A monthly Magazine edited and
published
by
Maria
Lopes
- April
2006
Dear Friends,
The first book against bullfights written in
the English language has just been published. By Michael A. Ogorzaly, "When Bulls Cry : The
Case Against Bullfighting" is a must read. There are some books against bullfights by
Spanish and French writers but this is the first one in English. One of our members is part-way through this book
and can thoroughly recommend it. The book is available at www.authorhouse.com at the cost of $14.95
+ $5 shipping/handling for U.S.A.
For Europe you can buy it at www.authorhouse.co.uk , prices depend
upon which country you are ordering it from.
For the Animals
Maria Lopes Coordinator of the International Movement
Against Bullfights
AUSTRIA
UPDATE : EU threat against Austrian circus
animal ban thwarted!
Source:http://www.vgt.at/circus.php
Since middle of April there is a new situation
in our campaign to stop the Commission threatening Austria to undo the ban on
wild animals in circuses. Commissioner McCreevy said in regard to the
infringement proceeding last week: "As we had received a complaint, we had to
follow it up. But I am confident that this case can soon be closed." Insiders
in Brussels say that it looks very good for us now. It is moreover said, that in
most cases the Commission doesn't close such infringement proceedings
officially, they prefer to simply make no mentioning of the case
anymore.
It would be good now to force the Commission to
bring the infringement proceedings to an official end, because ...
1. this would raise legal certainty for all
European countries and regions which have banned wild animals in circuses or
which plan to do so and 2. the increasing importance of the wellbeing of
animals in the EU would be improved by a official statement of the
Commission.
So, may I ask you to write letters to
Commissioner McCreevy. You could tell him that you heard rumors that the
infringement proceedings regarding wild animals in circuses shall be closed.
Tell him that the members of your organisation are well informed of the
activities of the Commission and that they are very interested in informations
about further developments. Ask him if he can officially confirm that the case
against the ban on wild animals in circuses is closed.
Commissioner Charlie McCreevy Member of the
European Comission for Internal Market and Services European Commission B
- 1049 Brussels (Belgium) Email: Charlie.Mc-Creevy@cec.eu.int
Dear Commissioner,
I have heard reports that the contemplated action against the
Austrian Govt for its alleged restrictions on the "Freedom of Provision of
Services" within the EU regarding wild animals in circuses is to be closed.
I am aware through members of the organization to whom I
belong of the activities of the Commission and am therefore very interested in
information about further developments.
Could you please officially confirm that the case against the
ban on wild animals in circuses is closed?
Awaiting your reply,
Yours sincerely
Nome/País
_________________________
Campaign history:
EU threat against Austrian circus animal ban
thwarted!
After complaints by foreign circuses, the EU
commission threatened to undo the Austrian ban on wild animals. A concerted 7
month EU-wide campaign persuaded the EU-commissioner otherwise.
From 1996, the Austrian animal rights group VGT
had run a nationwide campaign in Austria to persuade the public and the
politicians that wild animals in circuses must be banned. After a 2 year
phase-out period, this complete ban on all wild animals actually came into place
on 1st January 2005. In Austria, a last circus using zebras, buffaloes and a fox
was stopped after a few months, while foreign circuses with wild animals were
not allowed into the country. A German circus, who was denied entrance,
complained to the EU- Commission. In a letter dated 12th October 2005, the
EU-Commissioner for the Internal Market, Charlie McCreevy, threatened the
Austrian government to withdraw the law, otherwise it will be challenged in the
European Courts. According to his opinion, the ban on wild animals was going too
far to achieve the aim of animal protection and hence unlawfully restricted the
Freedom of Provision of Services within the EU.
The EU-Commission demanded that the law at least
be changed such that foreign circuses with wild animals can freely enter Austria
and do performances here. According to the Freedom of Provision of Services, one
of the 4 basic Freedoms of the Internal Market, somebody, who legally provides
services in one country, must be able to do so in any other country in the
EU. According to this view it would be sufficient to have one EU member state
allowing wild animals in circuses, so that all circuses from this country could
go around the whole of the EU to do wild animal circus shows.
