Guest guest Posted February 21, 2007 Report Share Posted February 21, 2007 Introduction to 'Behind The Mask' First the deceptive facade dissolves to reveal basic evil. Before a protest can be approved by responsible leadership, we must answer the following question: Do we adjust freedoms? We first try every form of normal means by negotiation, petition and appeal to appropriate authority Then we undertake any form of law breaking. We must be prepared to face the consequences. No one can scorn non violent direct action without canceling our history. It is difficult to think that animal abusers like Mark Shand, His Royal Highness Prince Philip and Prince Charles would listen to logic and petitions. Keith Mann, an ALF activist says, " The government has interests in pharmaceutical industries that abuse animals. To write to them and expect them to listen: it won't work. If you look at any exposure of animal cruelty in UK, it is the direct action working all the time. It is about taking action and taking control to save lives. Unlike India where we do have faith in our system and therefore petitions, protests etc do mean a lot as far as seeking justice for animals and humans is concerned, I think the situation seems hopeless in the west, and therefore you have organizations like PETA, ALF etc resorting to violence as the ultimate way out. Azam Siddiqui On 2/20/07, Merritt Clifton <anmlpepl wrote: > > >In the film, Rod Coronado says that for every act of arson that has > >been undertaken there have been many more that have been rejected > >for security and safety reasonsarchives at: > > Is it any surprise that an arsonist would defend arson? > > Rod Coronado's rationalizations and pretexts remind me of the > hundreds of individual cruelty cases indexed at www.Pet-Abuse.com, > many of them from the archives of ANIMAL PEOPLE, in which the > perpetrators pretend that they killed an animal by any number of > hideous means in the name of putting the animal out of misery. > > Even more, Coronado's words echo the common pretense of > serial killers that they are upholding public morality by murdering > prostitutes. > > An even closer parallel might be with the excuses cited by > the perpetrators of so-called " honor killings, " who long have > persuaded lawmakers in much of the world that murdering women has a > moral basis. > > -- > Merritt Clifton > Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE > P.O. Box 960 > Clinton, WA 98236 > > Telephone: 360-579-2505 > Fax: 360-579-2575 > E-mail: anmlpepl <anmlpepl%40whidbey.com> > Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org > > [ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing > original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide, > founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the > decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations. > We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year; > for free sample, send address.] > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2007 Report Share Posted February 21, 2007 >I think the situation seems hopeless in the west, and therefore you >have organizations like PETA, ALF etc resorting to violence as the >ultimate way out. That " the situation seems hopeless " could only be perceived by the profoundly ignorant, who have no knowledge of even the recent past. When I first began reporting about animal issues, U.S. per capita meat consumption had risen in each of the three preceding decades, in all age & gender brackets. This situation has now completely reversed. Each age bracket eats less meat than the one preceding, & the most significant aspect of this is that the most affluent & best-educated people eat the least. The significance of this is that the choice to eat less meat, or none, is a matter of preference, as opposed to economics. Thirty-odd years ago eating less meat was primarily associated with poverty. When I first began writing about animal shelters, U.S. shelters were killing 115 dogs & cats per 1,000 Americans. New York City alone killed a quarter of a million dogs & cats per year. Only 10% of dogs and 1% of cats were sterilized. Shelters killed animals mainly by decompression or automobile exhaust fumes. Both methods were long since banned--decompression in every state, and automobile exhaust in all but a handful. Today the shelter toll is down to 14.8 per 1,000 Americans. More than 70% of dogs, 80% of pet cats, and two-thirds of all cats in the U.S. are sterilized. When I first reported about toxicology issues, the LD-50 test was still the standard, as it had been since 1916. No major company had spent a cent to develop non-animal testing methods. The LD-50 was long ago replaced by the LD-10, which uses only a fifth as many animals per test, and the LD-10 has in turn been superseded in many applications by non-animal methods. Procter & Gamble alone has put more than $200 million into developing and promoting non-animal tests. The total numbers of animals used in experiments have marginally increased in recent years, after more than 25 years of steady decreases, but only because the total amount of science being done has increased more than 100-fold over the same time (as measured by papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.) There were no felony cruelty penalties in the entire U.S., and no animal abuser had been jailed in more than 20 years. Today 48 states have a felony cruelty penalty, and jail time actually served is a standard part of cruelty sentencing. When I first encountered cockfighting, it was legal in more than half the U.S. It is now illegal in 