Lies, misrepresentation and confusion for the defense of slavery
Submitted by ANIMAL RIGHTS MALTA’S BLOG
Blunders from a speciesist pro-slaver
Raymond Zammit once again writes a letter in today’s The Times. This time he makes a complete fool of himself by asking questions that have already been answered, making contradictory claims, lying while himself actually uncovering his lies in the same letter, and much more speciesist blunders.
It says a lot when people have to resort to lies and misrepresentation to “prove” a point. Such is the tactic used by Mr Zammit.
In today’s letter entitled “Hunting dogs and slavery”, Mr Zammit writes:
“If anyone thought slavery has been abolished, they’re in for a surprise. According to Kenneth Cassar (The Times, March 11), animal rights dictate that ‘breeding, selling and buying non-humans for human purposes is treating them as property, and therefore as slaves’.
So his advice to anyone owning a pet, or breeding any animal for human consumption, should be to set them free and let them lead a life in liberty”.
Mr Zammit says that in my opinion, we should set all “domesticated” animals free. Perhaps, Mr Zammit is too keen on lying and misrepresenting my views to note that he himself, in this his own letter (see further down), quotes what I wrote on March 31 (in The Times), where I said that “regarding his assumption that I implied dogs should all be set free, I would like to put Mr Zammit’s mind at rest that the animal rights view is that we should stop breeding, selling or buying any more dogs, while we should continue taking care of the ones already in existence and not to set all dogs free where they cannot cope on their own”. This makes his repetition of the same allegation nothing more than a blatant lie. And what makes it worse is that he knows full well that it is a lie since he himself quotes me as claiming the exact opposite!
Mr Zammit goes on to say that:
“Mr Cassar does not consider the love for a cherished pet as being acceptable. According to him, anyone owning a pet is a slave owner. Therefore, it follows that anyone owning a pet shop is a slave trader. A vet would qualify as a slave doctor”.
To put things into perspective, while Mr Zammit’s claim that according to me, anyone owning a pet shop is a slave trader, is true, it does not follow that anyone owning a pet is a slave owner, or any vet is a slave doctor. This comes as very clear, to anyone with sufficient IQ, from my claim, noted by Mr Zammit himself (see further down), that we should care for the “domesticated” animals already in existence. Some people adopt homeless non-human animals for altruistic reasons (ask the animal sanctuaries), and not simply to have them as possessions. Of course, breeding, selling and buying non-human animals is treating them as property, and therefore as slaves.
Mr Zammit continues:
“Mr Cassar goes on to state that the animal rights view is that ‘we should stop breeding, selling or buying any more dogs, while we should continue taking care of the ones already in existence’. In plain language, dogs should no longer be bred after the ones we have die out.
How’s that for championing animal rights! The same argument when applied to all other bred animals would simply mean no more animals. This statement clearly shows the extremism behind his reasoning”.
There you have it. Speciesist hunter Mr Zammit saves me the trouble of proving he’s a liar, by proving it himself. For how could I ever claim that we should set all dogs free (which I never did) while at the same time claim that we should continue taking care of the dogs already in existence (which I actually did claim)?
As regards Mr Zammit’s “worry” regarding my claim that we should breed no more “domesticated” animals, he falls in the same trap as has Mark Mifsud Bonnici (The Times, April 1).
Again, like I said in “On advocating the rights of sperm, and other absurdities“, 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 opportunity to “claim” their “right” to exist!).
Furthermore, since Mr Zammit is worried about animals bred to be slaughtered for meat becoming extinct, I personally would think that such animals would rather prefer not having lived at all, than living a short miserable life that is ended by the knife. But then again, logic is not the speciesist’s forte, and the only reason why people like Mr Zammit are surprised at my views, saying things like “how’s that for championing animal rights” only goes to show they have absolutely no idea on animal rights. I would suggest a list of books which may be found on this blog (on the topic of human/nonhuman slavery, I would highly recommend Marjorie Spiegel’s The Dreaded Comparison).
Mr Zammit then goes on to write:
“Mr Cassar still insists on asking ‘how dogs manage to hunt high flying birds without wings or guns’. The answer is that, in preference to waiting for their hunting dogs to evolve wings, hunters normally help their dogs by using their guns. In the case of ground game (sic), hunting dogs do not need to evolve wings, so they scent, trail, set, point, and flush the birds, but still need to be helped by the hunters and their guns to be able to get their game (sic). God forbid, the hunters would have to wait for them to evolve wings for that purpose too.
Hopefully this explanation goes some way to satisfy Mr Cassar’s ‘eager(ness) to learn’”.