Albeit the EU Commission being a formidable
opponent, VGT decided to rise to the challenge. Professional expert evidence on
EU law and on the suffering of wild animals in circuses was attained and
presented to the EU-Commissioner and the Austrian government. On 20th December
2005, VGT presented a website (www.vgt.at/circus.php) dedicated to this campaign
in 30 different languages. With an automated service, visitors of the site could
read and send protest emails in their own language to their EU Commissioner and
to Commissioner McCreevy. At the beginning of April, more than 20.000 people had
already used that opportunity. In addition, a large number of individuals and
groups right across the EU have sent their own letters of complaint and expert
statements in defence of the Austrian ban. Internationally, animal welfare as
much as animal rights is united behind demanding a ban on wild animals in
circuses. Even the Eurogroup for Animal Welfare, an association of a large
number of national animal welfare groups in the EU, has issued a statement in
favour of banning wild animals from circuses.
Also in the EU-Parliament, MEPs started to
defend the Austrian ban. MEP Jörg Leichtfried from the Austrian Social Democrats
gave speech in the EU-Parliament on 13th December 2005 in the presence of
Commissioner McCreevy saying that the protection of the welfare of animals must
be paramount in the EU. Hence with the ban on wild animals in circuses, Austria
is leading the way for animal protection and should be applauded not
reprimanded. Altogether there were 4 times official questions posed to the
EU-Commission during December 2005 and January 2006 by MEPs, in support of the
Austrian ban and against the steps taken by the Commission: 2 from Austria (23.
11. and 6. 12. 2005), 1 from England (12. 1. 2006) and 1 from Holland (5. 1.
2006). In addition, a German MEP asked the EU-Council on 9. 12. 2005 similar
questions.
By Mid-January 2006, the Austrian government
answered to the EU- Commission that the ban is just and legal and that Austria
will stand by it and take up any challenge against it in the European Court. A
vast amount of media attention in favour of this position together with lobbying
of the Austrian Parliament has helped the government coming to this decision. In
the letter it is argued that no less than a ban is necessary to protect wild
animals from suffering and that this goal is more important than the principle
of free provision of services.
On 25th January 2006, Green Party MPs brought a
bill to a vote in the Austrian Parliament which demands of the government to
support the ban by all means and to use its 6 month period from 1st January 2006
as president of the EU-council to pressure for a similar ban EU-wide. A large
majority voted in favour of this proposition.
On 7th February 2006, the German Parliament
followed suit. The Green Party put a similar proposal to the vote. Again, the
large majority of Parliament approved the proposal, ending with the words: "The
German Parliament is, together will all animal protectionists in the EU,
expecting that the EU-Commission will stick to the aims formulated in the EU
constitutional proposal, which included animal welfare, and hence that the
Commission will support all efforts on the national level to protect wild
animals and that it won't insist on forms of keeping and using animals that are
inconsistent with animal welfare or the protection of species."
On 16th February 2006, EU Parliament decided on
a new directive regarding the provision of services across borders within the
EU. After many protests, the fraction won the day which said that those
providing services must abide by the laws of the country they are providing the
services in. This decision, clearly, also supported the position that a ban on
wild animals in one country must be respected by the circuses in all other
countries.
While the EU-Commissioner McCreevy was reluctant
to answer any questions or to meet with animal advocate delegations, his replies
to queries changed from being very assertive at the beginning of the campaign,
to being quite defensive at the end. Also, a number of MEPs had been prompted by
animal rights groups, especially the VGT, to have appointments with him and
pressure for a reaction. It became more and more clear that animal rights had
won the day. On 12th April 2006, Commissioner McCreevy said publicly regarding
this case: "As we had received a complaint, we had to follow it up. But I am
confident that this case can soon be closed." After publication of this
statement, many MEPs congratulated the Commissioner to this decision to drop the
case. With this outcome, it is clear that the wellbeing of animals is becoming
an increasingly important issue in the EU.