48 states, and is banned at the county level in many counties of the two states that still permit it. When I first wrote about fur, U.S. retail fur sales had increased in almost every year since before I was born, & peaked some years later at $1.85 billion, at a time when the U.S. dollar bought twice as much as it does now. Twenty years after that peak, U.S. retail fur sales have just crept back to the same level, only now it means only half as much consumer investment in fur, with more than twice as many women in the age & income brackets targeted by the fur industry. When I first wrote about hunting, there were approximately 25 million licensed hunters in the U.S. There are now barely 13 million, with twice as many adult men, meaning that hunting is only a quarter as popular. As a lifelong vegetarian, I was the only vegetarian at all but one of the eight schools I attended, growing up. I finally met a few others at university. Finding restaurant food that was uncontaminated with meat was so difficult that I became downright phobic about eating in restaurants. I don't think my son Wolf has ever been the only vegetarian anywhere. I can't remember the last time I was in a restaurant that had no vegetarian option, most now have vegan options, and ready-made vegetarian and vegan meals are now on the shelves of most supermarkets. Of course it would be nice if the world changed even faster, but considering that the animal cause is trying to reverse the momentum of several thousand years of animal use & abuse, the changes occurring just during my time on the animal news beat have been phenomenal. Even the attention paid to the setbacks is a positive sign. Thirty years ago nobody noticed. Everyone thought no one else cared. Yet enough people did care that turning things around really only took standing up & saying it was time for a turnabout. That was also noteworthy, because at least since the time of Mahavira and the Buddha some people had been standing up, but too few others had listened. In our time, enough people are listening, and backing up their feelings with deeds, that the biggest pro-animal organizations have mailing lists of millions of donors. When I first began reporting about animal issues, even the biggest pro-animal organizations in the U.S. had fewer than 100,000 donors, according to their testimony at Congressional hearings--and they mostly thought that having 10,000 was a remarkable achievement. These days, local humane societies often have that many. -- Merritt Clifton Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE P.O. Box 960 Clinton, WA 98236 Telephone: 360-579-2505 Fax: 360-579-2575 E-mail: anmlpepl Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org [ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide, founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations. We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year; for free sample, send address.] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2007 Report Share Posted February 21, 2007 Hi, Merritt. As formerly one of the profoundly ignorant, could I ask for some dates to go with this piece? I find it very encouraging. It would be very useful to show people here in Taiwan that we really can make a difference, and that our problems are not unique, but global, and - most importantly - overcomeable (I made that word up). Some actual dates would help me show the time frame in which progress was made in the States and help demonstrate that anything is possible in time. Are there any progress charts or reports I could refer to? Many thanks, and a Happy Year of the Pig to you all. Sean McCormack Founder and Animal Care Manager www.AnimalsTaiwan.org " If there are no dogs in Heaven, then, when I die, I want to go where they went. " - Will Rogers On 21/02/07, Merritt Clifton <anmlpepl wrote: > > >I think the situation seems hopeless in the west, and therefore you > >have organizations like PETA, ALF etc resorting to violence as the > >ultimate way out. > > That " the situation seems hopeless " could only be perceived > by the profoundly ignorant, who have no knowledge of even the recent > past. > > When I first began reporting about animal issues, U.S. per > capita meat consumption had risen in each of the three preceding > decades, in all age & gender brackets. This situation has now > completely reversed. > > Each age bracket eats less meat than the one preceding, & > the most significant aspect of this is that the most affluent & > best-educated people eat the least. > > The significance of this is that the choice to eat less meat, > or none, is a matter of preference, as opposed to economics. > Thirty-odd years ago eating less meat was primarily associated with > poverty. > > When I first began writing about animal shelters, U.S. > shelters were killing 115 dogs & cats per 1,000 Americans. New York > City alone killed a quarter of a million dogs & cats per year. Only > 10% of dogs and 1% of cats were sterilized. > > Shelters killed animals mainly by decompression or automobile > exhaust fumes. Both methods were long since banned--decompression in > every state, and automobile exhaust in all but a handful. > > Today the shelter toll is down to 14.8 per 1,000 Americans. > More than 70% of dogs, 80% of pet cats, and two-thirds of all cats > in the U.S. are sterilized. > > When I first reported about toxicology issues, the LD-50 > test was still the standard, as it had been since 1916. No major > company had spent a cent to develop non-animal testing methods. The > LD-50 was long ago replaced by the LD-10, which uses only a fifth as > many animals