Submitted by ANIMAL RIGHTS MALTA’S BLOG

The “right” of sperm to become animals?

In response to my letter in today’s The Times, a longer version of which may be found in this blog under the heading “Hunting dogs are no dummies, but neither are we“, tireless Mark Mifsud Bonnici from the “St Hubertus” hunters comments:

“In a letter (TOM March 31) Cassar states: ‘the animal rights view is that we should stop breeding, selling or buying any more dogs‘, indeed he cares about animal rights as by saying this he is actually denying their right to exist. When will he stop writing this rubbish!!”

Now, at face value, particularly to a reader who is unfamiliar with the issue, Mr Mifsud Bonnici’s statement seems to make perfect sense. For, what sense does it make for someone who claims to be advocating for “animal rights” to propose the “extinction” of dogs (that is, if one concedes that this is actually what I am proposing, which is not necessarily the case)?

But let’s examine what Mr Mifsud Bonnici is saying here. Since I am not suggesting that any animal be killed, it follows that by claiming a right of “not-yet-existent” animals to exist, he is advocating the “rights” of sperm to become animals.

A non-existent animal (if something non-existent can even be called an “animal”) has no “right” neither to exist nor to not exist. I am not saying we should kill any dogs here. I’m just saying that we should breed no more. If this means that we are breaching some “potential” beings’ “right” to come into existence (meaning that non-existent beings have a right to exist), this would bring us to the absurd conclusion that humans have an active DUTY to have as much offspring as possible (since doing otherwise would deny potential humans - millions of sperm -their “right” to exist!).

Such is the absurdity that follows from the reasoning of someone who claims that non-existent (potential) beings have rights while those who exist don’t.

However, I suppose that someone who sees non-human animals as property (just as slave owners used to see human slaves) will never understand that it goes contrary to common sense to say that slaves have a right to exist as slaves. Breeding, selling and buying non-humans for human purposes is treating them as property, and therefore as slaves.

Do non-human animals have rights or not? Please make up your minds.

Meanwhile, Alfred E. Zammit, also from the “St Hubertus” hunters, comments:

“Kenneth Cassar, please join some decent animal welfare organization and spare us your obsession with so-called animal rights.

Instead of dismissing my valid arguments as ‘childish’ , please explain what the consequences would be if one were to insist, as you do, that dogs should not be owned. Who would pay for their care? Who would feed them? Who would control them when they form packs roaming in the streets or the countryside? Which vet would be prepared to treat them without getting paid?

You believe in stray population control. Do you know that you are contradicting yourself? The word ‘control’ means domination, and goodbye to their ‘right’ to be free.

Get real, will you. It makes sense to talk about people’s responsibility for the welfare of animals. But there is no such thing as animal rights. It makes sense to talk about people’s duty towards their pets. But there is no such thing as pets having a right to do as they please.As to birds, they have no rights either. It’s the hunters who have rights over, and responsibilities for, both dogs and birds. If they abuse of these rights and responsibilities they should be penalized. This is why there are laws on animal welfare (not rights) and bird protection”.

Well, Mr Zammit will find that some of his hunter friends do not see animal rights as simply “so called”. They actually believe that dogs have a RIGHT to hunt. I wish that they would make up their mind, if only on this point.
He asks me what would be the consequence of dogs not being owned (who would pay the vet bills, who would feed them etc).

If he paid more attention to what I write, he would find that what I am suggesting is that people should not breed, sell and buy any more dogs, while they should care for the dogs already in existence. I think this answers his question.

As to his claim that population control (in the case of dogs) means domination, I wonder what he think of humans breeding dogs, selling them or buying them, using them for their purpose etc. If this is not domination, I wonder what is.

The fundamental difference is that controlling stray populations is done for altruistic reasons (for the sake of preventing offspring who would suffer). One can’t be more realistic. Basically, when the “rights” of stray animals to breed means that this will result in the creation of offspring who will suffer, rights not being absolute, we have a duty to prevent that suffering. It is exactly for this reason that human rights are limited by considerations on whether the “rights” of one would breach more fundamental rights of another. It is also for this reason that violence is conceded if done in self-defence.

As for pets having a right to do as they please, he should perhaps be informed that I never made such a claim.

God doing the European Court of Justice’s work?

Sylvana Zarb Darmanin, then, in response to my claim that hunters (like all adult humans) should be accountable for their actions) replies:

“I strongly believe that he is the one who should be accountable for all the rubbish and incitement against hunters! I, once again, urge Mr. Cassar to stop being so patronising! Another thing, ignorance is no excuse to allow you to keep on writing rubbish. If Mr. Cassar knows the real meaning of love towards animals (in this case dogs), he would refrain from continuing with his heartless campaign against hunting dogs and their masters. Please God, the end of this week could make him realise that this heartless campaign has failed him miserably!!”

Well, regarding the “rubbish” I supposedly write, it stands to reason to expect a hunter to see what I write as rubbish (I will be level-headed here and admit - like I have done other times - that not all that hunters write is necessarily rubbish, but in my opinion, most is). That said, I leave it to the readers to decide for themselves on who makes more sense.

However, I will never accept my letters or articles being called “incitement against hunters”, and I challenge Ms Zarb Darmanin to quote at least one sentence where I have ever incited anyone against hunters. I am not so childish to ask for an apology - a simple retraction would do fine.

Regarding my so called “heartless campaign against hunting dogs and their masters”, again, I fail to see where I have conducted such a campaign. My only campaign, in this case, is only against hunting, and against the breeding, selling and buying of dogs (and other animals) while making it abundantly clear that we should take good care of the ones already in existence.

As for her concluding “prayer”, if God were a tyrant, he would answer her prayer and stop me from defending the creatures Ms Zarb Darmanin presumably believes He created, from being blasted out of the skies by hunters.

But I suppose that by her prayer that by the end of this week God would make me realise that my “heartless campaign” has failed me miserably, she is referring to the spring hunting issue to be decided by the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

Perhaps Ms Zarb Darmanin should notice that she is treading on dangerous ground here. The final say on this issue is in the hands of the ECJ, and no one else. Perhaps Ms Zarb Darmanin should be told that her prayer could only produce one of three possible outcomes:

1. God completely ignores her, and lets the ECJ do its own work.

2. God answers her prayer, and spring hunting is not abolished.

3. God does the contrary to what she asks, and spring hunting is abolished.

I don’t know about her, but I wouldn’t hedge my bets on “God interfering” (if “He” would be one to interfere, I assume he would consider stopping Hitler from murdering millions of people a much more important issue than any hunter’s cause), that is if she does not wish her faith to be shaken! In any case, am I perhaps alone in sensing that her “prayer to God” means that she is fearing that it would take “divine intervention” for spring hunting to be retained?

Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.