So Mr Zammit here replies to my valid question as to how dogs can be expected to hunt high-flying birds on their own. His answer, much to my satisfaction, is that they can’t. So perhaps, much to proven liar Mr Zammit’s disappointment, I have learned nothing new from his higher wisdom. He only confirmed what I already knew.
Mr Zammit then says:
“What hunting dogs do best is hunting. This is their specific purpose in life, and it is right and proper it should be so, otherwise one would not be justified in calling them hunting dogs”.
So according to Mr Zammit, it is justified to use dogs as “hunting dogs” because “this is their specific purpose in life, and it is right and proper it should be so, otherwise one would not be justified in calling them hunting dogs”.
Mr Zammit should perhaps note that pre-abolition slave traders also claimed that to be slaves is black people’s purpose in life, and that it is right and proper it should be so, otherwise one would not be justified in calling them slaves. However, just as calling slaves so does not make it justified to treat them as slaves, similarly, calling dogs hunting dogs does not necessarily make it justified to use them as hunting dogs.
Mr Zammit’s argument with respect to non-humans’ “rightful” purpose was very prevalent with regards to black humans’ “rightful” purpose prior to the abolition of human slavery. Here are a few quotes that make the argument sound very familiar:
“(In the South) our people have practically solved their natural relations to the inferior race, and placed or rather retained the negro in his normal condition, …in domestic subordination and social adaptation, corresponding with (negroes’) wants, their instincts, their faculties, the nature with which God has endowed them”. - J.H. Van Evrie, MD (1863)
“A state of bondage, so far from doing violence to the law of nature, develops and perfects it; and that, in that state (the Negro) enjoys the greatest amount of happiness, and arrives at the greatest degree of perfection, of which his nature is capable”. - R. R. Cobb (1858)
Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
Mr Zammit then says:
“As any other dog lovers, my family and I treat our dogs with great care and affection. The love we have for our animals goes far beyond simply assigning them a purpose. Hunting for me and my dogs is the sharing of a relationship which is tantamount to being symbiotic.
Slavery is total degradation, deprivation and drudgery. How Mr Cassar can think in these terms of an animal that is cared for and loved is beyond reason. His assertion that dog ownership equals dog slavery is a gross non-sequitur. And yet, thriving on making a fool of himself, it seems he will insist on such comparisons”.
So Mr Zammit claims that he treats his dogs with great care and affection. I have no reason to doubt this. However, one should note that a “well-treated” and “loved” slave is a slave nonetheless. The “symbiotic” relationsip between Mr Zammit and his dogs is one that is imposed on the dog. The dog cannot do otherwise than obey his master. One should also note that by the simple act of breeding dogs, humans perpetuate the dependency of dogs on humans (more on this in the blog entry “Slave parades, speciesist “pure-breeding”, and other non-human breeding“).
Regarding Mr Zammit’s concluding sentence that my “assertion that dog ownership equals dog slavery is a gross non-sequitur”, I agree, since I already explained that dog ownership does not necessarily mean dog slavery. It all depends on the purpose of ownership. So his final remark that “thriving on making a fool of (myself), it seems (I) will insist on such comparisons”, only makes a fool of himself.
Again, to be perfectly clear once and for all: adopting non-humans for altruistic purposes does not amount to slavery. Breeding, selling, buying and using (not to mention killing) non-humans as property for purposes we arbitrarily assign to them, definitely is.
In the words of Jeremy Bentham (The Principles of Morals and Legislation, 1789),
“(Slaves) have been treated by the law upon the same footing as in England, for example, the…animals are still. The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which could never have been witholden from them but by the hand of tyrranny. (Some) have already discovered that the blackness of skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may come one day to be recognized, that the number of legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate…(T)he question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?”
A very enlightening comment
Meanwhile, reading my comment to Mr Zammit’s letter in The Times, in a typical response of someone who can’t even spell, construct a good sentence or ask a question that is not counter-productive to the message he wishes to convey (let alone debate history, philosophy and ethics), Mr Frank Grech writes:
“Mr. Kenneth Cassar, I suggest that you go and live on the moon where no other animal exist (sic) and therefore no slavery!!!! By the way I hope you are a vegeterian (sic)!”.
Well, not to waste too much time on such idiocy, my only short reply would be that my going to the moon would solve nothing, since people like him would still be enslaving and murdering non-human animals here. A better suggestion would be for him to go to the moon. All non-human animals (and quite possibly several humans) would fare better for it.
As for Mr Grech “hoping” that I am a vegetarian (not vegeterian), that’s a very strange wish, coming from someone who most definitely isn’t. Well, a visit to this blog would certainly answer his “question”, or, as he puts it, make his “hope” come true.
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