per test, and the LD-10 has in turn been superseded in > many applications by non-animal methods. Procter & Gamble alone has > put more than $200 million into developing and promoting non-animal > tests. > > The total numbers of animals used in experiments have > marginally increased in recent years, after more than 25 years of > steady decreases, but only because the total amount of science being > done has increased more than 100-fold over the same time (as measured > by papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.) > > There were no felony cruelty penalties in the entire U.S., > and no animal abuser had been jailed in more than 20 years. Today 48 > states have a felony cruelty penalty, and jail time actually served > is a standard part of cruelty sentencing. > > When I first encountered cockfighting, it was legal in more > than half the U.S. It is now illegal in 48 states, and is banned at > the county level in many counties of the two states that still permit > it. > > When I first wrote about fur, U.S. retail fur sales had > increased in almost every year since before I was born, & peaked > some years later at $1.85 billion, at a time when the U.S. dollar > bought twice as much as it does now. Twenty years after that peak, > U.S. retail fur sales have just crept back to the same level, only > now it means only half as much consumer investment in fur, with more > than twice as many women in the age & income brackets targeted by the > fur industry. > > When I first wrote about hunting, there were approximately > 25 million licensed hunters in the U.S. > > There are now barely 13 million, with twice as many adult > men, meaning that hunting is only a quarter as popular. > > As a lifelong vegetarian, I was the only vegetarian at all > but one of the eight schools I attended, growing up. I finally met > a few others at university. Finding restaurant food that was > uncontaminated with meat was so difficult that I became downright > phobic about eating in restaurants. > > I don't think my son Wolf has ever been the only vegetarian > anywhere. I can't remember the last time I was in a restaurant that > had no vegetarian option, most now have vegan options, and > ready-made vegetarian and vegan meals are now on the shelves of most > supermarkets. > > Of course it would be nice if the world changed even faster, > but considering that the animal cause is trying to reverse the > momentum of several thousand years of animal use & abuse, the > changes occurring just during my time on the animal news beat have > been phenomenal. > > Even the attention paid to the setbacks is a positive sign. > Thirty years ago nobody noticed. Everyone thought no one else cared. > > Yet enough people did care that turning things around really > only took standing up & saying it was time for a turnabout. > > That was also noteworthy, because at least since the time of > Mahavira and the Buddha some people had been standing up, but too > few others had listened. In our time, enough people are listening, > and backing up their feelings with deeds, that the biggest > pro-animal organizations have mailing lists of millions of donors. > > When I first began reporting about animal issues, even the > biggest pro-animal organizations in the U.S. had fewer than 100,000 > donors, according to their testimony at Congressional hearings--and > they mostly thought that having 10,000 was a remarkable achievement. > These days, local humane societies often have that many. > > -- > Merritt Clifton > Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE > P.O. Box 960 > Clinton, WA 98236 > > Telephone: 360-579-2505 > Fax: 360-579-2575 > E-mail: anmlpepl <anmlpepl%40whidbey.com> > Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org > > [ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing > original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide, > founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the > decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations. > We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year; > for free sample, send address.] > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2007 Report Share Posted February 21, 2007 >As formerly one of the profoundly ignorant, could I ask for some dates to go >with this piece? Sure--see below. I might also add that when I started in journalism and first wrote about animal issues, in the late 1960s, there was no federal Animal Welfare Act, no Wild & Free Ranging Horse & Burro Protection Act, no Endangered Species Act, no Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, & only two major pieces of pro-animal legislation had been passed in my lifetime, in 1958 and 1966. > > When I first began reporting about animal issues, U.S. per >> capita meat consumption had risen in each of the three preceding >> decades, in all age & gender brackets. This situation has now >> completely reversed. >> >> Each age bracket eats less meat than the one preceding, & >> the most significant aspect of this is that the most affluent & >> best-educated people eat the least. The reversal began showing up in age-bracketed surveys in the mid-1990s, and has continued to be affirmed. Different surveys show slightly different things, but they all agree on the basic trend. > > When I first began writing about animal shelters, U.S. >> shelters were killing 115 dogs & cats per 1,000 Americans. New York >> City alone killed a quarter of a million dogs & cats per year. Only >> 10% of dogs and 1% of cats were sterilized. >> >> Shelters killed animals mainly by decompression or automobile >> exhaust