to have less and less animals around for the human being to be cruel with. The second kind, and this includes the undersigned, includes those who are real animal lovers and who would rather be in the company of animals than in that of fellow human beings: for these people, money should be used in order to improve the situation of animal well being in our country, and so, eradicate animal cruelty.”

First of all, Mr Farrugia fails to note another kind of people in the non-human animal issue – the animal rights advocate who holds that animals are not property, and that they should not be used for any human purpose. This has nothing to do with “animals” being a nuisance, and all to do with their fundamental right not to be treated as property. There is no love without respect.

It is not a question of having less animals to be cruel with. It’s just about the fact that human imposed breeding, selling and buying of any non-human animal is in itself abuse, since that single act treats non-human animals as human property. And property cannot have rights – if anything, property can only have privileges which we may or may not arbitrarily assign to them if it is convenient for us to do so. I also find the claim made by many “animal lovers” that they prefer the company of “animals” to that of humans particularly worrying. No wonder the general public thinks of us as weirdos who turn to non-human animals because we lack the ability to maintain good human relationships. Animal rights is not an “animal enthusiast” club. Animal rights is a matter of strict justice, and the “love of animals” does not even play a part in the question. For the animal rights advocate, the only way to eliminate most “animal cruelty” is by eliminating speciesism, and this includes the negation of the false assumption that there is any distinction between “human” and “animal”. It’s like making a distinction between “cows” or “humans” and “mammals”. Both cows and humans are mammals, and humans, after all, are animals too.

More on the topic can be found at: www.animalrights malta.blogspot.com

Having the meat and eating it too

2007-07-24T06:38:00.000-07:00

Louise Vella, in her letter entitled Is There No Limit (July 19), writes: "There is no doubt that these penniless Africans are a burden on all of us, except, possibly, those employers who exploit them. The Prime Minister and others have given figures that indicate that illegal immigrants cost the government about Lm10 million a year. Ms Buhagiar may be happy to pay her share of that sum by way of her taxes. I am not".

Interestingly enough, the European Union, through its Common Agricultural Policy, pays billions of euros in farm subsidies to producers of meat. Ms Vella may be happy to pay her share of that sum by way of her taxes. I am not, since meat to me means the unnecessary killing of sentient non-human animals. I personally believe that those billions of euros would be much better spent in humanitarian aid to refugees and in trying to solve this humanitarian crisis. But, alas, I have little say in the matter.

But consider this: If those billions of euros were indeed redirected from the subsidy of meat products to humanitarian aid, where would Ms Vella find any affordable meat to purchase and eat?

If Europe went vegetarian or vegan, this would provide billions of surplus euros currently used for meat subsidies, which might, in turn, help solve Malta's immigration problem, apart from sparing millions of non-human animals from a life of suffering ending in a violent death. But alas, people like Ms Vella want to "have the meat and eat it too".

Bird imprisonment

2007-06-26T06:36:00.000-07:00

Lino Farrugia, secretary FKNK, (June 23) finds fault with describing keeping trapped birds in cages as imprisonment, and describes people who describe it so as "emotional".

Despite the fact that being emotional is not a bad thing (to be emotional is human, except, that is, if one is a misogynist who believes that to be emotional debases men), I shall treat the issue in a rational, and not emotional manner, in a way that I hope Mr Farrugia will understand.

Imprisonment, the last time I checked, means confinement or incarceration. Now, when trappers trap birds and keep them in cages, they keep them confined. The trapped birds, given a choice, would escape (which can be tested by simply opening the cage). Therefore, trapped birds kept in cages are imprisoned.

Now here's the part Mr Farrugia and his fellow trappers would find "emotional" while the rest of us would find rational. The only difference between imprisoning humans and imprisoning birds is that imprisoned birds have committed no crime. This compounds the wrongness of keeping birds in cages for life, and is exactly what makes bird-trapping wrong. The fact that calling keeping trapped birds in cages imprisonment makes trappers look bad, does not change this simple truth.

