Cats have more rights in terms of freedoms than women in Afghanistan says Meryl Streep

NEWS AND OPINION: I cannot avoid expressing my strong opinion about the highly objectionable way the Taliban suppress and in effect incarcerate women and girls in Afghanistan. It is monstrous misogynism of the most heinous kind. The world should be up in arms about it. The world can get together; should get together to stop this.

Meryl Streep is an intelligent and gentle woman and in this video - which has gone viral - she gently chides Afghanistan's Taliban leaders about the way they suffocate women and girls in their country. They have stripped away all their rights to the point, according to Meryl Streep, where girls and women have less rights in terms of freedoms than domestic cats in Afghanistan. She was speaking at an event on ‘The Inclusion of Women in the Future of Afghanistan’.

There are 2 play buttons in the infographic in order to play the vide embedded in it.

And today a female cat has more freedoms than a woman. Meryl Streep. by Michael Broad

--------------

It would seem to me that women and girls in Afghanistan have lost almost all their rights. There is nothing left to strip away other than the right to feed themselves and breathe the air.

And remember, the Taliban said that they would respect women's rights when they took over the country after America and its Western allies vacated the place in acknowledgement that they had failed. But during the occupation by Western forces, women and girls in Afghanistan enjoyed much greater freedoms and rights. The Taliban and their oppressive attitudes towards women and misogynism removed them all.

Women enjoyed a normal life for a time. They were able to express their views and have a sense of equality and then suddenly it was all removed when the Taliban broke their promises. They are an insidiously disrespectful lot of misogynists in my honest opinion.

They cannot be trusted. It would appear that their attitudes about women are so backward that it is hard to know from which era they come or is it purely about a distortion of the Islamic faith (see link below). Perhaps during humankind's evolution when they were living in caves as Neanderthals, men treated women as the Taliban treat women today. But I suspect even the Neanderthals treated women far better than the Taliban treat Afghanistan's women today.

Good on Meryl Streep. She believes that more pressure needs to be applied to the Taliban to change their ways. I don't think the world can accept it. The world needs to intervene. Governments these days are frightened to intervene in these situations. They think it always leads to failure. They've been burnt in the past. Look at Iraq and Vietnam for instance. And Afghanistan is an example of Western failure in intervention. Although on different matters. America tried to change the culture in Afghanistan and did so while they were there.

But I don't think a history of failure should prevent people from trying to change gross misdeeds in one country in the future. We must maintain optimism and commitment to improving the world. We should not accept appalling behaviour in one country. The Taliban will argue that other countries should respect their culture. I get that. We should respect the culture of other countries.

But when that culture is so oppressive of human rights to women the rules change. You cannot respect a culture which is so diabolical that domestic cats have greater freedoms than women and girls.

One last point: I suspect that domestic cats live a pretty difficult life in Afghanistan. The country is relatively poor and animal welfare organisations run by Westerners disappeared from that country when the Taliban took over. I don't think that the Taliban have any great respect for animals. They probably abuse and use them in the same way that they abuse and use women.

I suspect that the concept of animal welfare animal rights do not enter the heads of Taliban leaders judging by the way they treat their women and girls. This despite the fact that the hadiths of the Quran demand that Muslims respect cats.

My gut feeling is that cats have almost no rights. And yet they have more rights than female humans.

Reasons for existence of misogyny

I asked AI (ChatGPT) about why this misogynism exists. These views come from the internet in general. I don't necessarily hold these views. For me it is more about male power. I asked AI about that and you can see the response lower down.

Misogynistic behaviour within any cultural or racial group is a complex issue influenced by various factors. It's essential to approach this topic with sensitivity and an understanding that misogyny can exist in different forms across all cultures, not limited to any particular race or ethnicity. Here are some key factors that can contribute to misogynistic behaviour:

1. Historical Context: Many societies have a long history of patriarchal structures that prioritize male authority and dominance. These historical power dynamics can shape attitudes toward gender roles and contribute to ongoing misogyny.

2. Cultural Norms and Values: Cultural beliefs and practices can play a significant role in shaping gender relations. Societies that emphasize traditional gender roles often foster environments where misogynistic attitudes are normalized.

3. Socialization and Education: From a young age, individuals are socialized into their cultural norms, which can include harmful stereotypes and attitudes toward women. Education systems that reinforce these stereotypes contribute to the perpetuation of misogyny.

4. Media Representation: The portrayal of women in media—whether in television, films, music, or literature—can reflect and reinforce misogynistic attitudes. Negative stereotypes and objectification of women can shape societal views on gender.

5. Economic Factors: Economic inequality and dependency can exacerbate misogynistic behaviour. In cultures where women have limited access to education and economic opportunities, traditional gender roles may be more pronounced.

6. Religious Beliefs: In some cultures, religious teachings may promote patriarchal views or limit the roles of women in society. Interpretations of religious texts can influence attitudes toward gender equality.

7. Fear of Change: As societies evolve and gender roles shift, some individuals may react defensively, leading to an increase in misogynistic behaviour as a way to reassert traditional power dynamics.

8. Peer Influence: Social groups and peer pressure can reinforce misogynistic attitudes, particularly among men. Group dynamics can lead to the normalization of derogatory language and behaviour toward women.

9. Psychological Factors: Individual psychological issues, such as insecurity or a need for control, can also manifest in misogynistic behaviour. These issues can be compounded by societal norms that condone or encourage such attitudes.

10. Intersectionality: It’s important to consider how race, class, sexuality, and other identities intersect to shape experiences and attitudes. Misogyny may be expressed differently across different communities and can be exacerbated by factors such as racism and economic inequality.

Addressing misogyny requires a multifaceted approach that includes education, challenging cultural norms, promoting gender equality, and fostering dialogue within communities. Engaging with these issues critically and empathetically can help combat misogyny and promote a more equitable society.

Is one reason to do with male power?

Yes, male power is indeed a significant factor contributing to misogynistic behaviour within many cultures. Here are several ways in which male power influences misogyny:

1. Patriarchy: Many societies are structured around patriarchal systems that prioritize male authority and dominance in various aspects of life, including family, politics, and the workplace. This power structure often leads to the marginalization of women and reinforces misogynistic attitudes.

