Submitted by ANIMAL RIGHTS MALTA’S BLOG

Apart from my letter, a longer version of which can be found at “Lies, misrepresentation and confusion for the defense of slavery“, today’s The Times also publishes a letter by pro-circus slavery advocate Shane Johnson.

Mr Johnson, this time, shows his “love” for “animals” by supporting and promoting not just circus slavery, but all kinds of animal abuse, including non-human slavery, rape and murder.

Mr Johnson writes:

“I am sick and tired of listening to the ramblings of people like Kenneth Cassar (The Times, April 7) about the rights of animals or the ‘non-humans’ as he likes to put it. How can he, or anyone else declare that a hunting dog doesn’t have the right to hunt”.

So, Mr Johnson says he is sick and tired of me writing about the rights of non-human animals, and yet, he declares that dogs have a right to hunt. It would be more conductive to healthy debate if Mr Johnson would decide whether non-human animals have rights or not. Do I need to point out that if non-human animals have no rights, they cannot have a right to hunt?

Also, of course, I should not need to say that if he is tired of “listening” to me, he is perfectly entitled to skip my letters and articles, as I would be very much inclined to skip the absurdities he writes, were it not for the simple fact that it is in non-human animals’ interests to press on with advocating their rights, and correcting any misrepresentations of the animal rights position. But let us move on.

Mr Johnson writes:

“Only by looking at a hunting dog one immediately realises that the dog’s anatomy is made perfectly for hunting. In fact, usually, all hunting dogs have keen eyesight, sharp sense of smell and hearing, a perfectly adapted body to run, crawl, swim or whatever the particular game the hunt requires, and are perfectly camouflaged to blend in with the surroundings”.

So Mr Johnson says that the dog’s anatomy is perfectly made for hunting. I shall not waste much time in showing how the human anatomy could equally be described as being perfectly made for murdering other humans, and that it is only the recognition of the rights of others that keeps most humans from doing so.

I shall only stress that even if what Mr Johnson writes is correct, where exactly do guns fit in with the dog’s anatomy which he says is perfect for hunting? If the dogs’ anatomy is so perfect for hunting, why do hunters insist on taking their guns with them. Why not simply take their dogs to the countryside, and let them do what “their anatomy” is “perfectly made” to do? The answer is simple. Their “anatomy”, without human guns, is useless for hunting birds, which makes Mr Johnson’s claim that their anatomy is perfectly made for hunting to be false - not that this matters, anyway, as I have shown above in my example of human murder.

Mr Johnson goes on to say:

“How anyone can look at a dog like that and not understand that that dog’s function in life is to hunt, baffles me. One might as well point at a Cheetah and declare that it shouldn’t be hunting!”

So Mr Johnson compares “hunting” dogs to cheetahs, when we all know that “hunting” dogs do not usually kill “prey” - that task is left to the human hunters. As for the cheetah, it is not her “function” to be hunting. Hunting, in the case of the cheetah, is her only means of survival. Not so for the “hunting” dog.

Mr Johnson then says:

“Now at this point I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not in favour of hunting and am not trying to condone hunting in any way, but the fact is that hunting has been going on since the first animals appeared on this planet and certain dogs are made specifically for hunting”.

Oh sure, Mr Johnson does not condone hunting - and yet he takes the trouble of mentioning that hunting has been going on forever and that dogs were “specifically made” for hunting. Mr Johnson would perhaps be more credible if he was at least a little more honest.

However, let’s address this question. He says that hunting has been going on since animals first appeared on the planet, as if this, in itself, justifies hunting. Perhaps Mr Johnson would like to note that rape, murder and theft have also been going on since “the first animals appeared on this planet”, yet, I would like to believe that Mr Johnson does not condone rape, murder and theft.

As for dogs being “specifically made” for hunting, I can picture the scene: God, having created the “hunting dogs” (no, modern dogs are not selectively bred by human breeders - you have all been fooled), exclaims: “Let there be hunting!”.

Mr Johnson then goes on to say:

“I personally do not think it would be fair for a human (or non-animal) like Mr Cassar to deny the right of a dog to hunt. The stark truth is that people who share Mr Cassar’s opinion, believe that animals (sic) should not be owned by humans at all. This extremist manner of looking at animal welfare doesn’t help animals (sic) at all because it is so far-fetched from reality that it will never help to educate people about the true needs of animals (sic)”.

Me, a “non-animal”? What am I then? A robot? A plant? A virus? An angel, perhaps? This confirms what I wrote last Saturday, that “It takes humility to understand animal rights“. As long as people like Mr Johnson persist in their irrational pretenses, and do not realize that the earth revolves around the sun, the earth is not flat, and “man” is not the centre of the universe and all that matters, such people will never understand animal rights and their implications. It is like explaining evolution to a Neanderthal.

So a person who has not yet realized that humans are animals, says that my views are “far-fetched from reality”. Amazing! But I digress.

Mr Johnson says that the stark truth is that I believe that non-human animals should not be owned by humans at all. This is correct. However, Mr Johnson’s reasoning that this does not help non-human animals just because it is “so far-fetched from reality”, would have denied human black slaves their ultimate liberation, that looked “so far-fetched from reality” before it happened. The true needs of all animals cannot be addressed as long as they are treated as merely human property.

Mr Johnson then says:

“Since the beginning of time man (sic) and animals (sic) (to say “man and animals” is like saying “dogs and animals” - totally absurd!) have co-habited with each other and the truth is that most of the time both man (sic) and animal (sic) have benefited from this deal, where humans could see to the safety and well-being of the animal (sic) whereas the animal (sic) could carry, hunt for or protect the human beings that own them”.