So, while the case has not been closed
officially, it seems that the Austrian ban on wild animals in circuses will
prevail. Such cases, insiders in Brussels say, are never closed officially, but
are just being ignored instead of decided, if they are not approved by the
Commission. We must remain vigilant, but for now it is time to celebrate big
time!
EUROPEAN UNION
China and its Accomplices
Source: ITD http://itstheirdestiny.2kat.net Much has been reported on the unbelievably uncaring cruelty toward
animals in China, particularly the treatment of cats, dogs and other animals
used for their fur. There are literally no animal welfare laws to protect them.
China is without doubt the world's largest producer of fur due to its cheap
labour and lack of animal legislation. Film footage has been taken of animals
being stunned by having their heads slammed against the ground and then skinned
whilst still alive, often regaining consciousness and struggling during the
process. Their killers would then hit them again, or simply hold their heads on
the ground with their boots while they finished the job. Their still living
bodies were then thrown onto a pile of their fellows, where they clearly
continued to live and suffer for up to another 10 minutes. A silver fox is
clearly seen to lift its head and blink an eye after having been skinned. Links
to some of these videos are at the foot of this page.
In response to this outrageous abuse the USA,
Australia, Switzerland, and 6 member nations of the EU (Italy, Denmark, France,
Belgium, Greece, and Estonia) have banned the importation of dog and cat fur. In
December 2003 the Scottish MEP Struan Stevenson suceeded in getting a resolution
calling for an EU-wide ban on dog and cat fur approved by a large majority of
the EU Parliament. The EU Commissioners however maintain that they don't have
the authority to issue this ban as an EU directive. The Commissioners claim that
such legislation can only be passed at a national level.
Despite an original commitment to a unilateral
ban by the British government in December 2001, Blair's government has backed
down on this issue, stating that: a) there is no evidence of these
imports into the UK and b) such legislation must come from the
EU.
We find it amazing that no-one seems able to
pass this much needed legislation! Can it be that Europe is so afraid of losing
cheap Chinese imports? This is nothing less than "buck passing" all round! While
this ludicrous "catch-22" is allowed to continue, consumers are being duped into
buying cat and dog fur intentionally unlabelled or mislabelled as faux fur, or
as non-existant animals such as "gaewolf".
We call upon BOTH the EU Commission and
individual European governments to legislate on this issue. As a UK based
organisation, we are giving contact details for the British government and EU
Commission, but would ask all citizens of ALL countries WORLDWIDE to ask their
representatives to ban these vile imports.
What YOU can do
Make it clear that you expect nothing short of a
complete ban on the importation of these furs. The UK government is considering
a voluntary labelling scheme. This would not work since Chinese furriers are on
record as stating that they will put any labels on the furs to sell
them!
Email the EU Commission, demanding that they act
on Written Declaration 17/2003 and issue a directive banning these items
throughout Europe.
cab-piebalgs-archives@cec.eu.int,Charlie.Mc-Creevy@cec.eu.int,
cab-grybauskaite-commissaire@cec.eu.int,Cabinet-Huebner@cec.eu.int,
friso.roscam-abbing@cec.eu.int,guenter.verheugen@cec.eu.int,
cab-archive-barrot@cec.eu.int,
CABFIGEL@cec.eu.int,joe.borg@cec.eu.int,
Laszlo.Kovacs@cec.eu.int,
Louis.Michel@cec.eu.int,sg-web-president@cec.eu.int,
Margot.Wallstrom@cec.eu.int,
Mariann.FischerBoel@cec.eu.int,markos.kyprianou@cec.eu.int,
Neelie.Kroes@cec.eu.int,
Rehn@cec.eu.int,CAB-KALLAS-WEB-FEEDBACK@cec.eu.int,
stavros.dimas@cec.eu.int, Viviane.Reding@cec.eu.int,
vladimir.spidla@cec.eu.int
Sample emails are below, but PLEASE write an
original if you can and in your own language. Form letters are often simply
discarded by politicians.