fumes. Both methods were long since banned--decompression in >> every state, and automobile exhaust in all but a handful. > > >> Today the shelter toll is down to 14.8 per 1,000 Americans. >> More than 70% of dogs, 80% of pet cats, and two-thirds of all cats > > in the U.S. are sterilized. I had been aware of the shelter situation since early childhood, but first recall writing anything about it in 1974. > > When I first reported about toxicology issues, the LD-50 >> test was still the standard, as it had been since 1916. No major >> company had spent a cent to develop non-animal testing methods. The >> LD-50 was long ago replaced by the LD-10, which uses only a fifth as >> many animals per test, and the LD-10 has in turn been superseded in >> many applications by non-animal methods. Procter & Gamble alone has >> put more than $200 million into developing and promoting non-animal >> tests. Toxicology became a major part of my beat in 1978. Reporting about toxicological issues, occupational safety, animal agriculture, & consumer affairs (often in overlapping contexts) was most of my workload for the next 10 years. Then I spent six months investigating the economic structure of the fur trade for the Humane Society of the U.S., before becoming news editor at the defunct Animals' Agenda magazine, 1988-1992, & cofounding ANIMAL PEOPLE in mid-1992. > > The total numbers of animals used in experiments have >> marginally increased in recent years, after more than 25 years of >> steady decreases, but only because the total amount of science being >> done has increased more than 100-fold over the same time (as measured >> by papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.) The slight increases in numbers of animals used have been occurring for about three to five years, but the surge in numbers of scientific procedures has been going on for about 15 years. I suspect the numbers of animals used would still be declining slightly, except for the U.S. & E.U. efforts to retrospectively fill the gaps in knowledge about toxic properties of chemicals that were approved for general use decades ago, before many longterm toxic effects were scientifically discovered. > > There were no felony cruelty penalties in the entire U.S., >> and no animal abuser had been jailed in more than 20 years. Today 48 > > states have a felony cruelty penalty, and jail time actually served >> is a standard part of cruelty sentencing. All of the progress on this has occurred since 1990. > > When I first encountered cockfighting, it was legal in more >> than half the U.S. It is now illegal in 48 states, and is banned at >> the county level in many counties of the two states that still permit >> it. I first met a cockfighter (who was also a polygamous wife-beater) in 1977. > > When I first wrote about fur, U.S. retail fur sales had >> increased in almost every year since before I was born, & peaked >> some years later at $1.85 billion, at a time when the U.S. dollar >> bought twice as much as it does now. Twenty years after that peak, >> U.S. retail fur sales have just crept back to the same level, only >> now it means only half as much consumer investment in fur, with more >> than twice as many women in the age & income brackets targeted by the >> fur industry. I first wrote about fur in very early 1978. The U.S. retail sales peak came in the winter of 1986-1987. > > When I first wrote about hunting, there were approximately >> 25 million licensed hunters in the U.S. > > >> There are now barely 13 million, with twice as many adult > > men, meaning that hunting is only a quarter as popular. This was also in 1978. > >> As a lifelong vegetarian, I was the only vegetarian at all >> but one of the eight schools I attended, growing up. I finally met >> a few others at university. Finding restaurant food that was >> uncontaminated with meat was so difficult that I became downright >> phobic about eating in restaurants. My grade school & high school years were 1958-1970 (but I began working halftime as a newspaper reporter two years before high school graduation, & took over the environmental beat in late 1969 because no one else wanted it.) > > When I first began reporting about animal issues, even the >> biggest pro-animal organizations in the U.S. had fewer than 100,000 >> donors, according to their testimony at Congressional hearings--and >> they mostly thought that having 10,000 was a remarkable achievement. > > These days, local humane societies often have that many. Putting a precise date on when I began reporting about animal issues is a bit difficult because early in my career, reporters didn't always get a byline, & I contributed a lot of research to news for which other reporters got the byline. However, I first wrote about both whaling and the ecological idiocy of killing coyotes for a byline in November 1969, may have first mentioned pet overpopulation then, & began trying to get editors interested in articles about abuses of lab animals in early 1970. By September 1974, when I began a two-year stint as ghostwriter for the late philosopher Tobias Grether, he often called me a " Singerite, " as an alleged disciple of Peter Singer, & eventually showed me Singer's famous essay that preceded Animal Liberation, so that I'd know what he was talking about. We were constantly going at it hammer & tongs over whether animals had the capacity to think, to reason, etc., with my positions being based chiefly on my observations of wildlife. Both of us were basically pro-animal, but Grether's view emphasized stewardship, while mine emphasized the basic rights to life, liberty