Death of Indian Working Elephant “Bijlee” Starts Global Movement

We kill them by the thousands for their ivory or for “sport”; exploit them in circuses, and work them mercilessly to death. And we’re robbing them of their ancestral ecosystems in both Asia and Africa. Surely a record we can be proud of.

After decades of exhausting work for her masters, Bijlee was abandoned after her acute and very painful arthritis and other conditions prevented her from working. She was found by animal charities lying in a ditch by the side of a road. As usual this is totally preventable suffering.

by Jordan Carlton Schaul of University of Alaska on June 30, 2013
Source: National Geographic Newswatch

It was legendary Bollywood actor Amitabh Bachchan who essentially, with intention or not, launched this campaign to help working elephants through his tweeted and compassionate appeal to animal welfarists.

Early last week, Mr. Bachchan requested welfarists and the like, to come to the aid of one suffering begging street elephant (a type of working elephant) named “Bijlee” and it seems to have started a whole movement to end the working Asian elephant practice.

On June 26th, News Watch published a tribute to Bollywood superstar Amitabh Bachchan by India’s largest wildlife conservation and animal welfare organization, Wildlife SOS.

The tribute recognized the Bollywood icon for bringing attention to one 54 year old suffering female Asian elephant — “Bijlee”— who was fighting for her life in critical condition on the side of the road in a suburb of Mumbai, India. First on the scene was the Indian charity Animals Matter To Me, followed by countless other groups including Wildlife SOS.

[pullquote] Elephants continue to be exploited on the streets of India where they are forced to beg on the streets, in temples and perform in marriages or circuses. [/pullquote]

Unfortunately, Bijlee died early Sunday morning after her condition progressively deteriorated. “In her last day she remained in a recumbant position and was only able to be repositioned with the help of a crane,” according to Wildlife SOS Senior Veterinarian Dr. Yaduraj. A postmortem examination will be conducted shortly.

[pullquote] Our thanks to National Geographic Newswatch for this report.

OpEds—Animals & Humans: Some Philosophical Issues

SPECIAL: From ANIMAL PEOPLE, July-August 13:

Confucian Virtue Ethics vs. Animal Rights & the Predation Problem
by Wolf Clifton

North Dakota hunter. Draw your own conclusions.

North Dakota hunter. Pride in needless killing?

Steve Cooke, author of the Thrifty Philosopher blog, in a recent installment entitled Animal Rights & The Predation Problem demonstrated the fallacy of attempting to devise a perfectly coherent, all-encompassing ethical philosophy perhaps especially as regards a topic as diverse as the range of human relationships with animals, across the spectrum of species.

Even the most elegant ethical systems, when taken to logical extremes, lead to absurdities which contradict any normal person’s moral intuition. Examples include the utilitarian theoretical conclusion that a doctor should kill one healthy patient and harvest his organs to save six sick ones; Immanuel Kant’s deontological view that lying is evil even to protect others; or, in this case, that humans are morally obliged to kill predatory animals to save their prey, a perspective which has actually been enshrined in law at various times and places, albeit exempting predation by humans. The agency now known as USDA Wildlife Services, for instance, was originally formed in 1930 as “Animal Damage Control”, with a mandate to kill wild predators simply because predators kill livestock and hunted species.

Physicists struggle to map universal rules for physical phenomena. The rules they have found mostly take the form of complex mathematical formulae which are believed to be approximately true only under certain conditions. And it is often said that the human brain is the most complex physical system known to exist. Is it not vanity, then, to think that such lofty, abstract things as human thoughts, values, and ideals can be neatly confined to simple logical propositions?

The Japanese Confucian scholar Okada Takehiko, when asked by University of Colorado professor of religious studies Rodney Taylor in 1983 to comment on the issue of animal experimentation and whether it is justified to sacrifice animal lives in developing treatments that might benefit a far greater number of humans, suggested an alternative to relying on rigidly formulated ethical codes in making moral decisions. The idea of unlimited use of animals as well as the position that no animals may be used, both of these are extreme ideas. With the mind that cannot bear to see the suffering of others, the problem will resolve itself. In some cases we need to differentiate between man and animals. In other cases it is important to see man and animals as the same. Thus the cases themselves change, and we need to be able to respond to such circumstances based on the mind that cannot bear to see the suffering of others.