The facts about the "spring hunting derogation"

2007-06-24T06:34:00.000-07:00

I refer to Mr Mark Mifsud Bonnici's letter (The Sunday Times, June 17). I shall not waste any more time arguing whether a derogation should be given or simply taken. It will suffice for me to quote Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas, who (The Times, March 29) is quoted as saying: "Derogations are only given if the conditions providing for them are met. The main condition is that spring hunting becomes possible if no sufficient alternatives exist.

"Although the Maltese authorities invoke this as the reason for allowing spring hunting, we have found that there are sufficient alternatives in autumn and, so, we have not granted any derogation. This also means that Malta must come in line with EU rules and stop hunting in spring."

One concludes that derogations are given; that the conditions for a derogation were not met; that the EU has not granted any derogation to Malta; and that Malta must come in line with EU rules and stop hunting in spring.

Only time will tell whether the ones who are telling the truth are the St Hubertus Hunters and the government, or all environmentalists and animal rights activists, Alternattiva Demokratika and EU Environment Commissioner Mr Dimas. I suspect that we won't have to wait very long for an answer, considering that general elections are in the offing, especially if the general elections are held before spring of next year.

I was surprised at Mr Mifsud Bonnici's statement "Mr Cassar should rein in his eagerness to rush in where abler people (Alternattiva Demokratika, in this case) fear to tread because he is the one who is spreading untruths, as we have amply demonstrated". In his letter of June 3, Mr Mifsud Bonnici had claimed that "this matter has been discussed ad nauseam but since their (AD) vote-grabbing exercise also entails the spreading of untruths, we feel we should speak out again for the benefit of the uninformed".

So, on June 3, it was AD who were spreading untruths. Now, suddenly, last Sunday, Mr Mifsud Bonnici tells us that I am "rushing in where AD fear to thread" and it is I who am spreading untruths (does this now mean that AD are saying the truth, or at least not saying untruths?). The St Hubertus Hunters would be more credible were they not to contradict themselves.

As for "nonsense" on our Website (www.animalrightsmalta.com) I would let the public judge.

Also, in view of Mr Mifsud Bonnici's belief that his letters make so much sense, and mine are just "nonsense", perhaps Mr Mifsud Bonnici should thank me for publishing his letters on our Website at no expense, considering that his organisation does not have one of its own.

Who are the extremists?

2007-06-14T06:32:00.000-07:00

It is very convenient of Alfred E. Zammit (June 8) to sidetrack the issue and mention violence from a minority of environmentalists and animal rights activists abroad. Perhaps Mr Zammit should be reminded that the topic being discussed is hunting in Malta, and since he brought it up, whether Tolga Temuge of BirdLife Malta is violent or not. If Mr Zammit would like to give any evidence of Mr Temuge being violent, or of possessing a secret weapon, he should perhaps give that evidence, or better still, give the information to the police. If on the other hand, he has no such evidence, he would do himself more credit by simply shutting up.

But since Mr Zammit mentions violent activists abroad, perhaps he should be reminded that Christian fundamentalists in the US are known to bomb abortion clinics, and murder abortion doctors. Does that make all Christians terrorists? I don't think so. So his mention of animal rights extremists (yes, animal rights activists can be extremists - anyone can be an extremist) who put lives in danger is irrelevant. I am not an extremist, and I do not believe killing people or putting human or non-human life in danger for any cause is justified. On the other hand, it is an undisputable fact that hunters, by definition, intentionally put non-human animal lives in danger, and intentionally kill birds. It is also a well-know fact that the violent fringe of the hunting community in Malta (which I do acknowledge is a minority) is prepared to go to extremes for their "cause". Ask the journalists who were beaten up at the hunters' last meeting. This should put things into perspective.