2. Control and Dominance: Misogyny can manifest as an expression of control or dominance over women. When men feel their power or status is threatened, they may resort to misogynistic behaviours as a way to reassert their authority.

3. Socialization of Masculinity: Many cultures socialize men to adhere to traditional notions of masculinity, which often include traits like aggression, control, and emotional suppression. These traits can contribute to misogynistic behaviour, as men may feel pressured to demonstrate their power through dominance over women.

4. Fear of Vulnerability: The societal expectation for men to be strong and dominant can lead to a fear of vulnerability. In this context, women may be viewed as threats to male power, leading to hostile attitudes and behaviours aimed at maintaining control.

5. Economic Power: Economic inequalities often mean that men hold more financial power, which can lead to controlling behaviours in relationships and contribute to the perception of women as dependent or subordinate.

6. Exclusion from Power Structures: Women's historical exclusion from positions of power—whether in government, business, or religious institutions—perpetuates male dominance and reinforces the idea that men should control societal norms and values, including those related to gender.

7. Reinforcement of Gender Roles: Male power often reinforces rigid gender roles, where men are seen as leaders and providers while women are relegated to supportive or subordinate roles. This dynamic can foster resentment and hostility toward women who challenge these roles.

8. Cultural Narratives: Many cultures have narratives that glorify male power and aggression while devaluing female strength and independence. These narratives can normalize misogyny and legitimize male dominance.

Addressing misogyny rooted in male power involves challenging these societal structures, promoting gender equality, and redefining notions of masculinity to be more inclusive and respectful of women's rights and autonomy.

Islamic Faith

There is also a strong Islamic faith context here as women are very much in the shadow of men in Muslim countries. Also the Taliban exercise a very extreme version of the Islamic faith. But they use the faith to exercise control and power over women as they fear them in that if women are given equal rights it will undermine the male dominance over Afghan society. And of course the men use force to maintain this absolute control over women all of which is totally unacceptable by normal Western values.

Click this to read more on the Islam context.

------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also: sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. Also, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable.

Why don't humans give animals the same rights as themselves?

The first point to make is that humans decide who has rights and who doesn't. The concept of rights is a human creation. Only humans can dish out rights to humans and animals. And they are designed to protect sentient beings.

Humans don't give animals the same rights that they give humans because if they did it would severely upset businesses. Granting animals the same rights as humans would punch a seriously big hole in worldwide commerce. It would destroy many businesses and it would certainly cost the world, in terms of trade, trillions upon trillions of dollars because in this modern world, animals are still there to serve humans in the biblical fashion.

Note: these are personal views. What are yours? Please comment. Click on the image to see it larger.

The picture was created by AI and AI can't spell! 😊💕🤔

Humans still have dominion over animals as per the Bible and animals are still abused by humans in order to make billions of pounds of profit. If you introduced greatly enhanced animal rights into this equation the ramifications would be enormous. For example the illegal trade in wild animals and their body parts is worth billions of dollars annually. All illegal. Humans don't want to enforce international agreements to stop it (CITES).

The consequences of equal animal rights would reverberate around the world for decades into the future. It would increase the price of foods tremendously. This would have a seriously negative effect on the economies of many countries.

In short, it simply isn't workable to grant animals the same rights as humans under the current human society even if we wanted to and in most instances we don't because this is about survival and granting animals equal rights jeopardises the survival of humans which is dependent upon making money.

So the granting or not granting of human rights to animals is about money at a bottom line. When I asked the same question of an artificial intelligent computer they could not provide me with a good answer because AI does not have an opinion. They don't know how to philosophise.

They simply search the Internet for the ideas of others and then summarise them. So you can't go to AI for an answer to this question.

What you can say in the positive is that animal rights have improved tremendously over the past centuries and recently over the past hundred years. This is due to pressure from animal advocates like myself.

And it is due to a realisation that we have to live with animals on this planet as best began. If we destroy nature - and wild animals are obviously a part of nature - we destroy ourselves because we are dependent upon nature and the planet to survive.

We ARE in fact destroying ourselves because we are in fact destroying the planet thanks to global warming and that, too, is about making money. If you want to prevent or curb global warming you have to invest trillions of dollars and countries like China don't want to do that. 

They want to go on with a burgeoning economy rapidly increasing in size. They depend upon around 5% growth every year in order to appease the masses in China. If they don't see the economy growing the tenuous hold on power by the CCP would start to crumble.

So granting rights to animals is about money and money gives people power and power gives people improved chances of survival. The answer is all about survival at the end of the day.

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

My boyfriend said he'd save our cat but not a stranger if both were drowning

The title to this post comes from The New York Times. I can't access the paper because they are now insisting on paying subscriptions but I can guess what it's about as I am sure you can.

The title intrigues me. I like it because it very strongly points to the boyfriend regarding animals as equals to humans. Through his behaviour the boyfriend is granting animals near human rights.

Man saves drowning cat. Extraordinary image create by AI to my order. I asked the computer to create an image of a man saving a drowning cat. The AI computer created Superman and a large clapping crowd 👍😉😎.

It is an attitude which is very much in line with the modern-day thinking of many people. But also, there are many people who would think that he is totally crazy. There are still many people who think that humans have dominion over animals as per the bible. 

They believe that humans can use animals as they wish and that animals are there to serve people in any way necessary including providing food for humans.

But the tide is turning thanks probably because of the Internet providing lots of information about the sentience of animals. Providing information about the emotions that animals deal. And providing information about the fact that some animal species are self-aware which means they understand who they are and place rather than acting instinctively without knowledge of their presence. 

RELATED: Scientists propose that we should regard animals in general as conscious beings.

But there's nothing wrong with the boyfriend's attitude. The problem probably would come if he actually had to make a real-life choice between saving the family cat who was drowning rather than a stranger who was drowning at the same time and in the same place.

You can imagine the scenario. A cat and a human are drowning in a lake. A man Johnson dives in and saves the cat but leaves the man to drown. I think he would be in big trouble. He might even be charged with criminal behaviour.

In reality, it is probable that the scenario would never arrive and if it did he could save both. And also, if it did happen, the cat wouldn't drown because cats are great swimmers. Cats are better swimmers than people normally and therefore you would tend to save the man first and then the cat secondly if the cat required it.

