Submitted by ANIMAL RIGHTS MALTA’S BLOG

Let me immediately state clearly that it is not my style to ridicule people. However, it seems like some people heap ridicule upon themselves, both by replying to rational arguments in a ridiculous fashion, and also by constantly trying to ridicule people who make sensible claims.

Following yesterday’s article and my comments in The Times online, R. Spagnol could not resist heaping further ridicule upon himself, for, instead of replying to my reasonable comments and questions, he chose to persist in uttering nonsense and irrelevancies.

R. Spagnol writes:

“Finally you have been caught into my trap dear Mr.Cassar! You have just admitted your purposes of banning hunting and your incapability to control or bear your extremism”.

Caught in your trap, Mr Spagnol? Hardly so. I have always been an outspoken campaigner for the abolition of all animal exploitation and murder, which of course includes hunting. Of course, animal abusers, in the absence of a rational and moral justification for their animal exploitation, will always call me extremist. I suspect that R. Spagnol must have been hibernating, since my “purpose of banning hunting”, as well as all other forms of animal exploitation, was never a secret. In fact, I have been writing animal rights letters, including anti-hunting letters, since 1995.

As for the label of “extremism”, yes, I suppose this has become a fashionable last-resort label to pin on opponents, when one’s arguments are all defeated. I suppose the racist would similarly say that the activist who would demand equal rights to all races and all individuals, is likewise an extremist. Similarly, the sexist would say that for one to demand equality and respect for all humans, regardless of sex, would also be an extremist. Do you think that genocide is wrong, but also think that murder for political, or religious reasons, is always wrong, even if only one human being is killed? Yes? Oh, then you must be an extremist!

R. Spagnol goes on to write:

“I suggest to you that before condemning people due to their native traditions, you should learn some values about tolerance”.

Tolerance. Another popular word bandied about by intolerant rights violators. Well, dear R. Spagnol, I would guess it would be futile for me to try to explain that tolerating injustice is in itself an injustice. It would perhaps also be useless for me to give you other examples where tolerating some values and traditions is also an injustice. But I will give it a try anyway.

Should we, for instance, tolerate forced female genital mutilation, considering that the practice is a native tradition in some countries? Should we perhaps tolerate the native practice of the so-called “honour killings”, practiced in some fundamentalist Islamic countries, where women, or even children, who are victims of rape, instead of being given support and care, are actually murdered? No, dear R. Spagnol. Where injustice is involved, to tolerate injustice is to compound and perpetuate it.

But let’s see how I am supposedly intolerant. Do I go about beating up people who disagree with me? Do I burn opponents’ cars? Do I shoot at my opponents? Did I ever uproot trees, or deface monuments or neolithic temples as a personal vendetta? Of course not. All I do is state my case rationally and logically, and then its up to my readers to agree, disagree, or at least think about my point of view. To value tolerance is to tolerate the other side’s views, and not necessarily to agree with the other’s view or to compromise your own views. I do not need to learn tolerance. On the contrary, I believe I can teach R. Spagnol a thing or two about tolerance myself.

Now, how about this for intolerance? R. Spagnol writes:

“Please make a favour for the Maltese society and try to resist your obstinate opinions about cultural traditions, part of the social life of quite a large number of Maltese”.

Very little short of telling me to shut up, but I have gotten used to this from people who can’t handle an intelligent debate. But, not to repeat myself, I shall not elaborate once again on how cultural traditions that are recognized as being immoral, should not only be criticized, but should actually be abolished.

If I am not making any sense, R. Spagnol need not worry about my writings, since nonsense poses no threat to anyone. If, on the other hand, I am making some, or a lot of sense, perhaps R. Spagnol should re-evaluate his own so-called “cultural tradition”.

Perhaps R. Spagnol should note that I have come to hold my anti-speciesist views through re-evaluating my own intuitions and commonly held beliefs. I have done so through reading extensively much of the related literature, and by testing my own beliefs for any inconsistencies and prejudices. This, to a rational and intelligent person, is an ongoing process. However, this requires at least an ability to understand different views and opinions, since one cannot evaluate beliefs and opinions that one does not even understand. Therefore, I take the opportunity, today being the international day of the book, to stress the importance of reading.

R. Spagnol ends his comment by writing:

“You don’t even try to seek a balance; instead you work for the damage of people around you. Extremists like you must think about their positions as they are being considered by fools, even by the true bird-lovers. As you may quote modern mentalities you must seek to discover the beauty in the recreation of others and the satisfaction derived from respecting other citizens. After all, thanks for rejecting Birdlife’s lie about there isn’t an alternative hunting period for spring hunting!”

Well, no, dear R. Spagnol. I will never try to seek a balance where lives are at stake. I shall only repeat what I wrote on March 21 of last year, where I said that:

“If it is a question of killing innocent and sentient individuals, there should be no compromise.

Would (R. Spagnol) compromise if the question was on whether one should be allowed to kill twenty, thirty, or a thousand humans? Would he say that perhaps a hundred would be a fair compromise? There is no logical reason why the matter should be any different in the case of sentient non-human animals such as birds. To state that birds are not humans, simply begs the question: why does it matter to kill humans unnecessarily, and not matter if the individuals killed unnecessarily are not human?”

If my arguments don’t make sense, they will have no effect, and so I harm no one. If, on the other hand, my arguments make sense, then that means that I am right, and this would make the claim that I am “damaging people”, nonsense. After all, if it is established that, for instance, theft is wrong, it is useless and illogical of thieves to complain that people campaigning against theft are “damaging them”. Replace theft with any other practice that violates rights, including hunting, and you’ll see what I mean.

As for rejecting Birdlife’s “lie” about there being no proper alternative to spring hunting, yes, honesty is always the best policy. That said, being the “extremist” that I supposedly am, I will admit that I could be wrong, and stand to be corrected if that is the case.

And finally, I would appreciate it if R. Spagnol would indicate where I ever made the claim that I would support the shooting of newborns, like he wrote yesterday. But since I never made such a claim, and therefore there is not even the slightest chance that R. Spagnol could ever substantiate that allegation, it would perhaps reflect better on his honesty and credibility, if he were man enough to, at least, admit his serious mistake in this regard.