There’s been a kerfuffle here in Canberra over the last few days after a photo of a Canberra Raiders (rugby league) player Joel Monaghan simulating sexual contact with a dog was published on the web. Apparently it’s gone world-wide.
One of the major sponsors of the Raiders is the dairy industry (represented by Canberra Milk). They certainly hopped on their high-horse, expressing their outrage at such an act.
They, of course, are well placed to comment on the subject of sexual contact between humans and nonhumans. A regular part of their business is the manual extraction of semen from bulls and the placement of that semen into the cows – guided by an inserted human hand.
Sounds pretty perverted to me.
Coincidentally, this piece written by Jenny Moxham was published in the Geelong Advertiser today.
-----------------------------------
PERSPECTIVE
Geelong Advertiser
8/11/10
Sex assaults make animals of humans
Two items in the newspaper caught my eye. One was about a former priest who was on trial for sexually abusing children in the 1970's and the other was about President Obama pardoning a turkey for Thanksgiving.
Now what on earth have these two things got to do with each other?
Lots - because every turkey eaten on Thanksgiving Day - or Christmas Day, here in Australia - is the product of sexual abuse.
Going by the jail terms meted out to sex offenders we clearly regard the sexual abuse of our fellow humans as a very serious crime - some offenders have received sentences of more than 15 years - yet, when the victim is a species other than our own we seemingly "turn a blind eye" to it. Why?
Because factory farmed turkeys have been bizarrely, and cruelly, bred for maximum profit, their breasts are now so large they can no longer mate naturally. Consequently, in order to produce the chicks that the industry is so desirous of, the birds are routinely sexually abused by workers.
The protesting males are held upside down with their legs clamped and are "milked" - to put it nicely - by the workers. The unwilling females are then put in stirrups and have their private parts similarly violated as they are artificially inseminated.
Imagine what an uproar - and outrage - there would be if someone performed these acts of sexual abuse on humans!
But it's not only turkeys who are sexually abused in the livestock industry.
Pigs, too, are subjected to similar sexual abuse. No factory farmed pig is ever permitted to mate naturally with a female. Instead he is man-handled and manipulated in the same way as the turkey, and the female is subjected to similar sexual violation by farm workers in order to forcibly make her pregnant.
Dairy cows are likewise subjected to this sexual violation. In order to impregnate them the farmer inserts his entire arm into their private parts.
Of course, even when animals mate naturally in the livestock industry it could be regarded as sexual abuse.
Take the broiler industry, for example.
In order to produce meat chickens - known as broilers - the breeding females are forced to endure intolerable conditions. Locked inside sheds with many young roosters they are constantly raped until their backsides are red, raw and swollen.
Surely this is simply another form of man - inflicted sexual abuse because in a natural environment it would never occur.
If we regard it as wrong to sexually abuse humans, shouldn't we likewise regard it as wrong to sexually abuse other species?
In 1973 the term speciesism was created by British psychologist Richard Ryder to denote prejudice against non-humans based purely on physical differences.
Surely to condemn the sexual abuse of humans yet condone the sexual abuse of non-humans is out-and-out speciesism.
JENNY MOXHAM
-------------------------------------------------
On ya, Jenny.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Another horse dies
Friday’s Canberra Times reported that the horse Sampler ‘broke down’ at Canberra racecourse on Thursday August 12 (“Hawkeye Hope runs down jockey moments before win”, Aug 13, p25). It stated that the jockey had sprained his knee – didn’t even go to hospital – but gave no information on the condition of the horse. Nor was there any news online for the next few days.
I did find the race video and it seemed clear that the poor mare had broken her near foreleg. But the replay commentary also avoided the fate of the horse, the camera following the other horses to the line and beyond and not showing her suffering – just a reference to her ‘not doing too well’.
I finally tracked down the Stewards Report to find that, “following an immediate veterinary assessment of its injuries the mare was humanely euthanased.”
So we have yet another horse going through agony before being killed in support of this glorified gambling industry.
It’s pointless to ask, “how many more?” – while there’s horse racing the horses will continue to be regarded as expendable. Expensive but expendable.
And it seems the media will continue to avoid the ugly facts.