The boyfriend's enlightened (for me 🤔💕) attitude is in advance of the general attitude of humankind in general as the world is still developing and becoming more civilised. When the world is truly civilised perhaps in many thousands of years time (if ever) we will treat humans and animals in the same way.

There are instances in some advanced developed countries were cats and animals do have considerable rights. In the UK the Animal Welfare Act 2006 provides certain rights to animals at the outset under the law. Break the law and you are a criminal if successfully prosecuted.

In the Spanish family courts, animals are treated a bit like children in divorce proceedings. The court must look at the parties' abilities to look after the animal and consider the animal's welfare. These are the basic rules concerning caring for a child. In other words, animals are treated as sentient beings in divorce proceedings with some important rights.

What do you think about the boyfriend's attitude?

---------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

Bunch of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) police beat up woman selling vegetables

NEWS AND COMMENT: This is the tweet: "The Communist regime’s dog-like city management officials, beating a poor woman who sells vegetables! It appears her husband is forced to watch this scene! Beasts! #CCPChina".

Do they need a license to sell vegetables in China? What has she done wrong? That is not the point though. The point is that if she has done something wrong the police should either caution her or after spelling out her rights regarding evidence arrest her for violating a specific law.

But this is China where they kill dogs in the street all the time by beating. Where cats are stolen for the cat meat market in their many thousands and where the f*** police prefer to beat up a woman rather than abide by the law.

Note that her husband is retrained while he is forced to watch this crime by the police whose job it is to stop crime.

If they had owned a dog, it would have been killed there and then. An example of poor human rights in China. As you can expect animal right are pretty well non-existent in China. You don't want to be a dog in China. You really wouldn't.

Chinese police beat up woman trading in vegetables. Screenshot.

-----

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

Cat Hell Dog Nightmare Human Norm

WARNING: this is about dog and cat meat and the brutality of the business. It's just horrendous. The pictures are from a horror movie only it's real this time. And for the perpetrators it is all normal but got the cats and dogs it is a living hell until they are mercifully killed. You have to click links to see the pics as they are too horrible to have on this page. 

The brutal and ignorant behavior by the humans (sub-humans) who kill cats and dogs for meat reminds me of Putin's behavior in his manic desire to invade Ukraine and the subsequent death, destruction and rape perpetrated by his troops. There is not much difference in attitude which is why Russia is matey with China and vice versa.

It is tough to face up to humankind's weaknesses. People in one country don't like people in another country criticising them. They say "you don't understand our culture" and "what right have you got to criticise". That sort of thing. At its root, this article is not about a country's culture. It is about obvious animal cruelty of the most heinous kind. It is about base human behavior dressed up as part of an area's culture. All of us have a right to criticise that wherever we are. Despite that I will be ostracized by someone, somewhere.

This website never shirks from spelling out the truth. A lot of people don't like that. Humankind is very good at self-denial and finding ways of covering up the truth. Millions of examples take place every day. The current classics in the cat world are:

1. The mass slaughter of unwanted cats at "shelters" while we have fancy cat shows showing gorgeous, purebred cats bred for the purpose. You cannot justify having the latter while the former takes place.
2. Declawing of cats. A modern aberration and horribly distorted human behavior that one day will look ridiculous - hopefully.

To the above two I'd like to add something that is worse than both but which takes place at the opposite side of the world, in Asia. There are some horror pictures below the text. This is as bad as animal cruelty gets. See also cat meat name and shame.

Warning: Don't read on if, like me, you become upset at gross animal abuse. But please spread the word to try and stop this.

I received an email from Ольга Брундасова. I have published the contents verbatim. I believe that is what she wants me to do. I expect that you will find these words on other websites. They need to be.

PETITIONS

Update: these petitions are closed now as this post was written many years ago but it has been updated (see below in yellow highlighter).

• www.thepetitionsite.com/1/meat-trade--dogs-cats/  
• www.thepetitionsite.com/368/stop-animal-abuse-china/  
• https://secure2.convio.net/ida/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&page=UserAction&id=2169  
• http://www.ptroa.co.il/petition/  
• www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/395/884/823/

The $2 billion dollar-a-year South Korean dog and cat meat industry, which extinguishes the lives of approximately two and a half million dogs a year for meat or gaesoju, a dog wine or broth, and thousands of despised and doomed cats for so-called “health” tonics or goyangyeesoju, and soup, operates in a sordid and illicit world where farmers and butchers kill with frightening impunity in the most abominable fashion. Dogs are killed with high-voltage electronic rods (which does not kill immediately), hanging, or even beating the dog to death at the request of customers who believe that the meat is more tender and tastier the greater the dog suffers (one of the most pernicious of myths) and that the medicinal properties are enhanced. 

They are most often killed within sight of their cage mates. They are then thrown into a tub of boiling water, often still alive, and then into a rotating drum for the removal of their fur, and finally blowtorched. At Moran Market, South Korea’s largest open air-market for dog meat, dog carcasses are on display next to the cages of live dogs. Cats are thrown into boiling water while alive. At the farms, dogs are fed germ-infested, rotting, and fermented human leftovers, a health risk to both the dogs and those who eat them. In South Korea, dogs and cats’ lives are short and ferociously heartless until they tremble no more at the hands of their slaughterers as cage mates look on.

Legitimacy of dog meat in Korea

Dogs are defined as “livestock” according to the Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAF). The purpose of keeping them as livestock--for breeding, killing, or whatever--is irrelevant to the law.

However, dogs are not defined as “livestock” under the Livestock Processing Law. That is, they are not listed as livestock that can be officially processed as food. Therefore, it can be inferred it is illegal to process dogs for food, but there is no law expressly forbidding it.

It might be argued that since Korean laws are usually strict in listing what is allowed or prohibited, and since dogs are not listed as animals that can be processed as food, then it is illegal to produce dog meat.

The current Animal Protection Law does not ban the slaughter of dogs for meat, nor does it protect dogs on dog farms from abuse. It only applies to dogs kept in a house.