as animals perceive it (freedom from predation and hunger often matters more to them than freedom to wander), & the pursuit of happiness as each animal perceives it. My closest friends in those days included several workers at the Peninsula Humane Society in San Mateo, California. They were so sensitive about their jobs, killing vastly more animals than they saved, that even getting them to talk about what they did was difficult, always taking many beers over many hours, and getting them to talk on the record for publication was impossible. I acquired my first cat & had him fixed in mid-1976, and began talking up the procedure among friends, rather successfully. I first did what is now known as TNR with barn cats after moving to Quebec in mid-1977. -- Merritt Clifton Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE P.O. Box 960 Clinton, WA 98236 Telephone: 360-579-2505 Fax: 360-579-2575 E-mail: anmlpepl Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org [ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide, founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations. We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year; for free sample, send address.] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2007 Report Share Posted February 22, 2007 On 2/20/07, Merritt Clifton <anmlpepl wrote: > > >In the film, Rod Coronado says that for every act of arson that has > >been undertaken there have been many more that have been rejected > >for security and safety reasonsarchives at: > > Is it any surprise that an arsonist would defend arson? > > Rod Coronado's rationalizations and pretexts remind me of the > hundreds of individual cruelty cases indexed at www.Pet-Abuse.com, > many of them from the archives of ANIMAL PEOPLE, in which the > perpetrators pretend that they killed an animal by any number of > hideous means in the name of putting the animal out of misery. > > Even more, Coronado's words echo the common pretense of > serial killers that they are upholding public morality by murdering > prostitutes. > > An even closer parallel might be with the excuses cited by > the perpetrators of so-called " honor killings, " who long have > persuaded lawmakers in much of the world that murdering women has a > moral basis. > (These are dangerous times when imprisonment is the punishment for voicing an opinion. We may not agree with David Irving. We may not agree with Rodney Coronado but we should be defending their right to speak, to think, to voice their opinions in a free and tolerant society. Tolerance means tolerance for all views, not just our own and not just the safe, warm and fuzzy kind. -----------------Paul Watson, Founder and President of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, writing in the New Zealand Herald, 27th February, 2006) Full article here: *http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2 & objectid=10370129* *Paul Watson:* Assault on the foundations of freedom Email this story<http://dynamic.nzherald.co.nz/email/index.cfm?c_id=2 & objectid=10370129>Pri\ nt this story Monday February 27, 2006 By Guest Columnists <http://www.nzherald.co.nz/author/index.cfm?a_id=146> [image: Paul Watson] Paul Watson Two exceptionally harsh blows were stuck against freedom of speech last week. The first when an Austrian court sentenced British historian David Irving to three years in prison for denying the holocaust in a speech he delivered seventeen years ago. The second blow was the indictment of animal rights activist Rod Coronado for a speech he gave in 2003. Mr Coronado is facing twenty years in prison. David Irving did indeed deny the holocaust and his ludicrous assertions that ignore historical evidence make him a very incompetent and contemptible historian indeed. He is not a very admirable human being and can legitimately be described as a racist. However he did not injure anyone. He certainly did not kill anyone. He did not damage or steal anyone's property. All he did was voice an opinion. And for that he has been sentenced to three years in a prison. Rod Coronado, who refers to himself as an unofficial Earth Liberation Front spokesman, was convicted of a felony crime for animal rights activism and served five years in a US federal prison. He was indicted last week for giving a speech in 2003 about the activities that led to his arrest and imprisonment. Mr Coronado was arrested near his home in Tucson, Arizona and after arraignment is expected to be transferred to San Diego, California for trial. Last year, 3 activists were jailed for refusing to co-operate with the grand jury that indicted Mr Coronado. Danae Kelley, who was imprisoned for 2 months, told Associated Press following her release in October: " In the world of secret grand juries, nothing is known, targets aren't confirmed, and indictments haunt everyone. Grand juries are like riding a roller coaster blindfolded--anything goes. They have become a serious threat to our constitutional rights, and I encourage every citizen who receives a subpoena to resist and every other to voice support. " This may be easier said than done. Last month dozens of animal right activists were arrested and indicted on charges stemming from information received from informers, most of whom were threatened into giving up names in return for escaping charges themselves. " It is like the McCarthy witch hunts have been revived with a vengeance, " said Erin Jameson, an activist from Eugene, Oregon. In Europe where cartoons depicting the face of the prophet Muhammad have been condemned, newspapers have been censured and free speech is under open attack