I did find the race video and it seemed clear that the poor mare had broken her near foreleg. But the replay commentary also avoided the fate of the horse, the camera following the other horses to the line and beyond and not showing her suffering – just a reference to her ‘not doing too well’.
I finally tracked down the Stewards Report to find that, “following an immediate veterinary assessment of its injuries the mare was humanely euthanased.”
So we have yet another horse going through agony before being killed in support of this glorified gambling industry.
It’s pointless to ask, “how many more?” – while there’s horse racing the horses will continue to be regarded as expendable. Expensive but expendable.
And it seems the media will continue to avoid the ugly facts.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
No - I'm not an 'animal lover'.
We who argue for the rights of nonhuman animals should never use the term ‘animal lover’ to describe ourselves and should strongly reject the term if it is ever used to describe us.
Society’s dealings with nonhuman animals are largely based on the false perception of a vast chasm between humans and nonhumans (generally referred to as ‘animals’) – very much ‘us and them’.
The reality is that there is no such gulf; it is a human construct which allows for our treatment of nonhumans as objects, property, slaves and recipe ingredients – not as individual sentient beings with interests, wants and needs of their own.
If we accept ‘animal lover’ then we are tacitly accepting the existence of this artificial gulf.
A similar term (‘nigger lover’) was used to marginalise those who argued for the abolition of slavery and other racial discrimination. This term is even worse than ‘animal lover’ because it includes the word that, in itself, is offensive – but both expressions perpetuate the notion that there are two entirely separate groups; white people and black people in one case, human animals and nonhuman animals in the other.
The second reason we should deny the term ‘animal lover’ is that not only does it perpetuate the myth of difference but also states that you must be a ‘lover’ of that different group before granting them any sort of rights; another form of marginalisation. People who argue for the rights of women, children or any other group do not need to be ‘lovers’ of that group – just fair minded, just and unprejudiced.
So, no – I’m not an ‘animal lover’ – I simply regard them as sentient beings who deserve to be treated with respect. This would generally translate to us leaving them and their environment alone and limiting our interaction with them to what is currently seen as proper dealings with our fellow humans – benign, peaceful contact and assistance when required.
Society’s dealings with nonhuman animals are largely based on the false perception of a vast chasm between humans and nonhumans (generally referred to as ‘animals’) – very much ‘us and them’.
The reality is that there is no such gulf; it is a human construct which allows for our treatment of nonhumans as objects, property, slaves and recipe ingredients – not as individual sentient beings with interests, wants and needs of their own.
If we accept ‘animal lover’ then we are tacitly accepting the existence of this artificial gulf.
A similar term (‘nigger lover’) was used to marginalise those who argued for the abolition of slavery and other racial discrimination. This term is even worse than ‘animal lover’ because it includes the word that, in itself, is offensive – but both expressions perpetuate the notion that there are two entirely separate groups; white people and black people in one case, human animals and nonhuman animals in the other.
The second reason we should deny the term ‘animal lover’ is that not only does it perpetuate the myth of difference but also states that you must be a ‘lover’ of that different group before granting them any sort of rights; another form of marginalisation. People who argue for the rights of women, children or any other group do not need to be ‘lovers’ of that group – just fair minded, just and unprejudiced.
So, no – I’m not an ‘animal lover’ – I simply regard them as sentient beings who deserve to be treated with respect. This would generally translate to us leaving them and their environment alone and limiting our interaction with them to what is currently seen as proper dealings with our fellow humans – benign, peaceful contact and assistance when required.
Friday, February 26, 2010
New ACT regulations on battery hens are trivial
Those of us concerned about the treatment of caged hens have always argued against the appalling battery cages on the basis that they prevent the hens from expressing the vast majority of their natural, instinctive behaviours. They cannot spread, let alone flap, their wings; they cannot dust-bathe; there is no nest, no roosting and no perch. As they cannot exercise, their bones are weakened and break easily. They cannot even preen themselves.
Absolutely nothing in the ACT Government's new regulations ("Improving the welfare of caged hens”, 23 Feb 2010, http://www.chiefminister.act.gov.au/media.php?v=9255&m=51) will alleviate a single one of those restrictions.