Sample email for Tony Blair and Ian Pearson only
- NOT to be used for faxing your MP
Dear Sir,
In December 2001 the British government gave a
commitment to ban the importation of dog and cat fur from China due to the
unimaginable cruelty inflicted on these animals. This cruelty has been well
documented and its validity has not been questioned by the government. To date
however, this commitment has not been acted upon. The government instead claims
that there is no evidence that these imports are coming into Britain, and that
any such measures should be implemented by the EU. The EU Commission however
states that it is up to each member state to pass such legislation. Whilst this
indecision continues, countless dogs and cats are being skinned alive in China
to supply furs for the UK market. The government has stated that there is no
evidence of this trade within the UK, yet countless examples exist. Mr Struan
Stevenson MEP was able to find several items of cat and dog fur for sale in
Britain without difficulty.
It is intolerable that this situation be allowed
to continue. In addition to the USA, Australia and Switzerland, six EU nations
have already banned these imports. It seems unbelievable that the United
Kingdom, birthplace of the RSPCA and animal welfare legislation, should be so
reticent. Britain should have taken the lead on this issue, and not hidden in
the shadows waiting for others to have the courage to make the decision on its
behalf.
I urge you to do all in your power to bring
about an early end to these sickening and offensive imports.
Yours sincerely,
Name Address/Country
_____________________________
Sample email for EU
Commissioners
Dear Commissioner,
As you are aware in December 2003 the Members of
the European Parliament passed Written Declaration 17 calling for the banning of
the importation and trade in dog and cat fur throughout the EU. To date no
directive has been issued and this sickening trade continues throughout Europe.
Few Europeans would knowingly support this incredibly cruel trade, and I urge
you to issue a directive banning these items without delay. If the EU is to
succeed it must be seen as democratic. Failure to enforce the decisions of its
Parliament can only lead to its downfall.
Yours sincerely,
Name/Country
Links to videos. Please note - these are
extremely unpleasant!
TURKEY
Horses bled to death in Turkey
Source:Barb (VeganWay)
Please send letters to:
Mustafa Ertek, M.D., President Refik Saydam
Hygiene Center Cemal Gursel Caddesi, No. 18 06100 Sihhiye,
Ankara Turkey mustafa.ertek@saglik.gov.tr
His Excellency Ahmet Necdet
Sezer President of the Turkish Republic Cankaya Kosku Sehit Ersan
Caddesi, No. 14 Çankaya, Ankara Turkey cumhurbaskanligi@tccb.gov.tr
His Excellency Ahmet Necdet Sezer Prime
Minister of the Turkish Republic Baþbakanlýk Necatibey Cad., No.
108 Ankara Turkey bimer@basbakanlik.gov.tr
Stop the torture of horses
Dear Dr. Mustafa Ertek, President Ahmet Necdet
Sezer, and Prime Minister Ahmet Necdet Sezer,
I was shocked and horrified after learning of
the treatment of horses in Turkey by the government-run Refik Saydam Hygiene
Center (RSHC). I urge you to stop these cruel procedures immediately and ensure
that the Ministry of Health adheres to Turkey's Animal Protection
Law.
Undercover video footage shows horses violently
dragged to the ground with ropes so that their necks can be slashed with a
scalpel while they are completely conscious. Their blood is then collected and
used in medical products. The video captures shocking images of struggling
horses whose blood is used in serum production. Workers bind the horses' legs
closely to their bodies for restraint and sit on top of the struggling animals
to hold them down. Moans of agony and shudders of pain reveal the horses to be
fully conscious during the procedure, which sometimes lasts for hours. The
horses are then left to bleed to death. Finally, their bodies are dragged
outside and dumped beside the street.