Tens of millions of animals are slaughtered and butchered in China each year. Animal fur is in high demand, and the Chinese deliver. What does not get exported outside of China usually ends up on a dinner plate. The sad fact is that the animals suffer horrendous torture. They are captured on the streets, and packed by the dozens into small cages, without ability to move. 

They are then tossed like inanimate objects from the trucks, onto the ground, hitting each other and the steel cages. These cages are later stacked, and the real nightmare begins. The animal is brutally pulled out of the cage, and tied to prevent resistance. It is lightly stunned by a blow on the head, but still alive. If the animal is not heavy, the worker holds it by its hind legs, waves it in the air and then bashes its head against the ground. Once the animal is subdued, a new and incomprehensible stage in this ongoing nightmare begins. 

The worker cuts a tiny incision in the animal's rear, and then methodically peels away the skin. This skinning process takes about a minute, during which the worker actively keeps the animal alive, as it is believed that it is easier to skin the animal while it is still warm and blood flows through its veins. The nightmare does not end here. 

The final stage in this unbelievable horror is when the animal is tossed aside, and slowly, amidst a heap of its dying friends, it perishes as it is no longer able to withstand the pain. In other cases, when the animal's fur is not needed (mostly with cats), the animals are put in a sack, and are then cooked alive in a barrel of boiling water.

Back in the day, there was a series of photographs below this text. But the policies regarding the kind of pictures you can put on websites has changed over the years. Nowadays, advertisers don't want their adverts to be in any way associated with pictures which are difficult to view. Accordingly, below, you will see a series of links to these photographs. You remain on this page and will be able to view the pictures on another page where there are no adverts. Sorry for the inconvenience.

These are all brutal photos. Horrible. A complete breakdown in morality. It's ignorance and cruelty.

Image 1 - dog being beaten to death
Image 2
Image 3
Image 4
Image 5
Image 6
Image 7
Image 8
Image 9
Image 10
Image 11
Image 12
Image 13
Image 14
Image 15

Arguments against animal rights - a discussion

Arguments against animal rights are likely to come from people who feel that their interests are negatively affected as a result of granting animals rights. These sorts of people are likely to be business men making a profit out of animals (or businesses ancillary to that kind of business), or people involved in the wholly unacceptable business of sport or trophy hunting, or indeed politicians connected with these businesses. In short opponents will be people who feel that their human "rights" will be eroded by an extension of animal rights.

A hunter who would be against animal rights. She is Renee Sullivan with the 3 kittens she killed for the hell of it. Montage: MikeB

My thoughts on the montage above:

This is an Australian female hunter, aged 20, who likes to kill cats of any age which includes kittens with a compound bow and arrow. She believes that she is carrying out a service on behalf of the nation and her community. Her behaviour enrages cat lovers and animal rights advocates. She can't understand the criticism. There is a chasm between cat lovers and hunters who like to kill cats. That chasm is the comprehension that when you shoot an animal such as a kitten with a bow and arrow you are going to cause a lot of pain. It is an inhumane way to kill an animal no matter what justification you wish to put upon the action. Cat lovers find this deplorable and criticise them on social media very heavily. The hunter can't understand.

---

There is a natural competition between animals on the planet and that includes the human-animal competing with non-human animals (apologies to the people who think we are special and created by God - the creationists). 

"When humans give rights to animals, they give away some of their rights" - Michael (and if it is true, it is acceptable and a good thing).

Granting rights to humans gets in the way of unscrupulous business people who wish to abuse human rights to turn a better profit. Think about people trafficking, for example, or wages that are too low, or child labour. At a more fundamental level human rights abuses will be instigated by politicians against people who threaten their power. 

In other words, unscrupulous people will tend to abuse people or animals that get in the way of things that serve their interests.

Arguments against animal rights will therefore be founded on a shaky premise. But turning a profit is not in itself bad, it is what makes the world tick. It is just that people have got to be managed to prevent excesses. Often, it seems, we get lobbying from, for example, people of the sport hunting fraternity (these people are probably connected to the gun lobby people). 

These people want their voices to be heard in government and the former president, Bush, was one of those presidents who tended to listen. What his government did was more likely to be against both the environment and animal rights (the two go together and can stand in the way of business profits).

Animals don't have a voice. We give them a voice through animal rights. People like to use animals to their advantage. One day we will see this as unacceptable. Animal rights exist in the West but not in the Eastern countries of the world to the same extent (Japan excepted). 

This shows that this is a developing area, still. For cats it is a long time coming as they were domesticated some nine thousand years ago. They still do not have true animal rights and some people (the chief exec. of Peta, Ingrid Newkirk, being one) think that there should be no companion animals as the only way to ensure true animal rights.

There are no arguments against animal rights that truly stand up. We share the planet with our fellow animals. They enhance our lives in many ways and provide us with food. Even on a commercial basis we need to protect them in the long term. Businesses tend to think short term and ruin things in the process (think over-fishing, for example). 

The only question is about how many rights we allow, their nature and extent and whether we can find a balance. In a perfect world, animal rights should be granted at a most fundamental level. Where there is a break down in animal rights there will usually be a corresponding loss of human rights, the two are linked.

The counter argument: If you were one of those "masters of the universe" alpha male types, you might argue that humans are the top predator, that we rule the world and that animals are on the planet to do with as we please. You might argue that humans are the direct creation of God and we have the right to use animals for our benefit. That 'man' has dominion over animals as per the bible. Here is a direct quote from the bible. Christianity is to blame for a huge amount of animal abuse and it has worked against animal rights for centuries.

Genesis 1:26 - Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

Such people would say that if we gave animals to many rights, it would run counter to these biblical arguments. We would be stopped from using animals, which is our God given right. That is the only argument against animals rights and it doesn't stack up on so many levels.

Religion: I believe that all animals are equal and that includes people (the human-animal). I do, though, understand the high numbers of religious people in the USA. I think the bible is bad doctrine in respect of animal rights. Did you know that the cat is never mentioned in the bible? And unspeakable cruelty has been perpetrated in the name of religion against animals.

Arguments Against Animal Rights to Cats and the Law

Animal rights quotes and some thoughts

I think we should make up our own animal rights quotes. Here is one I just made up: "Animal cruelty leads to human cruelty. Hurting animals hurts humankind in the long run" - Michael Broad (webmaster PoC).