Confucian ethical philosophy, which bears some resemblance to Aristotelian virtue ethics in the West, holds that the human conscience not the rational mind or some external agent such as a deity is the origin of morality. Thus ethical decisions are best made not primarily through logic, but by cultivating one’s own moral intuition, with logic playing an important but secondary role in the practices of moral self-improvement.

If one practices virtues such as honesty, compassion, and respect in daily life, one will over time become an intrinsically virtuous person. As such, faced with an extreme moral dilemma, one will thus be capable of acting intuitively and making a responsible decision without necessarily relying on logical argumentation.

Not rights but empathy

For Okada, the solution to moral dilemmas involving animals begins not with whether or not animals have intrinsic rights, but with the truth that most humans naturally empathize with the suffering of others, including animals even if this empathy is often blunted or destroyed through cultural conditioning and desensitization.

Just as a Confucian-inspired ethical approach to animal experimentation would begin with a cultivated sense of compassion for both the people and animals involved, the answer to the predation problem lies in empathizing not just with the fleeing prey animal, but also with the hungry predator and the entire ecosystem of interconnected creatures of which both are a part.

From this perspective, it would be ethically consistent both to compassionately minimize one’s own exploitation of animals, which may involve anything from subsistence hunting to strict veganism depending on living conditions and resource availability, and to avoid policing nature by interfering with other creatures’ predation of one another.

Also relevant is the issue of associative duties, which Cooke dismisses but Confucianism accepts on the basis that a sense of kinship, and of greater obligation to those closest to oneself, is a natural element of human moral intuition.

A compassionate decision concerning animal experimentation or predation does not necessarily require equal compassion for all parties. Accepted societal obligations toward other humans, not shared with animals in nature, or a special relationship to a given prey animal, for example a pet one feels obligated to protect from predators, would also carry weight in a cultivated Confucian moral decision.

But feeling greater responsibility toward one party does not mean one should feel zero responsibility to the other. Even if human health is judged to take priority, that doesn’t mean one should not also work to minimize the use of experimental animals and their suffering. Even if one is obliged to protect his or her dog or cat against a coyote, that does not justify killing the predator if other options are available.

Admittedly this is a very subjective approach to ethics, but it does not require abandoning more logically rigorous philosophical thought. Even in virtue ethics philosophies, the selection of virtues to cultivate is largely guided by rational calculation. Within the legal sphere, which requires clearly-defined rules and penalties equally applicable to everyone, it is certainly safer to base laws on a strict system of ethical maxims than to trust lawmakers and enforcers to always cultivate and follow their own consciences.

Nonetheless, even the most systematic ethical codes are the product of human thought and thus intrinsically subjective and subject to error when applied dogmatically. Inevitably there are exceptions to every rule. This is why juries exist in courtrooms, to provide an element of conscience (and adaptation) to correct for the limitations and rigidities of the law. Confucian writings offer some intriguing proposals for a system of government rooted in moral self-cultivation, but do not disregard the need for consistent governance.

In exercising personal morality, it is best to acknowledge the intrinsic subjectivity of ethics, rather than treating any ethical code as absolute and inviolable. Confucian philosophy teaches how, by practicing virtue in our daily lives, we can develop a moral intuition rooted in rather than weakened by such subjectivity, and capable of acting in difficult situations even when philosophy falls short. This requires the courage to act even when the path is not clear-cut, the humility to admit mistakes and accept that even the best possible decisions may not yield perfect results, and respect for the moral intuition of others who, acting on their own best instincts, may make different choices than oneself.

WOLF CLIFTON Special Contributor

Practically from infancy Wolf Clifton, a member of the AP family in both spirit and biology, has contributed art and other materials to enhance the publication. A recent graduate from Vanderbilt, he still carves up some time to send illustrations and articles on various subjects. His latest essay, The Evolution and Natural History of Dogs is now available in our blog section. In 2009 Clifton won the best animation on animal rights award for his film Yudisthira s Dog at the Third International Rights Film Festival in Kharkov, Ukraine, during the week of December 12-19, 2009. Produced in the style of an Indonesian shadow puppet play, and with narration by Nanditha Krishna, the film premiered at Asia for Animals 2008 in Bali, Yudisthira s Dog may be viewed at <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0JXcPxkSGE>.

Is There Anything Truly Sustainable or Humane About Eating Meat?