by extremists. Cartoons of the holocaust and openly anti-Semitic editorials and cartoons are common in the Muslim world, published, read and approved of by the same people who are screaming racism and intolerance in reaction to the cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad. In Iran, imprisonment is the sentence for those who deny the existence of God and there are many in America who would like to see the same treatment given to atheists and pagans. These are dangerous times when imprisonment is the punishment for voicing an opinion. What is even more frightening is that the Western media seem shell-shocked and reluctant to question these arrests or even the ridiculous hysteria of the anti-cartoon crowd. We may not agree with David Irving. We may not agree with Rodney Coronado but we should be defending their right to speak, to think, to voice their opinions in a free and tolerant society. Tolerance means tolerance for all views, not just our own and not just the safe, warm and fuzzy kind. Freedom of speech is the foundation of all other freedoms. When the foundation collapses that will be the day that democracy, freedom, and liberty expire in Western civilisation and we will enter a new dark age where intolerance, tyranny and dictatorship will reign supreme. The US constitution is the most powerful enshrinement of the rights of humanity ever made into law. It holds that we must be tolerant of all opinions, philosophies and beliefs. It does not require respect, support or credence given to these beliefs, opinions and philosophies. The freedom to speak must be all inclusive and must protect the Christian, the Muslim, the Jew, the Atheist, the Scientologist, and those who believe the world is as flat as a pancake. A Lutheran pastor and survivor of a Nazi concentration camp once said: " First they came and took away the communists and I did nothing because I wasn't a communist. Then they took away the Jews and I did nothing because I wasn't Jewish. Then they took away the unionists and again I did nothing because I wasn't in a union. And then, when they came for me, there was no one there to stop it. " We can say that last week they sentenced the holocaust revisionist for voicing his opinion, then they indicted the animal rights activist for speaking about his experiences and we did nothing. When they come for us for questioning God, the government, the corporations, or the war, who will be there to defend us? Irving's sentence and Coronado's indictment are the foot in the door for the jackboot of intolerance and an encouragement to those who would trample our freedoms. The question is, will we stand our ground or will we surrender our freedom in return for false promises of security? ** Paul Watson is founder and president of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society.* *Readers' Views* I must say that your article is the sanest thing I have read in years. I often use the signature line " Though I may not agree with what you say, I will gladly defend your right to say it " . It gives me hope to hear you echo the sentiment. How refreshing to hear the voice of reason in the maelstrom bias. Thank you. - B Cutts -- > Merritt Clifton > Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE > P.O. Box 960 > Clinton, WA 98236 > > Telephone: 360-579-2505 > Fax: 360-579-2575 > E-mail: anmlpepl <anmlpepl%40whidbey.com> > Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org > > [ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing > original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide, > founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the > decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations. > We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year; > for free sample, send address.] > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2007 Report Share Posted February 23, 2007 <It would be very useful to show people here in Taiwan that we really can make a difference, and that our problems are not unique, but global> Dear Sean, Just a free piece of advice, you may take it or leave it. Let me highlight the good points about the Indian Laws on animal rights protections and compare them with that of the west or to be specific the Unites States of America. I feel Indian Animal Laws such as the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, The Wildlife Protection Act (WLPA) 1972 and some more Indian laws could be a better tool to show the people in Taiwan that a neighboring country such as India has formulated and adopted such wonderful laws and rules for the protection of animal rights. Although there is a strong need for amending the present act and bring about many changes to get better results and is something which is not impossible to do here. Indians have been advocating the rights of animals for many years now and have been doing so adopting 'TOTAL NON-VIOLENT' methods also popularly known as 'Ahimsa'. According to the PCA Act` 1960 , AN " ANIMAL " MEANS ANY LIVING CREATURE OTHER THAN A HUMAN BEING. Now, isn't that a good enough reason to believe Indian Laws framed for Animal protection are one of the best across the globe ?? Also I am sure you will find many unique case studies and success stories from eminent animal people in India who have been extracting the maximum good for the welfare of animals here through these laws. And unlike the West because of such good laws prevalent in our society we do not have to resort to ARSON or VIOLENCE in the name of animal rights protection. The frustration level amongst animal rights advocates here is much much less