Therefore, what this means is that in Malta, environmentalists and animal rights activists are non-violent, while all hunters are violent towards non-human animals (birds) and a minority of hunters are even violent towards humans. As for "verbal violence", whatever that means, I will leave it to Mr Zammit to give examples (with quotes) on when animal rights activists in Malta have been verbally violent. I suppose painting graffiti on archaeological sites would qualify as "verbal violence", but I think Mr Zammit knows that no anti-hunting activist would paint pro-hunting graffiti anywhere.

Spring hunting breaches EU directives

2007-06-10T06:30:00.000-07:00

Mark Mifsud Bonnici, secretary of St Hubertus Hunters, says (The Sunday Times, June 3) that nothing can be further from the truth than Alternattiva Demokratika's claim that spring hunting in Malta breaches EU rules. He also tells us that "in Malta's circumstances, Government is applying a derogation for spring hunting for... specific valid reasons".

However, what Mr Mifsud Bonnici fails to understand is that the Maltese government cannot unilaterally apply a derogation which has never been given by the EU.

In the words of EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas, "the main condition (for a derogation to be given) is that spring hunting becomes possible if no sufficient alternatives exist. Although the Maltese authorities invoke this as the reason for allowing spring hunting, we have found that there are sufficient alternatives in autumn, and so we have not been granted any derogation. This also means that Malta must come in line with EU rules and stop hunting in spring" (The Times, March 29).

AD says that spring hunting in Malta breaches EU rules. Mr Mifsud Bonnici says that "(Malta) is applying (a) derogation" which according to the EU Environment Commissioner, has never been given. Mr Mifsud Bonnici should note that there is a huge difference between applying "for" a derogation and applying a derogation. To apply a derogation, the derogation must be given in the first place.

In view of this, Government's insistence on maintaining the spring hunting season effectively means that the government is taking EU law into its own hands, and breaching EU rules just because it disagrees with them (not a good example to law-abiding citizens, I must add).

Now who is spreading untruths? Is it AD, which correctly says that Malta has not been given a derogation, or Mr Mifsud Bonnici who says that the government is applying a derogation which has never been given?

For more information on this issue visit www.animalrightsmalta.blogspot.com.

That obsession with secret weapons

2007-05-29T06:27:00.000-07:00

It looks likely that Alfred E. Zammit will never stop amusing us. His letter of May 25 is a case in point.

Mr Zammit should note that though Greenpeace is confrontational, it is still non-violent. Therefore, if one says that one's tack will be changed to one similar to Greenpeace's more confrontational methods, it is blatantly obvious that while the new tactics would be more confrontational, they would still remain non-violent.

Mr Zammit's claim that when non-violent bodies change tack, it could mean that they might possibly turn to violence, is just his wishful thinking. It's like saying that when non-violent football players change tack, it could mean that they might possibly turn to violence. Of course, there is always that remote possibility. I will at least concede Mr Zammit that.

I'm sure that many hunters would relish the opportunity of BirdLife Malta turning to violence, but this will remain wishful thinking. We'll leave that to the violent fringe in the hunting community.

I only wonder what Mr Zammit is wishing to gain from trying to instil the suspicion that BirdLife Malta "might" resort to violence. Does he seriously think that non-hunters will take his word for it, and believe, against all evidence to the contrary, that BirdLife Malta will resort to violence? Again, I am sure that Birdlife Malta has more honourable people to imitate, rather than the violent fringe in the hunting community.

Mr Zammit goes on to say: "The truth is that Mr Temuge is perceived as an aggressive person by the FKNK. He is also perceived as possessing some 'secret weapon'".

Oh my God! Mr Temuge is perceived as an aggressive person by the FKNK? He is also perceived as possessing some secret weapon? Does Mr Zammit think he is doing the FKNK any favour by saying these things? If this is really the case, does Mr Zammit believe that the FKNK will be taken seriously if they are seen to be so paranoid and deluded?