An Interview with Animal Rights Activist Lee Hall

For the crime of simply being: every single one sentenced to death. Who gave US this right?

For the crime of simply being: every single one sentenced to death. Who gave US the right?

by JOSHUA FRANK, Counterpunch

Natural food sections in our grocery stores are chock full of them. The ethical foodies seek them out. They’re intended to inform the consumer about where our food comes from and how it’s produced: “Sustainable,” “organic,” “free-range,” “local” products — we’ve all seen the terms and we hope they genuinely convey what they imply.

But what do they really mean? What’s the truth behind the label? Can meat ever really be sustainable? Is purchasing local a good thing for the environment? Not always, says activist, author and educator Lee Hall, who serves as legal affairs VP for Friends of Animals. Hall is also an active supporter of HumaneMyth.org, a group that seeks to expose the facts behind our misleading food labels and farming practices.

I spoke with Hall, a CounterPunch writer and contributing editor, whose latest book on animal-rights theory and advocacy, On Their Own Terms: Bringing Animal-Rights Philosophy Down to Earth is out now.

Joshua Frank: As someone who frequently shops at farmer’s markets and natural food stores, I have noticed a rapidly growing trend toward so-called ethical eating. People are becoming aware of the dark side of industrialized farming, and as a result more and more animal products are being labeled with terms like “cage free,” “humane certified” and “organic.”

Lee Hall: You’re right; this trend is growing fast and the advertising hype that’s driven by enterprises such as Whole Foods have a lot to do with it, as does the reality that global warming really is upon us. Climate disruption is the most frightening thing since the bomb (and that’s not gone). People are looking for pacifiers. People want to be able to say they’ve grasped the inconvenient truth but they still want peace of mind. If they’ve got money, they’ll pay a bit more these days for that.

JF: But you’ve argued that these are simply marketing terms that do not necessarily mean what they convey to consumers. Can you explain why? What’s the reality behind these terms?

LH: First, they’re usually just marketing ploys. There’s no legally binding definition for cage-free eggs, for example. These items are bought by people who want to believe the birds were treated OK. That’s well-meaning. But think about what’s going on. Packing a mass of birds into a shed isn’t much better than jamming them into a cage. Cannibalism increases in shed situations where so-called cage-free chickens lay eggs, as does bone breakage. Recall that birds who are purpose-bred to lay eggs do that a lot. So they’re always short of calcium; it leaves their bodies and goes into the shells. That means osteoporosis is common in commercial birds. I don’t mean to be a party pooper here; I assure you there are great vegan recipes for just about anything you’re making with eggs now.

I know some people will say: Oh, but my eggs, my ham — it really does come from a good farm; look at their Web site and all the greenery! Well, you must have a lot of money to eat that way all the time. But even if the animal farms you support are spacious, think about the ramifications. More space for agribusiness concerns, less free animals in wild spaces. Just like suburban development, farms take up a lot of land. Why would we as a society continue to think this is a good trend?

JF: What about grass-fed cattle? Michael Pollan and others have touted the alleged environmental and ethical benefits of eating free-range beef as opposed to cows raised in CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations). Isn’t this method of raising animals qualitatively better?

LH: To my mind, Michael Pollan’s arguments are clever, but ultimately unconvincing. Eight years ago, Pollan wanted to be assured that eating the flesh of cattle could be done without barbarism. This was no easy feat. To prove the thesis of compassionate carnivorism, this contributing writer for the New York Times Magazine actually bought a calf. Pollan chronicled the growth of the little Black Angus steer from a nursing baby up until the end of it all. The animal was killed a few weeks after turning one year of age.

Do you remember the name Pollan referred to that calf by? Number 534. Compassionate, isn’t? Now we’re supposed to believe that there’s no ecological barbarism in eating these animals either — if it’s done on pastures, not in factories. Balderdash. As the human population continues to rise, as biofuels compete with agricultural land, as energy and water become concentrated in fewer hands, mass production will be the norm. Only a select few will have the opportunity to eat that grass-fed flesh Pollan’s touting.

And what happens to the wolves, coyotes, bobcats, and other animals who once roamed the land made over to farm sprawl?

If you really want to tread lightly on the earth and its conscious life, the answer is to stop breeding these poor beings only to betray them and stop annihilating wildlands for malls — and the farms too. There’s a great saying ascribed to Confucius: “The way out is via the door.”