Animal advocate. Image: Pixabay.

OK, it's not that good but it makes the point. Here are some "professional" animal rights quotes:

The first one is a very well-known quote. It has been quoted hundreds of thousands of times and rightly so. To emphasise what I have stated below, I don't think that the human race can be described as civilised until we all respect animals. We have a long way to go. That is abundantly clear. 

Animal rights. Image: Pixabay.

The invasion of Ukraine by Putin's forces has resulted in horrifically uncivilised human behaviour towards both people and animals by the Russians. In contrast, the Ukrainian defenders appear to be very gentle and respectful of stray dogs and cats.

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." - Mahatma Gandhi

It is so right because the treatment of living creatures who are vulnerable or at the mercy of people in authority and/or power indicates the quality of the society and the calibre of the people who in power. For animals all people are in power all people have dominion over them. The bible as I recall endorses that view which is wrong. The bible is wrong in many respects. Please read The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine.

So, it is an animal quote that actually applies to all living creatures including people who are vulnerable. These are usually the poorer people, people more likely to be abused and used by the stronger, alpha male types.

Bodega cat insists on equal rights with humans and why not? 
Photo: Facebook @thebodegacats.

A society that cares properly for the most vulnerable - and companion animals are vulnerable in a human dominated world - is one that has become truly civilised. The world is not civilised, not even western nations are civilised. Over 2 million feral cats are needlessly and deliberately killed in the USA every year. They don't pass the Gandhi test I am afraid.

RELATED: Dr Jordan B Peterson on Twitter: “Animals don’t have rights”.

I was reminded, incidentally, that Gandhi was no saint himself. He was human but he knew how to make a good quote! And he knew animal and human rights.

"Life is life's greatest gift. Guard the life of another creature as you would your own because it is your own. On life's scale of values, the smallest is no less precious to the creature who owns it than the largest..." - Lloyd Biggle Jr.

I have not heard this animal rights quote before. Actually, it is not necessarily an animal rights quote, more commonsense.

The thing is this: if we kill and abuse animals, we are hurting nature and nature is the world. We are killing a part of us indirectly. We are hurting ourselves slowly and indirectly. If we do something bad to an animal, we are damaging ourselves psychologically I believe. If we do the opposite and do good, we build our self-esteem. We create a better world inside our heads and outside in our small way.

"True human goodness, in all its purity and freedom, can come to the fore only when its recipient has no power. Mankind's true moral test, its fundamental test (which lies deeply buried from view), consists of its attitude towards those who are at its mercy: animals. And in this respect mankind has suffered a fundamental debacle, a debacle so fundamental that all others stem from it." - Milan Kundera, (Czech Novelist)

"Most people have forgotten how to live with living creatures, with living systems and that, in turn, is the reason why man, whenever he comes into contact with nature, threatens to kill the natural system in which and from which he lives." - Konrad Lorenz, (Naturalist)

In general, the world has forgotten how to live with nature. We have forgotten that we don't own the planet but are guardians of it. We live on it and yet we destroy it. Abusing animal rights is a small manifestation of our inability to think sustainably and how to live harmoniously with nature. By nature, I mean all living creatures and the landscape on which we live.

Sometimes I believe that we hate ourselves so much that we are destroying the planet as a way of destroying ourselves.

One area where animal rights are routinely abused wholly legally is in the area of animal testing. This is a controversial area. But if we have any sensitivity to animal rights, animal testing is repugnant. It is distasteful and obviously wrong. Why are we more important than animals? In terms of world health, we are less important than all other animals because we are the greatest threat to the world. As I said we are destroying it. Animals don't destroy the world. They live in harmony with nature and the planet.

"Atrocities are no less atrocities when they occur in laboratories and are called 'medical research." - George Bernard Shaw, (Irish Playright and Critic)

It would seem that some progress has been made in the area of animal rights....

Eleanor Roosevelt with family dog

"It seems to me of great importance to teach children respect for life. Towards this end, experiments on living animals in classrooms should be stopped. To encourage cruelty in the name of science can only destroy the finer emotions of affection and sympathy, and breed an unfeeling callousness in the young towards suffering in all living creatures." - Eleanor Roosevelt, (former First Lady of the United States of America)

Eleanor Roosevelt lived October 11, 1884 – November 7, 1962. Am I correct is presuming that in the United States, conducting live animal experiments has been banned in the classroom? God, I hope so. It is disgusting.

It is particularly important that children learn to respect other living creatures, to respect nature and other people. Martha Kane working in Malta as a cat rescuer gives talks to school children for this particular purpose.

I hope you enjoyed these animal rights quotes. Please add your own animal rights quote by leaving a comment.

Postscript: I might be an extreme animal advocate but I believe that the human-animal is not superior to any animal. I believe that we are all equal whether we are humans or animals. Obviously, we are not because in the human world very few people think that but I also believe that it would be a better world if people thought like me. There would be much less animal cruelty. Little animal exploitation. A much lower human population and so on. Human population growth is almost a disease on the planet. It is destroying the planet. And if you destroy animals, you also destroy humans and the planet. We need to live in harmony. There needs to be far more respect for animals both wild and domestic. We have a legacy of Christianity in large parts of the world which more or less states that humans have dominion over animals. Not a good concept.

Are animal rights advocates extremists?

I don't believe animal rights advocates are extremists. The establishment like to label them extremists as they don't want the establishment disturbed by change. The don't want things to change because they are fine as things are; exploiting poor people and animals.

It is more sensible to describe the establishment as extremists in respect of their attitude towards animals. This is because, in the UK, they are about to reinstate fox hunting, a "sport" that is obviously inhumane and immoral to anyone with a conscience.

For donkey's years the establishment allowed cosmetics companies to test their non-essential products on animals.

Farming is part of the establishment and we know what happens on farms to animals - think factory farming.

Factory farming is extreme farming and cruel to animals yet it is accepted by the establishment. It is the establishment who are the extremists.

Then there are products such as foie gras, a luxury food beloved of the establishment and the rich, which is produced in the most cruel way.

These are only a few examples, there are dozens more.

Animal rights advocates are simply focusing very keenly on the failure of many people to relate to animals is a decent way. What is extreme about that?

