Links Roundup: ‘Quick, let’s do some research!’ Edition
Let’s just start with something that isn’t totally about animal rights. Some of you might remember me linking to GreenIsTheNewRed articles about non-violent activists being labelled terrorists. Well, things are at a bit of the 180 now. An English member of the European Parliament, Godfrey Bloom, has congratulated the French spies who bombed the Rainbow Warrior in the Waitemata Harbour. John Key PM refused to comment.
And we expect the government to get ‘tough‘ on animal welfare? John, I’m appalled.
- Meanwhile, as Bloom celebrates the sinking of a Greenpeace vessel and Key dithers, Japanese whalers have again rammed a Sea Shepherd vessel in the Southern Ocean.
- Oh, and whaling isn’t the only animal-based ‘research’ that doesn’t really…work.
- For example, Iran has launched ‘a rodent, turtles and worms to 500 kilometres above the Earth‘. Apparently, this will either help Iran launch astronauts into space, or…launch ballistic missiles. I’m not entirely sure how orbital animals could be weaponised…
- But we need ‘research’, or else we wouldn’t have worked out all the great things we can do to meat before it hits the supermarket.
- Gary Francione has posted numerous excellent pieces recently. He has: Read more…
Garth George and the Confused Culture
It’s not often I’m moved to comment on Garth George – for those who are blissfully unfamiliar with his work, he’s a longtime conservative critic for the Herald, who in the past has railed against the decriminalisation of both abortion and homosexuality. Thursday’s Herald included a fascinating editorial in which Mr George commented on the recent 33-dog slaughter in Wellsford, demonstrating a poignant knot that braces much of the globalised Western legal and social culture.
Garth begins his post by enumerating the three things he still cannot get his head around. In his own words:
The first is child abuse, paedophilia and cruelty to domestic animals; the second is male homosexuality; and the third is vegetarianism.
I will refrain from commenting on the second point since this is not the appropriate forum (although I do find the specific phraseology ‘male homosexuality’ fascinating), the first and third of Garth’s big confusions reveal a fascinating contradiction. Interestingly, he spends little time actually commenting on the relative merits or otherwise of vegetarianism or veganism (a distinction he admits ignorance of), and when he meets a member of this strange breed, he, ‘..simply shake[s his] …head in wonder.’ The rest of the editorial is devoted to shaming the perpetrators of some of the more heinous instances of animal cruelty over the recent past. Throughout the post, George makes it clear that he has no practical or comprehensible ethical or philosophical grounding from which this set of arbitrary rules are derived. Read more…
Comprehensive Review of the Animal Welfare Act?
Interesting comment from David Carter, Minister of Agriculture – and responsible for the Animal Welfare Act 1999. Not surprisingly, Parliament is fast-tracking Simon Bridges’ Bill to up the penalty on wilful ill-treatment, but Carter indicated in this article that he would consider ‘whether [the Bill] should be widened to make the Animal Welfare Act work better’. Wow! Could be significant. Stay tuned…
Blowing Off Some Steam about Wellsford and Politicians
There’s a lot to be angry about these days. Ever since a couple of lunatics decided to commit the ‘Wellsford Massacre’, by emptying their shotguns into a shed full of puppies, the media has been alight with stories about animal welfare. In one sense, that’s good. We certainly need to be paying more attention to what is, sadly, a prevalent problem. Nonetheless, there’s a lot to get angry about from the media coverage as well. I’m not sure whether it’s the media, the killers up in Wellsford, some lady calling me a dick-head, or a combination of all these things, but I’m feeling pretty steamed. Rather than attempt a coherent blog in this state, I’ll throw out a few points on the ‘things that are making me mad’, and hope it makes some degree of sense in the end.
Disclaimer
Before doing so, a disclaimer. I worry some times that people read parts of my comments rather than the whole. So let me state this loud and clear: I am not against punishing people who commit cruelty against animals. Far from it. I’ve done as much to try and get sentences fairly applied as anyone, and have written legal articles, drafted submissions to Parliament and worked with prosecutors to bolster sentences for animal abusers. It is, to be sure, a component of what needs to happen in order to have a country that treats animals better than it currently does. Nonetheless, as you’ll see from my comments below, I have serious reservations about the way this has suddenly become ‘the answer’ to our problems.
My Talk with Simon Bridges, MP
A few weeks before he introduced his new Bill to raise the maximum penalty for wilful ill-treatment to animals causing death from three to five years, Simon Bridges called me to see what I thought. I told him I thought it would do absolutely nothing for animals, and might even set back the cause. I think he was taken aback, as my position seemed both counter-intuitive and contrary to the ‘animal lover’ position. So I explained. The problem, as I see it, is not the maximum sentence for the single most serious crime relating to animals. A three year maximum, believe it or not, is fairly high by New Zealand standards. Sure, judges rarely impose the maximum, but that’s true for all crimes. Nonetheless, the three year maximum is not out-of-whack with other jurisdictions, and gives plenty of room to get jail time for those who commit horrid acts. Read more…
A few more thoughts on the Wellsford Massacre…
As more details emerge from what happened in Wellsford two days ago, the whole picture gets a great deal grimmer. In New Zealand terms, this was a huge story, splashed all over the front page of the Herald, and it has garnered considerable attention. Sadly, it says a lot about our view towards animals, and highlights some of the weaknesses of the existing animal welfare system. Incidentally, if you haven’t done so, it’s probably worth reading what I had to say on this yesterday, as I don’t plan on repeating any details of the case that I talked about then. But here are six additional things to think about:
First, the horrors of the incident should not be underestimated. When SPCA inspectors, who see plenty of awful things done to animals every day, are left speechless – it’s pretty bad news. The perpetrator of the act deserves the condemnation he’s getting now, and hopefully the jail time he deserves. Let’s be honest. That’s one pretty sick guy. Read more…
Ummm… What’s There to Think About?
