A partisan political pique about who kills most animals
Submitted by ANIMAL RIGHTS MALTA’S BLOG
It becomes interesting when pique between opposing political parties and the subsequent political propaganda provides us with statistics on the extent of the atrocities, objectification, and subsequent murder committed on non-human animals in Malta, all subsidized by the governing party through your taxes.
These statistics, to a rational thinking person, put things with regards to the treatment of non-human animals into perspective. They make the occasional torture and killing of cats and dogs by some sociopath look negligible (though of course it is not - every animal counts equally) when compared to the institutional torture and murder of non-human animals for equally unnecessary reasons such as the pleasure one derives from the taste of meat.
A rational thinking person asks how one can reasonably complain about an occasional killing of a non-human animal by a sociopath - a regrettable but perhaps unavoidable occurrence (there will always be sociopath sadists around) - when that same complainer pays for the torture and murder of other animals for the same reason: to derive pleasure.
In today’s The Times, Randolph Spiteri (communications coordinator, Parliamentary Secretariat for Agriculture and Fisheries) writes:
“I am utterly surprised at the comments made by the opposition spokesman for agriculture, fisheries and rural development, Noel Farrugia (Imported Turkeys This Christmas, The Times, December 20). Yet again his comments are a clear indication that he has not kept himself abreast of the developments taking place in the agricultural sector.
I would like to inform Mr Farrugia that the traditional importers of turkey chicks over the summer months, as in previous years, imported more than 3,600 chicks. Incidentally, some of these turkeys were slaughtered on December 19.
This ensured the provision of fresh turkey for the duration of the festive season for consumption by the public.
I appreciate the fact that, in his statement, Mr Farrugia has publicly recognised and confirmed that the government has heavily invested, through subsidisation, in the agricultural industry. The financial aid granted is intended to strengthen the agricultural industry leading to the production of a higher quality. Bearing this in mind, it is pertinent to mention that a survey carried out recently among consumers has confirmed that 95 per cent are fully satisfied with the quality of locally-grown products.
There is no doubt that the government has kept its promise to provide financial aid to the agricultural sector, as can be seen from the following: 2003 - Lm6.5 million (€15,140,927); 2004 - Lm7.9 million (€18,402,050); 2005 - Lm9.3 million (€21,663,173); 2006 - Lm8.9 million (€20,731,423); 2007 - Lm9 million (€20,964,361);
To conclude, worthy of mention is the fact that the second strategic plan for the agricultural industry for the years 2007 to 2013 amounts to €100 million”.
These facts come out from Mr Spiteri’s letter:
1. To the government (and regrettably to the majority of Maltese citizens), non-human animals are nothing but “products”, which means that they will obviously be treated as such. Think about this when complaining about “animal cruelty”. Are you subsidizing cruelty (or more accurately, murder) by purchasing and consuming animal carcasses? Are non-human animals just products to you? If so, how can you speak of animals having rights? Products cannot have rights. And if you believe that non-human animals do not have rights, ask yourself this question: Why don’t non-human animals have rights? Is it just because it is convenient for humans to believe so? Think about this: There is no reason for denying non-human animals rights which would not exclude some humans from having rights as well. If there is one morally relevant characteristic that gives all humans rights but excludes non-human animals (because they lack that characteristic), I honestly would like to know it. To claim that humans have rights just because they are human simply begs the question: why do humans have rights?
2. Millions of Euros are wasted on the unnecessary imprisonment, rape and murder of non-human animals just for the pleasure of their taste. Think about this if you are one of those who complain that we do not have the necessary funds to take in any more refugees (and unfortunately we have a lot of such complainers).
3. Finally, perhaps one will perhaps take the claims by both major political parties that they care about “animal rights” with a pinch of salt, considering that they are in direct competition with each other as to who kills or subsidizes the killing of most animals! As to any negligible financial assistance a government might give to help a minority of non-human animals (cats and dogs), it is worth remembering that governments also subsidize the murder of much more other equally sentient and rights-bearing animals.
How about making a new year’s resolution to go vegan?
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
