No licence to kill and abuse animals
Submitted by ANIMAL RIGHTS MALTA’S BLOG
P. John Darmanin from the Vegetarian Society of Malta gives a Christian vegan perspective on animal circuses and veganism in a letter to The Times in reply to Shane Johnson’s letter of January 1.
Mr Darmanin writes: “With reference to Shane Johnson’s letter in The Times (January 1), I too used to believe that there was nothing wrong with animals performing in circuses. But one late evening many years ago, I happened to stop by the tents of a circus in Gzira and tried to sneak a glimpse of the animals. I had not walked far before I saw something that I had not expected. Under one of the tents there were some elephants, chained by the foot to a peg in the ground and while some attendant emptied a sack-full of cabbages for them to eat, the nearest elephant tried to go for him in vociferous anger. The attendant then grabbed a hay fork threatening a blow at the animal’s trunk. I returned to the car very perplexed. What I had seen was to change my view about circus animals.
I would believe that no coercion is used when, inside the cage with a pack of lions or tigers, I see the tamer without any sticks or whips. That will be the day, because no lion or tiger will fear any bare handed human and for that reason these kings of the jungle will have to be respected. It must be the fear of the stick and the whip, gained from unpleasant past experience that makes them obey a physically inferior animal.
While I believe that some domestic animals like dogs, cats, horses etc. can be trained without aggression to perform mild and cute circus acts, I will never believe it can be the same with the wild cats. Confinement of the big cats in small cages, and chaining of elephants are forms of suffering that are often overlooked. Born to be free, these animals suffer from delusion, frustration, fear, boredom, exclusion and everything that makes them what they really are - kings of the jungle. In the circus their nature is subdued to a caricature. There is no escaping the fact that caging wild cats and conditioning them to perform tricks for selfish human pleasure is just another cruelty.
How helplessly naïve it is to rally theological misconceptions to support an assertion for human rights over animals. Lions are obligate carnivores and have no other option but to hunt when desperately hungry; it is not a question of rights. Man is the world’s greatest predator remorselessly killing billions of animals annually, not to survive but to satisfy his tastes, to feast, in celebration and in sport. If Mr Johnson’s God gives him licence to kill animals for food then his is not my God. My God tolerates me eating meat if circumstances demand it, as He offered me kinder and healthier nutritional options. To refrain from eating meat is to acknowledge God as the only Lord of Creation.
Our place at the head of creation imposes on us obligations not rights. Our obligations are to care for all creation in His likeness not to exploit it. Asserting the right to kill innocent creatures, a person would reflect an image of a God the ruthless hunter-predator. There is more nobleness in humanity when it embraces all creatures within its circle of compassion because like us they are infused with the breath of life. Like us they have one special desire - a desire to simply live”.
Mr Darmanin’s letter is very insightful from a Christian vegan perspective, although I wish to point out that I certainly disagree with his claim that “our place (is) at the head of creation”. It is true that Mr Darmanin follows that statement with “imposes on us obligations not rights”, but I still see that the mistaken belief that we are somehow the culmination of evolution or “creation”, apart from being wrong (all animals evolve through necessity by random mutation - the ones best suited for their own environment survive and propagate their genes to “create” future generations - and each species is best suited for its own particular world), if taken as true, would still let humans to wrongly assume that they matter more than members of other species. In matters of conflict of interest, this mistaken way of thinking would ensure that non-humans’ interests are always trumped by human interests, perhaps even in instances where non-human interests would be vital and the human interests trivial.
I also personally dislike the use of phrases such as “animal kingdom” or “kings of the jungle” which would seem to mistakenly assume or imply a sort of species hierarchy, where in fact there is none.
The belief that we humans are the culmination and stewards of “creation” rests on a disproven belief in the Bible’s account of “creation” taken as literal and historical fact. Like I said previously, when one picks and chooses from the Bible the parts that agree to one’s beliefs, one must face the consequence of having to account for the contradictory claims in the same Bible, claims that can relatively easily be used to justify contradictory actions, both benevolent and vile.
Regarding the circus animals part, I would also like to add that even holding any animal captive (unless for his or her own good - like in the case of animal sanctuaries and rescued pets), is to treat the animals as property and to violate their right to liberty. So it must be stressed that even circuses that may include animal acts that are not the result of (or involve) any blatant suffering, still go against the non-human animals’ right not to be used as human property. As an internet friend of mine rightly pointed out in an online discussion (see below), animal circuses necessarily involve holding all the performing non-human animals captive, which in itself is a rights violation.
As the animal rights internet forum member puts it, “What (Mr Johnson) is missing is that (animal circus acts) can only take place in a setting of comprehensive coercion, in that the animal is being kept in some enclosure. Without that overarching factor, no training is possible.
The reason positive reinforcement works is that it’s the ONLY way the animal can get the treat. If the animal were free to obtain a similar treat from another source, she might not cooperate. Of course, she might still choose to cooperate, because it’s easier to sit up for a hunk of meat than to exhaust oneself hunting for it. But she wouldn’t do it reliably, which is what a trainer wants - reliable results.
I suspect that what often happens for less cooperative animals is that the animal’s food itself becomes the motivator, so she can only eat IF she cooperates. That’s how they train monkeys in many experiments - deprive them of water for 20 hours and then only give them small amounts if they do a certain behavior.
On the other end of the spectrum, sometimes dogs can be trained not to do things simply by ignoring them when they do something undesirable like barking or jumping up. But these dogs are dependent on their “owners” for all their social (and physical) needs, so it makes sense that those dogs who are especially people-oriented and sociable would suffer by being ignored. If they were free, they might just go find someone else to socialize with. It all hinges on captivity”.
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