JF: I’ve always been skeptical of the free-range cattle notion. Spending a considerable amount of time hiking around the rural West, I have seen many grass-fed cattle roaming our public lands and shitting in and around some of the state’s remaining wild rivers. A study by UC Davis Medical Center recently confirmed that free-roaming livestock are polluting rivers in the Sierras with their waste.

LH: That study is on to something: water on public lands and wilderness areas are dirtiest where cattle graze. And what a word from an ethical point of view. Livestock. Live today, stock tomorrow. It’s really a bane, this notion that conscious life can and should be a commodity. Imagine if we dared to challenge that. Environmental advocacy would be revolutionized overnight.

This is what the locavores aren’t talking about. Cows aren’t part of the natural biocommunity. As commercial cows became widespread, their free-living ancestors, the aurochs, went extinct in the seventeenth century, when a poacher shot the last one in Poland. Free-range? Not really. The ones we see today are purpose-bred animals, imposed on the land.

JF: Since you bring up the locavore movement, I’m reminded of Prof. James McWilliams at Texas State University who has argued that “If you want to make a statement, ride your bike to the farmer’s market. If you want to reduce greenhouse gases, become a vegetarian.” Why do you think the broader environmental movement has yet to fully embrace vegetarianism as one way to challenge climate change?

LH: Much of what we call the environmental movement relies on donations. So there’s a hydraulic pull to behave as though laws and lawmakers should fix things. That’s convenient. Potential donors aren’t challenged to make personal changes.

At the same time, the moneyed donors non-profits hope to attract will find comfort in promotions of “humane, sustainable, all-natural meat” and the like. Rarely do environmental groups ask potential supporters to begin with the personal, essential paradigm shift that a full vegetarian commitment involves.

What underlies this hesitance? Well, imagine the Catholic authorities’ initial resistance to the Copernican revolution. People had to leave their comfort zone to grasp the reality the universe does not revolve around the human being. Galileo got the picture, and wound up under house arrest.

Suggest that humans are part of the biocommunity rather than in charge of it? Say the universe does not revolve around us? Humanity is not quite ready to accept that reality — although everything from the climate to the extinction rate is telling us the time has come to do so.

JF: In 2006 the UN Dept. of Food and Agriculture reported that the world’s cattle industry was responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions, by CO2 equivalence, than all the vehicles on the road. Even if big environmental groups aren’t addressing this very serious problem, why do you think popular climate activists, such as Al Gore and Bill McKibben, aren’t talking about this issue in any substantive manner?

LH: Al Gore, pressed on this issue, has said, “Cutting back is a responsible alternative” but Gore is not a vegetarian. Likewise Bill McKibben — who, in the March/April 2010 issue of Orion, criticized factory farming, but gave grass-fed beef a pass. If they haven’t seen fit to personally get beyond animal agribusiness, they aren’t prepared to take vegetarianism seriously in their public commentaries.

Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin, assistant professors in geophysical sciences at the University of Chicago, observed in 2006 that a fully vegetarian diet is the most energy-efficient. Fish and red meat virtually tied as the least efficient. And while the average person on our landmass puts out four tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent a year, each person who goes vegan cuts that by some 1.5 tons. How’s that for direct action?

Professor Eshel, once a cattle farmer in Israel, became a proponent of vegan-organic farming. What I’ve seen Eshel say to interviewers that I’ve not yet seen from Gore or McKibben is the understanding that animals have thoughts, and their death is a dreadful sight. That understanding — a queasy response to violent human privilege — is a vital characteristic of people who undergo a personal paradigm shift.

There’s some genuine transformation going on, with knowledge-sharing in and between communities; it’s happening, for example, through the vegan-organic movement. We need to look for people who show our population what to strive for, not what we can settle for.

JF: Let’s talk a bit more about some of the locavores. In Portland, Oregon, for example, the movement is so substantial that even Oprah’s magazine has lauded a local chef and former vegetarian for her “sustainable” food practices. Of course, her menu is loaded with meat, including foie-gras of all things.

Hip Portland is even home to the so-called “Ethical Butcher,” a former vegan, whose love for the environment and animals has caused him to give up his plant-based diet and embrace “humane” animal slaughtering. How should environmentalists and animal rights activists challenge this aspect of the locavore movement that seems so dominant these days?