In the United States and Europe, blood is
collected from horses just as it's collected from human beings: A needle is
inserted through the skin and into a vein. Horses stand comfortably in a stall
during the procedure, and several liters of blood are collected without harming
or killing the horses. It is nothing compared to the anguish experienced by the
horses at the RSHC. The video reveals RSHC technicians who cannot or will not
make a proper needle insertion and who instead crudely slash the horses' necks
in order to expose the jugular vein. There is no excuse for this coarse and
cruel technique.
The RSHC produces horse serum for the government
as a cheap but dangerous substitute for human serum in medical products. The
United States long ago used horse serum for rabies shots and other antitoxins
until it was discovered that horse antibodies lead to a dangerous condition
called "serum sickness" in 16 percent of patients. Today, horse blood is
increasingly unnecessary for medical use in the U.S., but when it is needed,
obtaining it is nothing like what happens in this house of horrors run by the
Turkish government.
Again, I urge you to stop the torture of horses
immediately. This horrific cruelty will not be tolerated by civilized
society.
Sincerely, Name/Country
PETITIONS
STOP TORO DE LA VEGA EN TORDESILLAS http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/487300083?ltl=1146077015
Urge Korean Prime Minister to Strengthen Animal Protection
Law http://ga0.org/campaign/koreandogs_06/b386si2h5kwtjw?
Save endangered turtles, Bali, Indonesia http://www.antinea-foundation.org/pages/petition_de.asp
Help STOP "Cruelty 101" http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/440822961?ltl=1146076877
Protest against mass extermination of 7800 neutered stray dogs
in Varna/ Bulgaria http://www.animal-life.ch/protest/hundetod_in%20_varna_e.html
Interview (english version) with dr. Janez Drnovek,president
of Slovenia
Dr Janez Drnovsek about vegetarianism and animal
rights
Vegetarianism would increase the chance for long-term survival
of mankind In the entire history of mankind there have only been a handful of
notable statesmen who were vegetarians and seriously took a stand for animal
rights. Even today there are very few. Slovenija is one of the few bright lights
in the world of politics today. By giving this interview the president Dr Janez
Drnovsek has for the first time expressed the message to people, to start
thinking about unimaginable brutality that man is inflicting upon
animals.
Why did you become a vegetarian and what changes did you
notice as a result?
Because I feel vegetarian food is better, better quality. We
eat meat because it’s the way we had been brought up. I have been a vegetarian
for a few years and just recently I have become a vegan, which means I don’t eat
milk, dairy products or eggs. There is still plenty of choice, varied vegetable
foods, which are sufficient to our needs. I took this step following my inner
feeling. Some people believe that vegan food is very limited and boring which is
not true. It can be very diverse.
Was the main reason for changing your diet your serious
illness a few years back?
That was the time I gradually started to change. First step
was omitting red meat, then poultry and eventually fish.
After changing to vegetarian food do you feel better,
healthier?
I feel great – they say I have too much energy.
On World protection of Animals Day (October 4th) you invited
members of Society for Liberation of Animals and their rights for discussions.
What was discussed?
I invited them mainly to try and convey the message to general
public to coincide with this day. We don’t always realise how we treat animals,
how we manage them. They are live creatures. As I said people have this set idea
of behaviour towards animals and as result very rarely question what we actually
cause. If we think for a moment how man manages animals and what impact he has
on animal world we could say he was not human at all. Just think of all
slaughter houses and production of beef or poultry where conditions for animals
are impossible. Animals are transported in lorries many times without any water
which is extremly cruel. It is not that people are bad they just don’t think
about it. When the final product is in front of them on the plate they don’t
think what was it before and how it got to this stage.
So you decided to become a vegetarian on ethical grounds as
well?
The ethics are part of the reason; the other part is the fact
that humans don’t need the animal flesh. It is only thinking patterns we follow
that are ingrained in us. It is probably really hard to change overnight, but it
can be done gradually. This is how I did it.
You spoke against subsidising mass livestock farming in the
media. What was your reason for this?