One thing is certain. Mr Zammit will never fail to amuse the readers of The Times and of www.animalrightsmalta.blogspot.com.

Feeble counter-declaration

2007-05-25T06:24:00.000-07:00

As reported in The Malta Independent (23 May), the Maltese Federation for Hunting (FKNK) sent a document to members of Parliament to "counter" the anti-spring hunting declaration presented to MPs by several NGOs on Monday evening.

That the Hunters' Federation claims that the declaration is full of inaccuracies, lies and misconceptions, is no surprise (though I would have appreciated it if the Federation would have pointed out what were the inaccuracies, lies and misconceptions).

The FKNK said it is a welcome relief for the federation to hear that now even anti-hunters have come round to accept what it has been stating ad nauseam, that is, that other EU member states do permit spring hunting by application of a derogation, and it is not true that it is only in Malta that spring hunting is permitted.

What the FKNK does not realise is that, for not wanting to see facts as they are (or simply for convenience’s sake), the federation did not properly understand the anti-spring hunting declaration.

It is simply untrue that other EU member states permit hunting by application of a derogation. Since no EU member state has been given a derogation, spring hunting is not permitted in any EU member state. It is one thing having the right to apply for a derogation. It’s quite another being given one. So the FKNK’s claim that Malta is not the only country where spring hunting is permitted by the EU is simply untrue. Not only does the EU not permit spring hunting in other member states, but the EU also does not permit spring hunting in Malta.

The counter-declaration from the FKNK goes on to say that "the FKNK has always stated that as an EU member state, Malta has every right to apply a derogation to allow spring hunting under very specific conditions, even more so given the unique and particular conditions prevailing in the Maltese islands". Of course, we find no fault in this.

The EU gives any member state the right to apply for a derogation, but the EU has never given one. The "counter declaration" goes on to say that "the FKNK is also aware that these conditions can be met, are well-documented and are supported with solid scientific data.

The FKNK, therefore, can only attribute the Malta government failure to exercise its right as an EU member state, notwithstanding having guaranteed legitimate pretence to the contrary to the thousands of Maltese "sportsmen", to lack of political will and an inferiority complex attitude".

That these conditions (that would justify a derogation) can be met, is apparently only the opinion of the hunters themselves (what would one expect?), and of the politicians who are using hunters' credulity to get their votes.

As for the failure of the government to exercise its "right" to take heed of a small minority of hunters, and not to take heed of 80 per cent of the Maltese population that opposes spring hunting, I believe the right of the overall majority to decide that the government should not allow the murder of birds in spring trumps any supposed right of a minority of bird hunters.

As for any scientific study, I won’t go into the merits of the validity of a biased study.

In any case, the killing of one bird is enough to justify a ban on hunting (and not just in spring). The Hunters' Federation should thank their lucky stars that we still live in a speciesist age, and that they will probably enjoy killing birds in autumn for several years to come.

The Hunters' Federation, in its "counter declaration" says that the anti-hunting declaration was presented by the usual "handful of individuals". Perhaps it should be pointed out that these handful of individuals are representatives of 15 organisations and 80 per cent of the Maltese population who oppose spring hunting.

Pro-legal hunting

2007-05-22T06:21:00.000-07:00

Michael Falzon (May 9) claims that the replies by Mark Grima and myself to his "short", 648-word letter confirm that we are fundamentalists. This claim cannot be further from the truth.

My contention about Mr Falzon's letter of April 11 (which I did not send to The Times) is that "cutting and pasting" does not make an article false, and that although one might disagree with a boycott of Malta, a boycott is perfectly legitimate because no one has any duty to visit Malta. I personally do not call for Malta boycotts, but I understand that people have the right to boycott anything. After all, for a boycott to work, it must be accepted as justified. If a growing number of foreigners opposed to spring hunting see a boycott of Malta justified, the onus is on the government to recognise the signs of the times.