And for the Chief Minister to brag about the extra space for ACT hens is nauseating. The only reason that the Parkwood hens have a little more space (a scant finger width in all directions) than most caged hens in Australia is that Pace Farm chose not to replace their obsolete, filthy bloody cages when regulations changed two years ago. Instead, they simply restocked with one less bird per cage.
And despite Stanhope's ridiculous claim, it is just not possible to "improve the welfare" of hens while keeping them in battery cages.
The ACT must truly take the lead and ban the cages.
Absolutely nothing in the ACT Government's new regulations ("Improving the welfare of caged hens”, 23 Feb 2010, http://www.chiefminister.act.gov.au/media.php?v=9255&m=51) will alleviate a single one of those restrictions.
And for the Chief Minister to brag about the extra space for ACT hens is nauseating. The only reason that the Parkwood hens have a little more space (a scant finger width in all directions) than most caged hens in Australia is that Pace Farm chose not to replace their obsolete, filthy bloody cages when regulations changed two years ago. Instead, they simply restocked with one less bird per cage.
And despite Stanhope's ridiculous claim, it is just not possible to "improve the welfare" of hens while keeping them in battery cages.
The ACT must truly take the lead and ban the cages.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Canberra Times and Dr Bryan Pratt
In January, a platypus was killed in Lake Burley Griffin after it was entangled in fishing line – either discarded or deliberately and illegally left in the water. That prompted a letter in the Canberra Times from local fish hunter, Shane Jasprizza (pub. Jan 17) describing the animal’s death as “unfortunate and regrettable” – as, of course, it was – but no worse than the death of any one of the thousands of fish he and his mates kill every year.
I wrote a reply (pub. Jan 19) asking why the death of the platypus was so much worse than the death of a fish – the desired outcome of a typical fishing trip – and pointing out that both platypus and fish feel pain and would have suffered.
This prompted local “fishing guru” Dr Bryan Pratt to devote a part of his weekly Canberra Times column (‘Gone Fishing’ Jan 22) to dismissing the idea that fish can feel pain. He said,
Unfortunate death of platypus brings out ignorant bleating of anti-anglers
Unfortunately, the publicity sur rounding the event, intending to serve as a useful reminder for anglers and others to be more careful about protection of wildlife, also brings out the crazies, bigots, Luddites and others in society who don't necessarily care about the wildlife but simply use this as another oppor tunity to publicise their hatred of angling. They paint anglers in the worst possible way and where they don't have facts to back up an argument they simply invent them. One classic example is to claim that fish feel pain and that anglers cause that pain.
Let's get this right. The full weight of scientific opinion, the result of an enormous amount of research in Australia
(Canberra Times, p30, Friday Jan 22, 2010)
As mine had been the only letter published claiming that fish feel pain, I took this as a personal insult. I sent a letter to the paper objecting to his language (“crazies, bigots, Luddites”, "childish, ignorant and unhelpful nonsense") and referring to scientific research which concluded that fish feel pain. I also pointed out that the RSPCA Policy on Angling (adopted August 2008) states, "RSPCA Australia considers that the available scientific evidence demonstrates that fish are capable of experiencing pain and suffering".
Given that research and the RSPCA policy, I argued that it was simply unsustainable to argue that, “The full weight of scientific opinion … indicates that fish do not feel pain”.
The letter was not published within a couple of days so I sent it again copying it to the CT Editor and with a note explaining the reasons I thought his crap deserved a response. Again – no joy.
However, the following Friday (Jan 29), Pratt again mentioned the issue in his column.
Science hits raw nerve
My comment last week on the science of whether or not fish feel pain drew a mixed response.
Most people were interested to hear of the scientific findings but others, amazingly, were convinced I was singling them out for special treatment and challenging their ver acity. I apologise to those poor souls and assure them that I had no such intention.
What I was presenting was that the consensus of scientific opinion is that fish do not feel pain because they lack the necessary neurological make-up to do so and yes I am aware of the experiment at the Roslin Institute and Edinburgh University whereby a researcher injected saline solution into fish and claimed they feel pain when they reacted badly to it.