Investment in TNR In Yonkers, NY After Animal Cruelty

After what has been described as the worst case of animal cruelty in the history of Westchester when the dead bodies of 25 cats and kittens were found in black plastic bags hanging from a tree in a wood, the city of Yonkers has acted constructively and proactively in allocating $15,000 towards trap-neuter-release programs to help reduce the number of homeless cats which are ultimately potential victims of the nasty people who like to abuse animals.

The city of Yonkers deserves to be applauded because this is a very constructive and an enlightened decision.  It also promotes the concept of TNR as a means of controlling stray and feral cat populations humanely.

An organisation called Animal Defenders of Westchester are delighted because the decision sends the right message about dealing with community chats: humanely and compassionately.  It sends the message that the city of Yonkers, New York cares about the vulnerability of community cats and wishes to do the right thing for them.

There is, I believe, a very gradual acceptance that TNR is the way to go in the long-term to control homeless cat populations but it will not work on its own. There needs to be a parallel changing of behaviour by the less responsible cat owners to slow the creation of unwanted cats.

One last point: I don't believe $15,000 is enough but we can't be critical.

Story.

 

Cyprus: Hotel Employees Chuck Dog Into Rubbish Crusher

This is a gross example of animal cruelty admitted by the hotel management. Richard Chadwick who commented on this story on Facebook says the following about the owner of the hotel:

She is the owner of the Anastasia Hotel in Southern Cyprus. It is her, and her alone no matter how much she wants to blame the staff, who is responsible for the horrible treatment of a puppy.

This is a photograph of who he was referring to:

In response Penny Smith says:

This was on FB a couple of weeks ago. The owner of the hotel issued a statement saying she had asked two of her employees to take it to a local vet as it was sick. Instead they threw it into a crusher. To give her her due, she did make sure the puppy was being cared for at the vets, sadly too late, and claimed to have sacked the two emplyees. Maybe someone should establish the exact facts before we blame the wrong person.

It appears that a 7 month old stray, sick poodle was wandering around the hotel irritating hotel management and the hotel manager asked an employee to take the dog to the vet. That is the official story but what happened is that two employees threw the dog into a hotel rubbish compacter. The dog suffered a broken back, broken bones, brain damage and an inability to breathe and later died despite imaginary intervention.

The bin that they threw the dog into was fitted with an electrically powered motor that I presume compacted (crushed) hotel rubbish.

The dog was found by holidaymakers at the bottom of the machine, barely alive.  Tourists called the local veterinary clinic but as mentioned the dog died eventually within days.

The veterinary clinic called out was MedVets. A spokesman for the surgery said that:

When we went to the hotel, he was already in a coma. We were shocked and it was even more of a shock when we were told he was put into this bin.

There's been a mass protest by British tourists and expat British outside the Anastasia hotel. The Brits are very angry and there appears to be a difference in the relationship between British people and Cypriot people towards their companion animals. I say that without being in any way overly critical of Cypriots.

The general mood amongst expats and tourists is that a country which is part of the Eurozone and the European Union should have standards of animal care equal to other members of the union. They state that this is not the case and they are shocked and disgusted by the incident.

It is interesting to note that the president of Cyprus, Nicos Anastasiades, condemns what has happened and says the incident is a disgrace for his country.

The incident is horrible and very distressing but I agree with the tourist who says that there is a huge discrepancy with respect to animal welfare laws and the relationship between people and animals across the European Union. In Eastern and Southern Europe there is more animal cruelty than in northern Europe

In Eastern European countries, often the laws are badly formulated and hardly enforced.  In Greece the stray cats are used as tourist attractions but once the tourists season is over they are killed with poison, we are told.

It is a disgrace that the institutions of the European Union allowed these countries to join the EU without first ensuring that they met the standards for becoming members. There has been an overeagerness of the European commission to expand the European Union.  The Eurozone financial crisis is another example of how it can go wrong when you allow countries to join which are not ready.

Story.

Trespassing Cats: A Neighbourly Battle Of Biblical Proportions

Lady releases trapped cat

It happens everywhere especially, as far as I can tell, in the United States of America.  A neighbour likes cats and looks after lots of them. She can't help it. She just loves cats too much and can't stop herself from helping them.

Her next door neighbour either dislikes cats or is neutral about them.  His young boy is allergic to cats. His neighbour's cats wander into his yard. They urinate in his yard and occasionally defecate there as well. He puts up with it but after a while he decided to put down traps then take the cats that are trapped to the local rescue centre.

The cat loving neighbour finds out that she is missing some cats and then discovers what is happening so at 4 in the morning she sneaks out of her property onto her neighbour's property and releases the trapped cats. The person who trapped the cats figures out something is going on because he knows the cats were in the traps at one stage.

We have the makings of a war between neighbours which is something to be avoided at all costs.

Anyway the guy who set the traps sets up surveillance cameras to record what happens at 4 in the morning when his neighbour comes onto this property to release the cats he has trapped. He uses the video material to tell the police what has happened and she ends up facing what in America is called a “criminal trespass charge" for walking onto her neighbour's property.

Trespass is normally a tort meaning a civil wrong and not a crime. In addition, I do know what crime she has committed. Opening traps? Perhaps she damaged the traps.

This must be an American law.  Anyway she will probably end up with a criminal record and the guy who got her prosecuted will end up with an extremely angry neighbour who will carry on doing exactly the same thing as you did before.

No one's a winner, everyone's a loser.  The answer has to be a common sense answer which is that the lady who'd like to look after cats continues to do so but at the same time respects her neighbour's rights and wishes in order to keep the peace with her neighbour. I say that being a cat lover but even cat lovers need to respect other people's rights.

Being a cat lover does not trump everything: the behaviour of a cat lover has to fit in with society just like the behaviour of everybody else.

This is not a made up story but a real one. The lady who looked after the cat is Jean Kerdock-Locke and her neighbor is Ben Sanchez. The live in southeast Albuquerque, USA.

USDA Too Slow to Shut Down Dodgy Zoos

Great Cats of Indiana has been closed. Hurrah! It took about ten years to do it. In the meantime the great cats inside were turned into cats that weren't so great; just depressed, underweight tigers and lions with medical problems, and in poor health and condition.