compared to the WEST. Yes, there are difficult times one has to go through to get things straight at times and to achieve the targets and goals but then when you have such well drafted laws and rules where an animal is given total respect and the country also honorably defends their rights in the Indian Constitution as well, why should one resort to ARSON and VIOLENCE then to get what animal deserve. I am sure if the highly influential people in the US adopt a LOOK EAST policy for animal rights protection and decide to adopt Indian Laws in their land.....ARSON and VIOLENCE for animal protection shall fade away soon. I would like to recommend a book called 'The Animal Laws if India' written by Smt. Maneka Gandhi, Mr. Raj Panjwani and Ozair Husain. You can call it the Bible for animal rights advocates in India, it's published by Universal Law Publications. In America though the state and federal laws formulate the rules for the treatment of Animals in terms of their status as 'PROPERTY'. The Texas Animal Cruelty Laws, ostensibly intended to protect animals from cruel and inhumane treatment, apply only to domesticated animals under the custody of human beings. As a result, they exclude birds, deer, rabbits, squirrels, and all other animals who have the " misfortune " not to be owned, and they protect domesticated animals only in the interest of the humans who own them. The Animal Welfare Act, the national law on animal treatment, " excludes pet stores, … state and country fairs, livestock shows, rodeos, purebred dog and cat shows, and any other fairs or exhibitions intended to advance agricultural arts and sciences. " The U. S. Department of Agriculture, moreover, interprets the Animal Welfare Act as also excluding cold-blooded animals, warm-blooded animals not " used for research, teaching, testing, experimentation, … exhibition purposes, or as a pet, [and] farm animals used for food, fiber, or production purposes. " ( The above info on American laws has been taken from " Wikipedia " ,the biggest multilingual free-content encyclopedia on the Internet ) So now you decide which one could be better and easier for you to show and adopt in Taiwan and achieve maximum positive results for the animal welfare movement and end the problems there. Azam Siddiqui On 2/21/07, Sean McCormack <SeanDMcCormack wrote: > > Hi, Merritt. > > As formerly one of the profoundly ignorant, could I ask for some dates to > go > with this piece? I find it very encouraging. It would be very useful to > show > people here in Taiwan that we really can make a difference, and that our > problems are not unique, but global, and - most importantly - overcomeable > (I made that word up). > > Some actual dates would help me show the time frame in which progress was > made in the States and help demonstrate that anything is possible in time. > > Are there any progress charts or reports I could refer to? > > Many thanks, and a Happy Year of the Pig to you all. > > Sean McCormack > Founder and Animal Care Manager > www.AnimalsTaiwan.org > > " If there are no dogs in Heaven, then, when I die, I want to go where they > went. " - Will Rogers > > On 21/02/07, Merritt Clifton <anmlpepl<anmlpepl%40whidbey.com>> > wrote: > > > > >I think the situation seems hopeless in the west, and therefore you > > >have organizations like PETA, ALF etc resorting to violence as the > > >ultimate way out. > > > > That " the situation seems hopeless " could only be perceived > > by the profoundly ignorant, who have no knowledge of even the recent > > past. > > > > When I first began reporting about animal issues, U.S. per > > capita meat consumption had risen in each of the three preceding > > decades, in all age & gender brackets. This situation has now > > completely reversed. > > > > Each age bracket eats less meat than the one preceding, & > > the most significant aspect of this is that the most affluent & > > best-educated people eat the least. > > > > The significance of this is that the choice to eat less meat, > > or none, is a matter of preference, as opposed to economics. > > Thirty-odd years ago eating less meat was primarily associated with > > poverty. > > > > When I first began writing about animal shelters, U.S. > > shelters were killing 115 dogs & cats per 1,000 Americans. New York > > City alone killed a quarter of a million dogs & cats per year. Only > > 10% of dogs and 1% of cats were sterilized. > > > > Shelters killed animals mainly by decompression or automobile > > exhaust fumes. Both methods were long since banned--decompression in > > every state, and automobile exhaust in all but a handful. > > > > Today the shelter toll is down to 14.8 per 1,000 Americans. > > More than 70% of dogs, 80% of pet cats, and two-thirds of all cats > > in the U.S. are sterilized. > > > > When I first reported about toxicology issues, the LD-50 > > test was still the standard, as it had been since 1916. No major > > company had spent a cent to develop non-animal testing methods. The > > LD-50 was long ago replaced by the LD-10, which uses only a fifth as > > many animals per test, and the LD-10 has in turn been superseded in > > many applications by non-animal methods. Procter & Gamble alone has > > put more than $200 million into developing and promoting non-animal > > tests. > > > > The total numbers of animals used in experiments have > > marginally increased in recent years, after more than 25 years of > > steady decreases, but only because the total amount of science being > > done has increased more than 100-fold over the same time (as measured > > by papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.) > > > > There