Equally they could just have found it distasteful without actually feeling or registering pain.
I repeat that the vast body of scientific opinion is that fish do not feel pain. That's not just my opinion, it's that of independent scientists worldwide and I am happy to pass on that information without denigrating anybody else's opinion.
(Canberra Times, p23, Friday Jan 29, 2010)
I faxed the good doctor (I don’t have an email address for him) on the day he made that offer asking him to ‘pass on that information’. Despite a reminder a week later, I have received nothing from him.
Pratt also does a brief fishing report on local ABC radio on Thursday mornings. Prior to his appearance on Feb 4, I emailed the show and asked them to put my points to him and ask him to provide the proof for his claims. The presenter did, referring to my email. Pratt dismissed the science (he’d heard that stuff before) and as to whether he was going to provide proof (put to him as ‘a challenge’) he said that he didn’t respond to such nonsense.
The local RSPCA also sent a letter to the Canberra Times defending their policy but it was not published.
I don’t deny Dr Pratt or anyone the right to express an opinion. If he had simply said that he disagreed with the scientific research that is showing that fish probably feel pain then so be it.
But he didn’t – he claimed that the full weight of scientific opinion indicates that fish do not feel pain. That statement cannot be substantiated.
Dr Pratt is either deliberately lying or is deluding himself. I guess that’s understandable given that he profits financially by encouraging people to hunt fish and then selling them the equipment required to do so.
The Canberra Times has allowed a columnist to vehemently assert an untruth and refused to publish letters which would show that the RSPCA refutes that assertion.
At least there was some airing of the RSPCA position – two local papers (The Chronicle and City News) published my letters referring to the RSPCA policy and some recent research from Norway
Meanwhile, I’ll continue to remind Dr Pratt that I am waiting on his promised information.
Friday, January 22, 2010
An open letter to RSPCA ACT CEO, Michael Linke
Michael, I have seen your recent messages to one of the Animal Liberation ACT members following some posts (since deleted) on the RSPCA ACT Facebook page. I am not writing on behalf of AL-ACT as I am not an office bearer – just an ordinary member. But as such I took offence at your words and wanted to pass on my thoughts to you – and your members.
The origin of the discussion was an announcement by RSPCA of upcoming events. This brought about a number of posts suggesting that the RSPCA should serve only vegan food at such events as the production of unnecessary animal based foods causes massive suffering and the deaths of millions of farmed animals. It was put that by so doing, the RSPCA would be taking a very clear stance against the treatment of farmed animals – removing some of the inconsistency in its current position.
In response, you stated that “we do not promote a vegetarian lifestyle”. We know that – but we fail to see why. Your UK RSPCA colleagues provide links to the Vegetarian Society, have recently encouraged people to “look out for a tasty vegetarian alternative, such as a nut roast” for Christmas dinner and have educational materials that encourage teachers and students to look at the issue.
The RSPCA ACT website does not even mention the word ‘vegetarian’ yet reducing the amount of animal products one consumes is the single most effective way to reduce animal suffering.
You also labelled us ‘extremists’ and accused us of “bemoaning” and criticising rather than taking real action. I find that extremely offensive and arrogant given that you are a paid, full-time CEO of a multi-million dollar organisation. To criticise the amount of work done by volunteers in a small community group is a bit rich – and is also completely unjustified. AL-ACT is extremely active and has achieved much on a very limited budget. They have been instrumental in having animal circuses and rodeos banned and despite your apparent attempt to claim personal credit for the ban on fireworks and the new egg-labelling laws, AL-ACT has been extremely active and effective in both those campaigns for years.
Further to the battery caged eggs issue, I attended your launch of the Choose Wisely campaign at the parliament house breakfast and, as I said to you afterwards, I was very disappointed that you could not even mention the work done by Animal Liberation in the speeches and video presentation purporting to portray the history of the anti-cage campaigns in the ACT. You made no mention at all of the work done over the last 14 years by AL – including its work with the Greens on drafting Bills and the effective campaigning carried out by Free Range Canberra (an AL-ACT campaign).