I have written about the dodgy private zoos of America before. There have been some high profile cases, which have resulted in deaths.

Lion at Great Cats of Indiana - I don't the name of the photographer, sorry.

Apparently the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) had filed a complaint about Great Cats of Indiana in 2007 and there have been breaches of regulations going back to 2002. A court application was filed by the USDA, as I understand it, in 2007 but the place was still open until now.

Earlier inspections revealed negligent medical treatment of a cougar, leopard and lion. For example, the cougar had half a tail and a bloody open would where it had been severed.

I am informed that the USDA often make cursory inspections of private zoos that are poorly managed to avoid having to report animal abuse as it reflects badly on the them. Also it takes at least 6 years normally for cases to be heard at court (src: Big Cat Rescue).

Then recently the Indiana Department of Natural Resources Division of Law Enforcement received a complaint about the Great Cats of Indiana. They investigated on May 23rd. Corporal Todd Pekny went around to the place and saw emaciated animals in very poor conditions, which demonstrated neglect by the director of the place Rob Craig.

On May 29th they removed seven cats from the facility and they are now at a undisclosed USDA facility.

There it is. Neglect by a private zoo keeper and a government department that might also be accused of neglect. The losers? Of course it has to be cats.

Animal Testing and European Directive (Directive 2010/63/EU)

I have seen the petition on the Care2 petition website. It is headlined, "Stop the UK Government from legalising the use of stray pets in lab experiments!" The petition basically says that the new legislation (law) created by the Commission of the European Union (EU) will have a detrimental impact on stray pets, and on animals generally, who are used in animal testing in the UK.

The new law is in the form of a directive. This is legislation that the institutions of the EU create and then hands out to members of the European Union who are then obliged to incorporate what is European law into national law. The UK is part of the EU.

When Europe creates new law on animal testing it is important for people who are concerned about animal welfare. Most of these people want animal testing stopped completely or a least controlled and restricted more severely and efficiently. It is an opportunity to improve animal welfare law. By "improve" I mean to reduce and restrict animal testing.

My personal view is that animal testing should be stopped completely. We have no right to harm animals and cause pain and suffering to them for our benefit. If stopping animal testing results in more humans suffering health problems, then I accept that.

EU directives are complicated and I am not sure that the author of the petition has it correct. In any case I have checked Directive 2010/63/EU and the section that refers to stray and feral cats. It is reproduced below and you can make your own minds up. I think the problem is that the new law does not go far enough to protect animals used in laboratories.

However, in general the declared purpose of Directive 2010/63/EU is to update the previous directive (1986 Directive 86/609/EEC). They say the aim is:

 "to strengthen legislation, and improve the welfare of those animals still needed to be used, as well as to firmly anchor the principle of the Three Rs, to Replace, Reduce and Refine the use of animals, in EU legislation."

Both directives are concerned with the protection of animals used for scientific purposes.

Some selected sections are:

Principle of replacement, reduction and refinement

1. Member States shall ensure that, wherever possible, a scientifically satisfactory method or testing strategy, not entailing the use of live animals, shall be used instead of a procedure.

2. Member States shall ensure that the number of animals used in projects is reduced to a minimum without compromising the objectives of the project.

And for stray and feral cats the directive states:

Article 11

Stray and feral animals of domestic species

1. Stray and feral animals of domestic species shall not be used in procedures.

2. The competent authorities may only grant exemptions from paragraph 1 subject to the following conditions:

(a) there is an essential need for studies concerning the health and welfare of the animals or serious threats to the environment or to human or animal health; and

(b) there is scientific justification to the effect that the purpose of the procedure can be achieved only by the use of a stray or a feral animal.

I think the problem that concerns people is:

1. That the introduction of new EU legislation was an opportunity to curb animal testing and the opportunity has been missed despite the fact the legislators say they have tightened the law and;
2. The implementation of this EU law is down to the governments of the countries in the EU. How it is done concerns people because there appears to be a certain amount of leeway. Big business will take the opportunity to loosen control of animal testing where possible. There is considerable lobbying going on because the big companies are eager to retain animal testing and to stop further restrictions being implemented.

You can read more on these pages if you wish:

• Animal Welfare in UK Laboratories Under Threat
• European Commission Environment
• The new directive referred to on this page (PDF file will download).

Animal Care Depends On Money

It nearly always comes down money in the end. This is being dramatically highlighted in Great Britain. Apparently, the country is not so great in respect of animal care when things get a tougher, financially.

The RSPCA say they are at breaking point. I suppose this means in terms of funding and facility space (shelters) to house abused and abandoned animals.

There was a step rise last year (2011) in the number of prosecutions as a result of animal cruelty cases dealt with through the courts by the RSPCA - almost 25% - up a quarter.

The spokesman says that it is due to the financial recession which encourages people to abandon animals, particularly those that are expensive to keep, such as horses.

I don't believe that it is the recession that is causing increased animal cruelty and abandonments. It is a bl**dy poor attitude by some people who decided to adopt an animal but who failed to commit to the process and make proper provision for it, through thick and thin. It is part of the fickle, feckless, short term modern way of life. Britain is changing for the worse.  There are also a lot failed homes and families in Britain these days. It is part of what David Cameron, the prime minister, called, our "broken society". There are some genuine cases of hardship but there are too many people using the "recession" as a smokescreen to abandon their animals. Fortunately, most people really care about their companion animals. And when you care it is impossible to abuse or abandon them.

The RSPCA is appealing for funding.  It is going broke unless it makes changes and that entails 130 redundancies. Prosecutions cost the RSPCA £4.7m last year and they recovered less than half of that in court costs. Does that imply that some of the prosecutions failed? If so, perhaps the legal department needs to reflect on what they are doing.

This is depressing because animal welfare legislation has been tightened up. You have to be able to enforce legislation to make it stick and that costs money, which is running out.

Associated: How to tell cat abuse.