LH: First the PR agents need to assure us that whatever they’re marketing — sausages, aircraft, bottled water — is ecologically benign. Also known as greenwash.

Then they want to assure us that animals are happy to be farmed and eaten. Also known as hogwash. So there are two faulty claims that environmentalists and animal advocates, together, can and should challenge: that animal agribusiness can be kind and that it can be green.

It was an uncle’s “idyllic” farm that impelled Vegan Society founder Donald Watson to organize a movement. As a child visiting the farm, Donald was always greeted by a pair of pigs — until the day one was killed. Donald couldn’t forget the screams, and henceforth regarded the farm as Death Row. The folks at HumaneMyth.org have gathered some intriguing samples of “happy meat” PR, coupled with counterpoints offered by people in the know.

And no matter how they’re grown or how far their bodies are transported, the cows, lambs, pigs, and birds raised as food on any local farm are potent emitters of methane — regardless, too, of where their feed came from. And their manure produces nitrous oxide, which has nearly 300 times the immediate warming effect of C02.

A comprehensive study, funded by Britain’s Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, was conducted earlier this decade and released by Adrian Williams of Cranfield University. It showed that free-range chickens, used for eggs or flesh, have a 15-20 percent greater impact on global warming than factory-caged birds. That’s because “sustainable” chickens take longer to raise, and eat more feed. Not that I’m endorsing high-volume farming. I’ve found it’s quite easy, once you make the initial adjustment, to cook without ever selecting animal products at all.

Joshua Frank, Managing Editor of CounterPunch, is the author of Left Out! How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush, and along with Jeffrey St. Clair, the editor of Red State Rebels: Tales of Grassroots Resistance in the Heartland, and of Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, published by AK Press. Hopeless is now available in Kindle format. He can be reached at brickburner@gmail.com.

Animals in Dominionistic Religions: a Discussion

NO WISDOM in killing…
Prefatory Note: The following is a brief discussion between two dedicated animal liberationists, Kristal Parks and Ruth Eisenbud, on the intent of religious teachings in connection with animals. The exchange focuses on the doctrines of “dominionist religions” (i.e., the Judeo-Christian-Islamic faiths), which consign animals to the whims of man.—PG

“It is the essential characteristic of a wise person that he/she does not kill any living being.
One should know that non-killing and equality of all living beings are the main principles of religion”
—Jain sutra

“I have always felt responsible to act on what I know.” —Kristal Parks

Dear Kristal,

It was noted in the Greanville Post item on your protest of chinese consumption of ivory that:
‘She credits her spiritual training that draws on “the wisdom traditions, East and West. I’m most drawn to the contemplative Christian tradition and Zen Buddhism.”

She spent time meditating at St. Benedict’s monastery in Snowmass before and after every action. And she studied extensively with exiled Vietnamese Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh. “I used to say for however much time you spend in jail, you should spend an equal amount of time in a monastery, purifying your motives, taking down barriers that separate you from others.’

ALERT: Hunger strike to protest Chinese consumption of ivory

There is no doubt that you are a remarkable, courageous person, capable of understanding the implications of violence in its various forms to animals and humans. This is exactly why I was concerned to learn that you credit your spiritual training to “the wisdom traditions, East and West. I’m most drawn to the contemplative Christian tradition and Zen Buddhism.”

Cow murdered for religious celebration. What did this animal do to deserve this fate? Only the dumbing down of our conscience through habit blinds us to this horror.

Cow murdered for religious celebration purposes. What did this animal do to deserve this fate? Only the dumbing down of our conscience through habit can blind us to this horror. ALL traditions must be examined, and probably most of them overthrown as they reflect backward stages of human consciousness.

Given that you understand that the suffering of animals is no different than the suffering of humans, how is it possible for you to reconcile your values with the belief system of the semitic religions: judaism, christianity and islam? Dominion, the very foundation of this tradition is based on a hierarchy that subjugates animals to slaughter and exploitation in the name of human supremacy. This premise is endorsed by the St Benedictine Monastery, where you sought spiritual healing from exposure to the brutality of prison. The accepted diet for a St Benedictine Monastery includes:

FOOD AND DRINK AT A BENEDICTINE MONASTERY
Though the Rule of St. Benedict proscribes the eating of meat, fish is eaten at all Benedictine houses, and some inmates partake of lard and the flesh of birds as well. Child novices may be allowed the full range of meat dishes, and the head of a house may well have the flesh of pigs, deer, or other animals at his or her table. Obedientiaries frequently eat whatever they wish while travelling, and even when they are within the conventual walls, they may take their meals with the guests of the house and indulge in foods not found in the refectory [70].