The RSPCA often demonstrates a blind spot for farmed animals continuing with a recent item in the Canberra Times regarding the hot weather where you appealed for people to take care of domestic animals and expressed concern for wildlife yet failed to mention the thousands of sheep and cattle often left in paddocks with no shade on the hottest of days. Nor did you mention your commercial partners, Pace Farm and how the hens in their stinking hot sheds at Parkwood would have suffered over these hot periods.
We know you are not an animal rights group but you don’t need to be to mention on your site and in your literature that no modern animal ‘farming’ is humane.
I understand the difference between animal rights and animal welfare. I can see that taking a position (veganism/animal rights) at the end of the spectrum causes difficulties in pulling the average Aussie that long distance from his current meat-eating way of life. I can also see your point in aiming for prodding Mr Average via small steps and staying “in the tent” – but while you are there you need to start acknowledging that there is a lot of space and a growing crowd outside it.
RSPCA is far too inclined to stay in its comfort zone. It’s time you all got a bit bolder and acknowledged veganism as the most effective way for individuals to reduce animal suffering. And refusing to serve dead animals at your functions should be your first step.
Mike O'Shaughnessy
The origin of the discussion was an announcement by RSPCA of upcoming events. This brought about a number of posts suggesting that the RSPCA should serve only vegan food at such events as the production of unnecessary animal based foods causes massive suffering and the deaths of millions of farmed animals. It was put that by so doing, the RSPCA would be taking a very clear stance against the treatment of farmed animals – removing some of the inconsistency in its current position.
In response, you stated that “we do not promote a vegetarian lifestyle”. We know that – but we fail to see why. Your UK RSPCA colleagues provide links to the Vegetarian Society, have recently encouraged people to “look out for a tasty vegetarian alternative, such as a nut roast” for Christmas dinner and have educational materials that encourage teachers and students to look at the issue.
The RSPCA ACT website does not even mention the word ‘vegetarian’ yet reducing the amount of animal products one consumes is the single most effective way to reduce animal suffering.
You also labelled us ‘extremists’ and accused us of “bemoaning” and criticising rather than taking real action. I find that extremely offensive and arrogant given that you are a paid, full-time CEO of a multi-million dollar organisation. To criticise the amount of work done by volunteers in a small community group is a bit rich – and is also completely unjustified. AL-ACT is extremely active and has achieved much on a very limited budget. They have been instrumental in having animal circuses and rodeos banned and despite your apparent attempt to claim personal credit for the ban on fireworks and the new egg-labelling laws, AL-ACT has been extremely active and effective in both those campaigns for years.
Further to the battery caged eggs issue, I attended your launch of the Choose Wisely campaign at the parliament house breakfast and, as I said to you afterwards, I was very disappointed that you could not even mention the work done by Animal Liberation in the speeches and video presentation purporting to portray the history of the anti-cage campaigns in the ACT. You made no mention at all of the work done over the last 14 years by AL – including its work with the Greens on drafting Bills and the effective campaigning carried out by Free Range Canberra (an AL-ACT campaign).
The RSPCA often demonstrates a blind spot for farmed animals continuing with a recent item in the Canberra Times regarding the hot weather where you appealed for people to take care of domestic animals and expressed concern for wildlife yet failed to mention the thousands of sheep and cattle often left in paddocks with no shade on the hottest of days. Nor did you mention your commercial partners, Pace Farm and how the hens in their stinking hot sheds at Parkwood would have suffered over these hot periods.
We know you are not an animal rights group but you don’t need to be to mention on your site and in your literature that no modern animal ‘farming’ is humane.
I understand the difference between animal rights and animal welfare. I can see that taking a position (veganism/animal rights) at the end of the spectrum causes difficulties in pulling the average Aussie that long distance from his current meat-eating way of life. I can also see your point in aiming for prodding Mr Average via small steps and staying “in the tent” – but while you are there you need to start acknowledging that there is a lot of space and a growing crowd outside it.
RSPCA is far too inclined to stay in its comfort zone. It’s time you all got a bit bolder and acknowledged veganism as the most effective way for individuals to reduce animal suffering. And refusing to serve dead animals at your functions should be your first step.
Mike O'Shaughnessy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