were no felony cruelty penalties in the entire U.S., > > and no animal abuser had been jailed in more than 20 years. Today 48 > > states have a felony cruelty penalty, and jail time actually served > > is a standard part of cruelty sentencing. > > > > When I first encountered cockfighting, it was legal in more > > than half the U.S. It is now illegal in 48 states, and is banned at > > the county level in many counties of the two states that still permit > > it. > > > > When I first wrote about fur, U.S. retail fur sales had > > increased in almost every year since before I was born, & peaked > > some years later at $1.85 billion, at a time when the U.S. dollar > > bought twice as much as it does now. Twenty years after that peak, > > U.S. retail fur sales have just crept back to the same level, only > > now it means only half as much consumer investment in fur, with more > > than twice as many women in the age & income brackets targeted by the > > fur industry. > > > > When I first wrote about hunting, there were approximately > > 25 million licensed hunters in the U.S. > > > > There are now barely 13 million, with twice as many adult > > men, meaning that hunting is only a quarter as popular. > > > > As a lifelong vegetarian, I was the only vegetarian at all > > but one of the eight schools I attended, growing up. I finally met > > a few others at university. Finding restaurant food that was > > uncontaminated with meat was so difficult that I became downright > > phobic about eating in restaurants. > > > > I don't think my son Wolf has ever been the only vegetarian > > anywhere. I can't remember the last time I was in a restaurant that > > had no vegetarian option, most now have vegan options, and > > ready-made vegetarian and vegan meals are now on the shelves of most > > supermarkets. > > > > Of course it would be nice if the world changed even faster, > > but considering that the animal cause is trying to reverse the > > momentum of several thousand years of animal use & abuse, the > > changes occurring just during my time on the animal news beat have > > been phenomenal. > > > > Even the attention paid to the setbacks is a positive sign. > > Thirty years ago nobody noticed. Everyone thought no one else cared. > > > > Yet enough people did care that turning things around really > > only took standing up & saying it was time for a turnabout. > > > > That was also noteworthy, because at least since the time of > > Mahavira and the Buddha some people had been standing up, but too > > few others had listened. In our time, enough people are listening, > > and backing up their feelings with deeds, that the biggest > > pro-animal organizations have mailing lists of millions of donors. > > > > When I first began reporting about animal issues, even the > > biggest pro-animal organizations in the U.S. had fewer than 100,000 > > donors, according to their testimony at Congressional hearings--and > > they mostly thought that having 10,000 was a remarkable achievement. > > These days, local humane societies often have that many. > > > > -- > > Merritt Clifton > > Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE > > P.O. Box 960 > > Clinton, WA 98236 > > > > Telephone: 360-579-2505 > > Fax: 360-579-2575 > > E-mail: anmlpepl <anmlpepl%40whidbey.com><anmlpepl%40whidbey.com> > > Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org > > > > [ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing > > original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide, > > founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the > > decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations. > > We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year; > > for free sample, send address.] > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2007 Report Share Posted February 26, 2007 I can't support ALL violent activism, just as I can't feel confident about EVERY online petition. I'd rather be inclined to the belief that some things work in certain situations and others dont. What would any one of us do if we find a dog being severly beaten to near-death by a person in a very isolated area? There isnt anyone to call for help and there isnt enough time for a policeman to arrive. It doesnt seem like the person is responding to logic or coaxing either. Would we try pushing the person away from the animal? What if he or she falls, hits their head on the ground and starts bleeding? Or will we let the animal be beaten to death? In such a situation, I will intervene. Regards, Seelan Palay (Singapore) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2007 Report Share Posted February 26, 2007 > In such a situation, I will intervene. SO WILL I WITHOUT A SECOND THOUGHT !! Azam On 2/26/07, Seelan FW <fallenworld wrote: > I can't support ALL violent activism, just as I can't feel confident > about EVERY online petition. I'd rather be inclined to the belief that > some things work in certain situations and others dont. > > What would any one of us do if we find a dog being severly beaten to > near-death by a person in a very isolated area? There isnt anyone to > call for help and there isnt enough time for a policeman to arrive. It > doesnt seem like the person is responding to logic or coaxing either. > Would we try pushing the person away from the animal? What if he or > she falls, hits their head on the ground and starts bleeding? Or will > we let the animal be beaten to death? > > In such a situation, I will intervene. > > Regards, > Seelan Palay (Singapore) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.