Though their diets are more restricted, cloistered monks and nuns also enjoy a variety of dishes in many Benedictine communities. Quantities are often generous, and pittances are common additions to the daily meals. Feast days feature elaborate banquets, with ten or more courses served in the refectories of the wealthiest houses on important holidays. Ale is the usual beverage, or wine if the community can afford it. Meat may be served on special occasions [71]. The customary drink in the refectory in the afternoon during the summer and in the evening in winter sometimes includes light bread or cakes [72].http://www.aedificium.org/MonasticLife/BenedictineOrder.html

[pullquote] The lovely image of a shepherd guarding his sheep, fails to portray the reality. The shepherd is protecting his sheep from harm by other predators, so that the owner of the sheep may shear them and slit their throats for a feast. This is the intention and meaning of dominion. [/pullquote]

In other words, the higher one is in the religious hierarchy, the more likely one is to consume the flesh of many animals. While A Benedictine Monastery is likely in a scenic location, since most of the best land was appropriated from the peasantry, it is hardly a suitable venue for contemplating compassion, peace and justice for all.

Are you familiar with the Jain tradition of India. It is a religious- based community that has embraced the tenets of non-violence, known as ahimsa, for thousands of years by prohibiting meat, leather, fur and silk. Though a small percent of the population, jains have had significant influence on implementing compassion for animals. Jains were historically the first to set up shelters, where injured animals were treated and released, as confining animals violates their right to freedom. To this very day, Jains exert their influence on Indian animal law, which is broad-based, comprehensive and compassionate. If you are familiar with the writings and work of Mahatma Gandhi, then you have an idea of the influence of ahimsa on politics. Prior to embarking on the campaign to liberate India from British occupation, Gandhiji conferred with Jain scholar, Shrimad Rajchandra, to better understand Jain doctrine as a basis for protest.

To better understand the doctrine as a basis for animal compassion consider the following sutras:

“All things breathing, all things existing, all living beings whatever, whould not be slain or treated with violence, or insulted, or tortured or drven away. This is the pure unchanging eternal law, which the wise ones who know the world have proclaimed…” —Jain Acharanga Sutra

“If thinking to gain praise, honor or respect,…a man who sins against earth or causes or permits others to do so…he will not gain joy or wisdom…tyrany to the earth is like striking , cutting or maiming a blind man…Knowing this a man should not sin agaonst earth or cause or permit others to do so. He who understands the nature of sin against earth is called a Sage.” —Jain Acharanga Sutra

“All beings with two, three, four or five senses in fact, all creation know individually pleasure and displeasure, pain, terror and sorrow. ALL are full of fears which come from all directions. And yet there exist people who would cause greater pain to them…Some kill animals for sacrifice, some for their skin, flesh, blood, feathers, teeth or tusks;…Some kill them intentionally and some unintentionally. Some kill because they have been previously injured by them…and some because they expect to be injured. He who harms animals has not understood or renounced deeds of sin…He who understands the nature of sin against animals is called a Sage.” —Jain Acharanga Sutra

If these sutras are consistent with your beliefs, then is it possible to state that the mandate of genesis is similar in intention? As you are well aware the ravages to animals seen daily in Judeo.Christian Muslim nations are a direct result of religious doctrine that excuses animal abuse as a right granted to man as follows:

“Genesis 9:1-3 is the most significant Biblical text supporting the Christian tradition of eating meat: “God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you shall rest on every animal of the earth, and on every bird of the air, on everything that creeps on the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; into your hand they are delivered. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and just as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.’ “

Having been born into one of the semtic religions, based on what I know of the cruelty of that tradition, I opted out of dominon. All faiths are not equal.Acting on what I know I left my birth religion of Judaism to free myself from the brutality of dominonist doctrine. If I were Christian I would do the same. Compassion for animals is not possible in a tradition that sanctifies their subjugation to man.