It is not Mr Falzon's article of April 11 that makes him pro-hunting but the fact that he is only opposed to illegal hunting. This makes him anti-illegal hunting and pro-legal hunting. Legal hunting is still hunting. Elementary, Mr Falzon. This has nothing to do with being a fundamentalist, and everything to do with the correct use of the English language. If I am mistaken, and Mr Falzon is opposed to all hunting, I would appreciate a statement to this effect.

Mr Falzon says that I "do not even accept the possibility of anyone being against hunting in spring but not against hunting in autumn". I never said that. What I always say is that to be anti-hunting is to be against all hunting. He also calls me a fundamentalist because I "persistently equalise human rights" with "so called animal rights". I do nothing of the sort. I only claim that sentient non-human animals have the right to life, and are not human property. They do not have rights to things which do not matter to them. But life and freedom from exploitation do matter to all animals.

This conclusion comes from several philosophical works (visit www.animalrightsmalta.com/books.html for a short list of some), books which I have read and probably Mr Falzon has never even heard of, let alone read.

Fundamentalism implies irrational beliefs not backed by evidence. I will let go of my convictions as soon as I am convinced of their falsity. Likewise, Mr Falzon could avoid the label of "fundamentalist" by showing that he has ample knowledge of the topic. Simply saying that non-humans have no "so called animal rights" just because this belief is convenient, does not make it true.

In the absence of providing any rational and morally justified reasons for excluding non-humans from having rights, I take it as just a prejudiced fundamentalist belief. Mr Falzon would do well to start ordering some books on the topic if he wants to debate animal rights and be taken seriously.

As for rational arguments for acknowledging animal rights, one may find a reasonable introduction at www.animalrightsmalta.com.

Who's the fundamentalist?

2007-05-05T06:19:00.000-07:00

Michael Falzon tells Mark Grima and Charles Scerri that they are stooping low by personalising issues. I fail to find any kind of personal insults in these correspondents' letters, which cannot be said of Mr Falzon's letter, where he calls them fundamentalists. By Mr Falzon's same standards, it is Mr Falzon himself who has "stooped the lowest".

Mr Falzon accuses the correspondents of labelling people indiscriminately. Neither Mr Grima nor Mr Scerri's letters have labelled anyone. On the other hand, it is Mr Falzon who has labelled them extremists and fundamentalists. Mr Falzon accuses others of something of which he is guilty himself.

Mr Falzon insists on "middle of the road" positions. In questions regarding the unnecessary killing of sentient individuals with a right to life, there is no middle of the road position, and it is a question of black or white. Would Mr Falzon compromise if the question was on whether one should be allowed to kill 20, 30, or a 1,000 humans? Would he say that perhaps a hundred would be a fair compromise? There is no logical reason why the matter should be any different in the case of sentient non-human animals such as birds.

Mr Falzon seems to be a moral relativist where it concerns non-humans, and presumably not so where it concerns humans. This comes out from the fact that to be logically consistent, Mr Falzon would have to concede that people who oppose racism also want to impose their values on the rest of society. To be logically consistent, Mr Falzon would have to describe people who oppose racism for moral reasons as "racial equality-fundamentalists". The same could be said of any kind of opposition to immoral beliefs and practices.

I also find it quite rich for Mr Falzon to claim that anyone wants to deny him the right to have an opinion, when Mr Falzon is a regular correspondent in more than one newspaper.

Mr Falzon concludes his diatribe by saying that "Sadly...environmentalists are polarising the issue of bird hunting - whether in spring or in autumn. They want to deny us the right to be in the middle ground and force us all into either of two regimented extreme camps".

Once again, in questions of literally life or death situations, there is no middle ground. One either permits unnecessary killing, or one does not. If taking sides necessarily makes one an extremist, then anyone who is against the murder of humans is also an extremist, and anyone who sometimes justifies human murder is the "moderate" who chooses the "middle-ground". It is such moral relativism which I find truly dangerous and extremist.