I believe it is foolish, that European Union’s main priority
is one hundred percent subsidy of farming especially meat products. The fact
that EU subsidises mass production of meat and poultry is really the main
obstacle from the ethics point of view. Not only that but also from the point of
view of nutrition. We are frequently reminded by nature i.e. mad cow disease,
recently swine fever, bird flu. It is obvious that something is not as it should
be, something is disturbing the natures balance and that should be a warning to
us all.
Vegetarian products in shops are more expensive than meat
products, which does not encourage people to buy healthier food. Do you think
that more people would stop eating meat if vegetarian option was
cheaper?
That is a factor as well although I believe the main reason to
be awareness of people. It is a question of making people aware of what is
happening and what are they being part of. I think that is the key. That in turn
leads to changes in politics i.e. agricultural policy, farming subsidies and
future directions. Instead of using huge resources for mass meat production we
should use it for organic farming of diverse produce from cereals, pulses, fruit
and all the products that originate from these. This would certainly be kinder
to nature as organic production means no use of chemical fertilizers or
additives. It would mean no pollution to the environment and no chemical
additives in our food. We consume these chemicals every day in our food and they
are harmful. But behind all this are the interests of big manufacturers,
lobbies, huge profits which are the driving force for these food manufacturers’
conglomerates. Nonetheless I believe that awareness of people continues to
increase in our country and in EU. People are more and more searching for
natural alternatives; they are turning to nature and becoming more aware of
problems regarding animals and animal products.
Would you on the basis of your own experiences recommend
people to try vegetarianism?
If I do it myself I can’t see a reason why I wouldn’t
recommend it to others. I have no complaints as I said; I have more energy than
I need. If nothing else I am living proof that you can survive without meat and
meat products.
How do you view the fact that we all have to pay the same
national insurance contributions?
It is well known that vegetarians are a lot healthier and
therefore don’t use the health service as frequently. This is a wider
problem; the whole concept could be different. I don’t think that is a valid
point, because there should be some solidarity, where healthy people help those,
who are unwell. It is true however that everyone is responsible for their own
health. If we consumed less harmful and unhealthy food, we would considerably
lessen the financial burden on our health service. Of course it is not in
everybody’s interest if that were to happen. What would happen to
pharmaceutical industries, huge multinational companies which make billions from
sick people?
What is your view on hunting?
Hunting as killing animals in the name of sport is unethical.
If you are referring to the part of the hunting organization that looks after
nature environment and wild animals, for example helping with feeding in the
winter - it is very useful. Hunting which is by definition just chasing and
killing of animals is of course completely unethical.
What is your opinion on live animal testing?
This is a well known dilemma which has recently been in
forefront of politics in Europe, in Great Britain. You have to ask yourself
would you like it if you were the subject of such testing. During the second
world war my father was an inmate in the concentration camp in Dachau, where he
was subjected to such medical experiments together with thousands other people.
He didn’t like it one bit. Some people would say it is necessary for the
progress of science but I am sure that in most cases alternative methods can be
used without the need for animal testing.
Where do you think the brutal treatment of animals
originates?
It comes from low level of people’s awareness.
And looking historically?
It is difficult to pinpoint the exact time in history. It is a
question of respecting life in general. Animals are live creatures with
feelings. Everyone who has a domestic animal or a pet knows that animals have
feelings. The world’s religions often speak about respecting life but they only
mean human life and sometimes not even that. Looking back in the Middle Ages
Catholics proclaimed for a long time that native Red Indians which were enslaved
by the Spanish and Portuguese do not have a soul. This meant that they weren’t
treated as living creatures with feelings. Then they changed their mind and
proclaimed that black people don’t have souls. Centuries of black slavery
followed. All this happened with the blessing of the Church. Today nobody
accepts this anymore. We can see how historical conscience of people is changing
despite the opposing views from some institutions at different points in
time.
It’s nearly Christmas. For millions of people it is time for
happiness, love and peace. For millions of animals it is a time of terrible
cruelty at slaughter so that our tables can be laden with carcases. And all this
to celebrate the birth of a man who loved animals, protected them and didn’t
kill them. What is your view on this?