Living in a dominion-rooted culture takes its toll on one’s spirit. In an effort to undo this harm and heal from it, I have found spiritual peace as part of a Jain community, where I attend pujas and other observances, away from the violence of the semitic religious tradition. To the best of my knowledge Jainism is the only religion that has maintained a successful effort to live free from violence to both animals and humans.

While it is not necessary to be a Jain to live by ahimsa, it is impossible to remain in or praise a semitic religion and then expect compassion for animals.

Respectfully,
Ruth Eisenbud

Dear Ruth,

Thank you for your email and for taking the time to send me the important information you have included in your several emails.

I agree with you, Ruth. It is absolutely appalling what is done to animals [with the consent of] the religious community. It is total blasphemy and is a source of deep pain and agony for me.

It seems that followers of great spiritual leaders often desecrate the original teachings of those teachers. But I will not allow those followers to pressure me to reject the teachers because of the heresy and hypocrisy of the followers. Rather, I wish to represent another interpretation of those teachings through my life and actions. So, I am a very vocal and loud voice for animals within those communities and I must say, Ruth, it is no easy task. But I do it gladly for the sake of animals.

Best wishes to you.

Kristal

Kristal Parks, M.A.

Director, Pachyderm Power! Love in Action for Elephants

www.PachydermPower.org

www.ElephantEcoTours.com

KristalParks2@gmail.com

1-303-571-0801

COUNTER REPLY

THE MYTH OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD

The Good Shepherd protects his sheep from harm, so that they
may be sheared and slaughtered by their master. The sheep are
being protected as property to be used or discarded at will.

The lovely image of a shepherd guarding his sheep, fails to portray the reality. The shepherd is protecting his sheep from harm by other predators, so that the owner of the sheep may shear them and slit their throats for a feast. This is the intention and meaning of dominion:

“The fear and dread of you shall rest on every animal of the earth, and on every bird of the air, on everything that creeps on the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; into your hand they are delivered. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and just as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.’” Genesis

Dear Kristal,

Thank you for responding to my concerns of characterizing dominion religions and even Buddhism as holders of the wisdom of compassion. The holiest of the holy, including the monks at the Benedictine Monastery where you sought refuge care little about your concern for animals, as they indulge in various meats with great piety. Even the dalai lama has been known to eat meat, although his indiscretion pales when compared to the meat orgies of semitic religious feasts.

It is irresponsible to promote the pillars of these religious institutions. They will take the opportunity to capitalize on your compassion and generosity of spirit as evidence that their blood drenched religions are enlightened. The semitic religions have no reason to change their view of animals while they receive support from individuals devoted to compassion (and respect and privileges from the state]. They will hold you up as proof that their cruel values are actually kind. They are anything but. Your praise of these religions insures that they will be able to preserve and perpetuate their cruel doctrine, along with a thin veneer of compassion. Gandhi understood the harm with such collaboration when he stated:

“As you do good, non-cooperation with evil is essential”

While you portray christianity as potentially helpful for animals, you are aiding and abetting their view of animals which allows them to be slaughtered with ease. You are inadvertently cooperating with the evil of dominion. Please do not allow yourself to be exploited by those who would harm animals.

The dominion religions are quite clear, “the exploitation and slaughter of animals has been granted to man by divine intervention.” Though sometimes cloaked in gentler language, the intention remains the same. Once this parameter is set into place, it is possible to quibble about the extent of exploitation or the type of slaughter, or which animal may be violated, which not, but it is never possible to end the violence. It is a sacred right.

You state:’ It seems that followers of great spiritual leaders often desecrate the original teachings of those teachers.’

The doctrine which grants man dominion over animals is cruel by definition. There are some who use softer language and substitute the term stewardship for dominion. This is a clever manipulation of language designed to promote the same vision of animals. Stewardship implies management of one’s resources. This definition designates animals as human property. Once viewed as property it is possible to trivialize the value of their lives to allow for every manner of exploitation. In sum, it’s nothing but a euphemism. Politicians use it all the time; advertising is often built on euphemisms. The military uses it all the time, too, as when they speak blandly of, “collateral damage.”

The false imagery of dominion is as ruthless as its intention – the victimization of animals by their human masters. Dominion, aka stewardship, was never benevolent, nor is not now. as it sanctifies violence to animals for human advantage.