For a more detailed reply, one may visit www.animalrightsmalta.blogspot.com and read the article entitled "On fundamentalists and pro-hunting moral relativists".

Being anti-hunting

2007-04-29T06:17:00.000-07:00

'Roamer' (The Sunday Times, April 22) in reply to my letter insists on being anti-hunting, while saying that he supports hunting in autumn and hunting on birds (or other animals) who are considered "pests".

Being anti-hunting means opposing all hunting. What's so hard to understand about this simple fact?

Stand on hunting

2007-04-22T06:16:00.000-07:00

So "Roamer" (The Sunday Times, April 15) declares himself a member of the "anti-hunting lobby". Is this the same "Roamer" who said on April 1 that the government's spring hunting position is both moral and responsible?

Someone who is truly anti-hunting does not consider the cold-blooded killing of birds moral and responsible, under any circumstances. Some people may disagree with some of my arguments, and hunters will obviously disagree with most of what I say, but at least I do not pose as an unbiased observer when I obviously have an anti-hunting agenda.

For "Roamer" to disguise his obvious pro-government propaganda as an unbiased argument coming from an anti-hunting person smacks of cowardice and dishonesty. The anti-hunting lobby does not need people who find the killing of birds acceptable, moral and responsible, as long it's in the interests of a political party.

I suppose "Roamer", who sometimes writes on religious topics with self-assigned authority, should know that honesty is one of the things required of people who consider themselves Catholic.

For a more detailed reply to "Roamer", visit http://animalrightsmalta.blogspot.com/2007/04/youre-either-with-us-or-against-us.html

On animal rights and having souls

2007-04-10T06:13:00.000-07:00

Short of agreeing with me that the Scriptures cannot be taken as historical fact in their entirety (despite my example of a God supposedly killing innocent children), Alfred E. Zammit (April 5) acknowledges that hermeneutics (the study of Scripture interpretation) cannot be argued in a short letter.

However, the fact that Mr Zammit agrees that Scriptures need interpretation, adds weight to my claim, that they cannot be taken as historical fact in their entirety.

Historical statements about what happened and where, should not need any interpretation at all. They are either true or mistaken. If a claim requires interpretation, it is not historical fact, but just a means of conveying a message.

My example of Moses and Pharaoh is a case in point. If this actually happened, the claim that God supposedly killed the Egyptian children is the Scripture writer's mistaken interpretation of natural events which he attributes to God.

The deaths could have been due to a natural disease. The other explanation - that God kills children- should be dismissed offhand by anyone who either disbelieves in a personal God or believes that God is benevolent.

Mr Zammit claims that humans, unlike non-humans, possess souls. Despite Pope John Paul II having declared in a public audience in 1990 that "also the animals possess a soul and men must love and feel solidarity with our smaller brethren", I admit that the question of whether humans and non-humans have souls is a matter of faith, which can neither be proved nor disproved. Simply claiming (as Mr Zammit does) that not having souls is a denial of free-will, does not prove having souls. If anything, it proves that we either have souls or, strictly speaking, little or no free will. Whether humans and non-humans have souls is a matter of faith.

However, even if we accept that non-humans have no souls, this does not imply that non-humans have no rights. On the other hand, if they have no souls (and by implication no afterlife), this makes their abuse more tragic, since they would never be compensated for any wrongdoing.

Mr Zammit's claim that "human beings have spiritual souls but (non-human) animals do not", is just something he believes.

It can neither be proved nor disproved. But the question is irrelevant to whether non-humans have rights. In fact, a case could be made that they not only do have rights, but the violation of their rights is more tragic, as I explained.

Of course, this, by itself, is no proof of non-humans having rights.

But I hope I have made it clear that neither does not having a soul prove one does not have rights. The matter should be treated in a secular, and not a religious debate. People who wish to learn more about the animal rights view may visit www.animalrightsmalta.com