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.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