Looking into the mind of a cat killer

Nasty cat killer, Joseph Carlo Candare, a physics undergraduate in the Philippines, admits that he killed a cat in his blog (a public website). What he says gives us a little bit of an insight into the mind of a cat killer. This is a cruel sociopathic type person. I am not saying that he is a sociopath but he clearly has a problem with empathising with the pain and discomfort of others. He is dangerously antisocial. I don't think that it matters if the other party is a person or a cat. Below is a photo image of part of his blog. The language is a mixture of English and his native language.

Cat Killer

He says in an interview with the police (I presume) that "it feels good when you are beating it" but when the cat dies he says that he feels something strange. He does not use the word "die". He says "when it turns off permanently".

Perhaps that last comment gives us an insight. He speaks of a domestic cat as if it is a machine that is turned on and off. An inanimate object.  He totally lacks any connection to the fact the he is killing a living and feeling creature. He also lacks any sense of what he is doing is criminal and morally wrong as he published a record of the killing on the internet. He is dangerous it seems to me and should be treated. The judge did not make any order regarding the mental health of this person.

This monstrous person was successfully convicted of animal cruelty. It was the first conviction for animal cruelty in the Philippines. If that is true it is extraordinary. It tells us that there is not a lot of enforcement of the animal welfare laws in the Philippines.

Joseph Carlo Candare intends to start killing cats again after he has completed his sentence (community service and a fine). He indicates that he kills cats regularly because it feels good and he hates cats. As this crime happened in May 2011, he has probably killed several cats by now (Dec 2011) and got away with it.

Radio Presenter Jokes About Cat Cruelty

This morning, Steve Allen, a celebrity radio presenter on LBC 97.3, a London based chat and call type radio show, joked about cat cruelty. He was referring to what was meant to be a jokey way of washing a cat (6 am on 11th Nov. 2011).

He said you wash your cat by putting it in the toilet covered in shampoo, close the toilet seat, sit on the seat and flush. The process cleans the cat and the toilet. Afterward, you open the seat and the cat races outside terrified and dries off naturally.

Really funny Stevie. You are encouraging people to do that because a lot of people like your show. Personally I don't like your show; partly because you are always saying people are stupid.

I think you are being stupid yourself in indirectly promoting what can only be a form of cat cruelty. I can see one of you fans trying it out. A person who did this would be committing a crime under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. It is very similar to the case of the bank worker who casually dumped a cat into a wheelie bin in full sight of a security camera.

It is pretty clear to me that Steve Allen dislikes cats as he almost condoned a much publicized act of cat cruelty yesterday (youth swings cat by tail). Perhaps Steve is just trying to jazz up his boring show. If that is the case he is being stupid because he is on the edge of committing a crime himself.

In this video he is the person on the left.

Cats and Dogs to Live Longer

The strange and perpetual desire for people to live longer has thrown up its latest possibilities, which are going to be tested on dogs and cats perhaps. It's just another form of animal testing it seems to me.

Iams Cat Food

Nothing to do with Iams Cat Food!
Photo by seanmcgrath (Flickr)
Great cat portrait

We should not buy Iams cat food because Procter and Gamble (P&C) own Iams and P&C conduct animal testing on cats and dogs in pet food research. These tests are cruel and harmful to the animals, it is said. Any animal testing even at its most benign is cruel as far as I am concerned and it should all be banned.

There is no need to animal test to improve pet food. What is extraordinary is that although I abhor animal testing of all kinds and particularly for cosmetics and pet food, I have two packets of Iams dry cat food in the kitchen that I bought online. It is a question of availability and convenience for us. The big manufacturers seem to be the ones that are most likely to be guilty of animal testing and it is their products that are the easiest to buy.

However, I am ashamed of myself. I will not buy Iams cat food again. In any case my cats are not that fond of it. They prefer Hills dry cat food. I buy Hills light for them. But do Hills animal test? Probably.

How do I know that Iams animal test? There are a number of trusted websites that have detailed information about it.

Express Story

The first is Uncaged.co.uk. This is a well known and respected website. This is the relevant page: Iams test on animals.

The other site that I would like to mention is IamsCruelty.com. Yes, this is an entire website dedicated to animal testing by Iams! This is a link: Animals suffer at Iams.

Iams cruel animal testing was reported on by the Sunday Express (journalist: Lucy Johnson).

So we have good evidence. Knowing this we really must steel ourselves and not buy Iams cat food.

There are many alternatives. Which pet food manufacturers do not animal test? The Iams Cruelty.com website list the companies/businesses that they are confident do not animal test. This is the link: Brands that do no test on animals.

Hills are not listed as not testing! Well, if that is the case I'll have to change. The list relates to north American brands by the way.

One of the best canned cat foods on my reckoning is Newmans. Newman’s Own Organics are a brand who don't animal test apparently. Maybe we should buy Newmans?

The best dry cat food in America on my assessment is Innova EVO Dry Cat Food. Do they animal test? As far as I can tell, Natura Pet Products are the parent company. Neither Natura nor Innova are on the list of pet food manufacturers who IamsCruely.com can say for sure do not animal test. On that basis they animal test.

This is confirmed on another site: The Natura Pet Products policy on animal testing.

They say they prefer to animal test. The company "believes strongly in the importance of nutritional testing". But they are concerned animal testers and the testing in non-invasive and they say it only includes animals eating their products.

That said, the animals are in a facility, albeit a nice facility. They live unnatural lives and are probably stressed at least at some point and their lives are unnatural which is diametrically opposite to the brand name, "Natura Pet Products" indicating "natural pet products".

It is a shame that Natura Pet Products animal test because their Innova brand dry cat food is pretty well universally acclaimed as the best.

It seems that it is not that easy to avoid buying from an animal testing company. We should make the effort, however. Don't by Iams cat food, please. You can't feed your cat knowing that another cat in a cage in a nasty research facility has been tested on and is probably frightened and possibly abused. Note: legally no wrong has been done in animal testing to improve pet food.

Iams Cat Food -- Associated Pages:

• Facts on Animal Testing
• Purina Pet Cat Food - involved in animal testing.
• Animal Testing Facts | Product Labelling
• Animal Testing for Cosmetics
• Animal Testing in Cosmetics

From Iams Cat Food to Home Page

Note: the rational for publishing the picture of the Sunday Times under fair use is that it is very small and has no impact on the commerce of the Sunday Express, indeed it promotes it.