Depressing images from this morning’s New Zealand herald. The lead story on the internet version of the paper is entitled ‘33 dogs massacred in ‘rifle-killing frenzy‘.
I’ll let you look over the depressing facts yourself. I’m interested in the legal aspects of the case. Consider the following facts set out in the Herald – keeping in mind that the Herald ‘facts’ are not necessarily actual ‘facts’:
Yesterday, holding back tears, [the owner] described the sounds of his dogs being shot – sounds that echoed off the quarry walls for 20 minutes.
“They were screaming, making sounds dogs just don’t make. When one was gone, the others knew they’d be next, but they had nowhere to go.”
In all, 23 pups and young dogs, which slept in the owner’s truck, were shot, as were a male and female dog living in a van wreck and eight adult dogs housed in a kennel. They were shot through the grating.
Four pups hiding under their mother in the van survived, as did two other dogs the shooters didn’t see.
These six were taken to the owner’s workshop in Wellsford, but one later died. None of the dogs had been registered.
Pretty despicable stuff, all arising out of a dispute between neighbours over actions taken by the dog.
Almost is frightening is the last paragraph of the story:
SPCA executive director Bob Kerridge said two investigators had visited the property and would determine whether the dogs suffered before they died. A decision would then be made on whether to charge the gunmen. Wilful ill-treatment carries a penalty of up to three years’ jail.
Ummm… Bob, what’s to think about? Read more…
2010 – The International Year of Biodiversity
Last week, British environmental critic and guardian journalist George Monbiot posted on the newly state-sanctioned ‘pro-active non-selective badger cull‘ in Wales to stop the spread of bovine tuberculosis, despite ample scientific evidence suggesting that this practice actually increases its spread, sardonically reminding us that 2010 is indeed the International Year of Biodiversity. In many ways, it seems funny that 2010 should be the one we choose to be the year of biodiversity, given that there has never been a year in human civilisation with a lower number of species across the planet. In light of this contradiction, I thought now might be a good time to remind ourselves of the link between meat eating and biodiversity. Read more…
Guest Post: ‘I Want to Hug You and Squeeze You into Itty-Bitty Pieces!’
by Daniel Meyrowitz
Daniel is a 4th year student at the University of Auckland, doing conjoint degrees in Law and English Literature and is currently a student in Animals and the Law.
Warner Bros creation Elmyra Duff of Tiny Toon Adventures is both amusing to watch and interesting to think about as a tool for social critique. Elmyra is modeled as a sort of female version of Elmer Fudd, ‘wabbit’ hunter and arch-enemy of Bugs Bunny. Instead of resorting to obvious forms of violence, as Elmer does, Elmyra chooses rather to love animals, although the net result of animal suffering is probably the same in both cases. Elmyra, however, is far more complicated in her motives and methods. Elmer Fudd hunts rabbits. It is simple and without equivocation. Elmyra, complete with her iconic gerbil skull placed in the middle of her hair ribbon, is a potent symbol for a more ubiquitous form of animal abuse. Elmyra’s abuse is pernicious, owing to the fact that it masquerades as animal love. Elmyra is a pet owner and collector. Elmyra loves pets. We all love pets. But all that love comes at a cost. Read more…
Guest Post: Pedigree at What Price?
by Jessica O’Connell
Jessica is a 5th year student at the University of Auckland, completing conjoint degrees in Law and Arts. She is in the transition from vegetarianism to veganism. She also enjoys sports such as kickboxing and tennis.
British Bull Dog
A close friend of mine mentioned that she was thinking of buying a bulldog the other day. They’re a good size for the amount of space she has, they make great companions, and they’re adorable. It got me thinking about the bulldog, a long suffering canine plagued by respiratory illness, skin disease, and joint problems (to name a few). How did this happen? If pedigree dog breeding is, as breeders would have it, about breeding away from defects and towards a healthy, ‘perfect’ looking specimen, then how have bulldogs ended up in such dire straits? Read more…
Links for January 2010
'Enviropig' by Nathan Meltz
- Sociological images interviewed artist Nathan Meltz about his pieces on industrial farming.
- No Right Turn accuses MAF of looking the other way on animal cruelty, noting that less than 0.5% of the complaints they receive lead to convictions. They suggest that MAF should take or a proactive role, and that if they don’t, the people responsible should be sacked. The trouble is, the problem is not just with MAF’s tiny animal welfare unit. The problem is also with the Ministry, tasked at once with protecting animal exploitation and animal welfare, and unwilling to invest a reasonable amount of funding in animal welfare. The problem is with the successive governments that have created and tolerated this situation. The problem is with the police not being trained in their powers under the Animal Welfare Act 1999. The problem, I suggest, is ultimately that most of our society doesn’t take animal welfare at all seriously. Read more…