Jesus would be turning in his grave if he knew that mass
slaughter of animals is carried out every year in his name. His deliverance is
based on absolute respect of life and it is very difficult to imagine that he
would accept millions of living creatures being killed in his
honour.
Are you aware that all vegetarians (including you) are cursed
by the Church and are condemned to eternal hell?
Fortunately people who say this don’t decide who goes to hell
and who doesn’t.
All the world leaders always emphasise their endeavours for
world peace. Do you think peace is connected to our relationship to animals and
nourishment of people without the need for killing?
Tolstoy said “As long as there are slaughter houses there will
be wars” If a person’s conscience is highly developed they will not kill or
be cruel to animals. You can not expect from such person to go to war and kill
people for a profit. People who do not kill and eat animals have a greater
chance of finding a way to live in peace in harmony. Everything is
interconnected in one’s conscience. On a higher level one comes with the other.
Making people more aware is the key.
How do world’s politicians view this?
The world’s politicians are no more aware of this than most
people. I have noticed that in many cases ordinary people are ahead of
politicians. We see a lot of non govermental organizations championing causes
that are not priorities of governments. Be it our treatment of animals,
environment or climate change. This push for change is coming from ordinary
members of society. When the critical mass of people accepts an idea, when
majority of people expect and demand change only then will the politics respond.
Sadly politicians are not the ones to encourage others to be conscious but
instead they follow public opinion of the moment. When they see the public
support slipping they reassess their priorities.
Tolstoy is just one of many “great minds” of mankind, who
publicly spoke for vegetarianism. Let me name a few: Pythagoras, Leonardo da
Vinci, Nikola Tesla, Albert Einstein, and Mahatma Ghandi….These people are
recognized for their great works and achievements, they are often quoted in
recognition of their genius. Why do you think that mankind does not want to hear
about animals and vegetarianism from these great people for example this daring
saying from Albert Einstein “Nothing will increase our chances of survival on
Earth as significantly as will switching to vegetarian food.”
How would you comment on this quote from the genius physicist?
Certainly the chances of long-term survival of mankind would increase.
Everything is connected. Better quality food is somehow connected with higher
level of consciousness. It is a parallel process if we can do one we can do the
other. However it is unreasonable to expect from people with lower levels of
consciousness who are cruel to animals, to end wars, to stop manipulating
others, to help eradicate world poverty. In short as long as consciousness level
is low all the disagreements in the world today will remain and possibly
increase to the point of annihilation of humans.
Are the people who say they love animals, but they eat meat,
real animal lovers?
I think that people do love animals, their pets, but somehow
they automatically eat other animals. If they had to slaughter a cow before they
could have a steak, they would think twice. Meat products are so altered in
appearance that people don’t associate them with real animals.
Some ladies wear animal fur in winter. What is your view on
this fashion industry?
Again it’s the question of consciousness of people. People
often automatically accept the behavioural patterns without questioning them.
Only when you question something, you can change your point of view and become
more aware of what you are buying. Where do people get the right to
slaughter, incarcerate and torture animals and at the same time demand peace and
all the rights for themselves? Is this sanctioned in the constitution? It
is not sanctioned as such, of course the lawyers and legislators will tell you
it is not barred; but it is indeed assumed it is legitimate.
From unofficial source I’ve heard that even your dog Brodi is
vegetarian. Is it true?
You’ve been informed well. You’d better ask him personally.
I’m not authorised to answer in his name. (laughing)
Resource: Magazine Liberation of animals, january 2006,
Edited by The Society for the Rights and the Liberation of Animals Slovenia,
info@osvoboditev-zivali.org , www.osvoboditev-zivali.org Damjan
Likar
Disclaimer:
All items published in
this magazine were
received by us and we pass
them on in good faith. We
are not responsible for
incorrect email addresses,
errors,
omissions etc. by the
originators.
This Magazine published by
Maria
Lopes
marialopes@iwab.org
|