Mr Johnson claims that humans and non-humans have always “co-habited” and most of the time both “man” and “animal” have benefited from this deal. Perhaps he should pay a visit to a slaughterhouse - this would immediately change his mind.

And in any case, even in the best case scenario, such as that of well-kept pets, what’s missing in the matter is choice on the part of the owned. The excuse that “humans could see to the safety and well-being” of the non-human animal in return for forced labour or companionship is no justification, especially since it is mostly humans who forcibly breed non-human animals for the use of their bodies or their forced labour.

This mentality would justify the breeding of human children for the express purpose of slavery, were it not for the fact that the people who usually find nothing wrong with this in the case of non-humans are speciesists. But of course, many racists would similarly find nothing wrong with breeding black children for the express purpose of slavery. Such is the effect of prejudice, where any use is justified as long as the used is a member of an “out-group” and the user is more powerful than the used.

Mr Johnson then goes on to say:

“Why else would a horse have the perfect body for a rider to sit comfortably on him if its purpose was not to carry humans? Why is a camel capable of walking for hours and hours in the desert without drinking, and yet is also capable of carrying a person on his back? Why is a dog so inclined to develop a strong relationship with his owner if dog and man haven’t been made to live together”.

So Mr Johnson asks why else would a horse have the perfect body for a rider to sit comfortably on him if its purpose was not to carry humans? Mr Johnson should perhaps note that the female sexual organ is likewise perfect for rape, but we see rape as a grave violation of human rights.

Of course, this does not mean that I equate rape with horse-riding (though it should be pointed out that millions of non-humans are habitually raped worldwide to provide a steady supply of offspring to be used for human entertainment, “meat” or “dairy”). It simply goes to show that a body being “perfect” for a purpose does not necessarily justify its use.

Similarly, the adult human body is equally capable of carrying heavy weights, constructing such majestic buildings as pyramids. It is worth remembering that the pyramids were built entirely through slave labour. Would Mr Johnson justify this just because slaves have the physical strength to build pyramids? I don’t think so.

Mr Johnson has got everything backwards. To name one example, the fact that horses’ backs are shaped in a way that enables humans to ride on them does not mean that the horse’s back was “created” that way so that humans may ride on them. It only means that humans are able to ride horses only because the shape of their backs and their physical strength makes this possible. It says nothing about whether it is justified or appropriate for humans to do so. And just in case someone who thinks the way Mr Johnson does is not yet convinced - if horses were “created” for riding, why would they require “domestication”?

As for the question of why a dog is so inclined to develop a strong relationship with his owner if dog and “man” haven’t been “made to live together”, again, this is as absurd as it can get, and such a statement can only come about from someone who has not yet grasped the concept of evolution.

Perhaps, Mr Johnson, who seems to believe that God specifically created each individual animal (humans included) with an “express purpose”, could explain how such a God would “create” a lion who seems to be “made” with attributes best suited to kill a gazelle, and at the same time “create” a gazelle who seems to be “made” with attributes best suited to escape from the lion.

And while he’s at it, perhaps Mr Johnson could explain why such a God would introduce pain in the equation, where a lion, who (unlike us) has to kill the gazelle to survive, induces severe pain and suffering to the gazelle. I’m certainly not that sadistic. It is evolution that explains these matters satisfactorily. Perhaps Mr Johnson would be interested in reading a few books.

Mr Johnson also says:

“Let’s go one step further and imagine how uncivilised and how primitive man (sic) would still be nowadays if he didn’t have the horse to help him travel from one place to the other, if he didn’t have the dog to help protect his livestock (sic), if he didn’t have the cat to help control rodent infestation on his ships during long voyages in the days before cars, planes and motor-powered ships were invented?

When trying to understand matters of nature one must look closely at nature and the answers are there to be seen.

It is also true that nowadays thanks to our modern world, the role of the animal (sic) is not so important for our survival as it was in the past, but the relationship between man (sic) and animal (sic) still exists and in most cases this relationship benefits both parties. Of course each owner is morally and legally responsible for the proper upkeep of his/her particular pet or working animal and as such, should be punished by law and not allowed to keep animals if he/she ill-treats the animal/pet”.

Mr Johnson asks how primitive we would still be if we did not use non-human animals. Many aspects of our civilization and its “progress” would not have been as they are today without the use of human slavery (read some history). Of course, Mr Johnson would not condone human slavery just because it is useful. The same applies in the case of all sentient animals.

I, of course, agree with Mr Johnson where he says that when trying to understand matters of nature one must look closely at nature and the answers are there to be seen. However, as my example of the lion and gazelle above shows, one should not derive moral values from “nature”.

As for the claim that the relationship between humans and non-humans still exists and in most cases this relationship benefits both parties, this is blatantly false, as I have already alluded to by pointing out the example of slaughterhouses. More often than not, it is actually the case that whenever humans encroach on non-human animal space, the human is always the better for it, while the non-human is most of the time made worse-off.

Mr Johnson concludes by saying:

“The point that humans should not own animals (sic) is so far-fetched and incorrect that it scares me that people representing animal welfare groups can come up with such theories. I am sincerely afraid that animal welfare groups with such extremist views can cause more harm than good on this island where some owners could do much better in making sure the animals (sic) in their care are kept in the best mental and physical shape possible”.

Mr Johnson should note that I do not represent animal “welfare” groups (I only represent animal rights). I would only like to ask in what way “our theories” are harmful to non-human animals.

Does Mr Johnson mean to say that a theory that, if put to practice, would end the forced labour, rape and murder of non-human animals, actually harms them, while a theory that would perpetuate their use and abuse would actually benefit them?

Does he not realize that what he is saying is as ridiculous as claiming that a rapist benefits the raped, the slave-owner benefits the slave, and the murderer benefits the murder victim?

And they call me an extremist!
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.