While it is comforting to hold on to the illusions of the semitic religions we learned as children: that they represent love and are filled with compassion, for the sake of the animals we must let go of this deception. By promoting a Benedictine Monastery as a refuge from violence, you are supporting the very system and institutions that have caused you so much distress…

Better to speak the truth.…
The dominion religions have resulted in ever escalating animal abuse, as they are based on a premise of tolerated violence to animals. Once such violence is sanctified, there is no going back. It is not possible to build compassion on a a foundation justifiable murder. It is not possible to reinterpret endorsed slaughter and exploitation as compassionate, for at the core this value is so intrinsically cruel it cannot be redeemed, even by dedicated and compassionate individuals such as you.

Your actions are not re-interpreting the teachings of the semitic religions. Dominion by its very nature must allow for slaughter and violence to animals. When you speak of reverence for life you are representing the viewpoint of a very different religious tradition.

When in need of refuge I do not seek out those who caused my distress with their cruel policies. Instead, I turn to those who have always understood that violence to animals is inexcusable. Are you familiar with the Jain tradition? These Jain sutras are a genuine expression of reverence for life.

"For there is nothing inaccessible for death.
All beings are fond of life, hate pain, like pleasure,
shun destruction, like life, long to live. To all life
is dear." Jain Acharanga Sutra.

"All things breathing, all things existing, all living beings whatever, would not be slain or treated with violence, or insulted, or tortured or driven away. This is the pure unchanging eternal law, which the wise ones who know the world have proclaimed..." 
Jain Acharanga Sutra.

"Whatever living beings may have had pain or torment caused by me:
...Whoever I may have separated from life and made lifeless; 
May all that be forgiven and may all the suffering I caused, knowingly or unknowingly, cease. May the ignorance in me that caused pain in other living beings come to an end, and may they all forgive me.
Jain Prayer of Atonement

These sutras are a far cry from Genesis. The monks at the Benedictine Monastery, or for that matter any other institutions of dominion religions, express entitlement not remorse for their meat laden diet.

Ahimsa
“Don’t kill any living beings. Don’t try to rule them.” —Mahavira (Jain Acaranga, 4/23)

In theory and in practice ahimsa has resulted in a greater protection for animals. Though Jains are a small minority in India, the concept of ahimsa has permeated the mainstream consciousness, so that the following laws and protections for animals have been implemented. These same benefits are not possible for animals in dominion oriented cultures. In India:

ALL use of animals is banned for testing of cosmetic products.

It is always against the law to confine or harm a monkey

The capture and confinement of sea mammals for exhibition or performance is banned

In India where ahimsa is the foundation for compassion, broad based protective legislation is possible. This is not the case where the semitic religions reign supreme.

Ahimsa is quite explicit. It does not make deals for political power and wealth. It does not objectify victims as possessions to be submitted to the will of man. It is clear and direct and does not apologize for compassion. The intention is to elevate the human condition by encouraging non-violence for ALL who live.

—RE

Animals Australia exposes Egyptian slaughterhouses again

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, May/June 2013:
Exposing a bloody business—what will it take to stop these crimes once and for all?

By Merritt Clifton, ANIMAL PEOPLE
CANBERRA––The latest Animals Australia undercover videos of slaughter at the two Egyptian slaughterhouses authorized to kill Australian cattle showed “outrageous cruelty” that “left me and my industry colleagues disgusted and horrified,” Australian Livestock Exporters Council spokesperson Alison Penfold told media.

“We completely support and will assist the fullest possible investigations in both Egypt and Australia of how these events could be possible, and how to stop a repeat of this behaviour,” Penfold pledged.

Raised to be sold to human primitives for abject rituals or unspeakable treatment. Such horrors exist here, too, in the heart of the “developed world.”

Said the Australian Department of Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry in a prepared statement, “Upon receiving allegations of animal mistreatment in Egyptian abattoirs on May 1, DAFF urgently sought assurances about the proper handling of animals under the animal handling and slaughter Memorandum of Understanding with Egypt. DAFF’s assessment of the footage presented is that the practices depicted were not compliant with international animal welfare standards. There is currently a voluntary suspension of trade by exporters. There have been no consignments to Egypt since July 2012.”

The cattle were shipped to Egypt in July 2012, Penfold said, but were not slaughtered upon arrival. Animals Australia collected some of the slaughter footage in October 2012, and more in April 2013. About 3,000 Australian cattle were still awaiting slaughter in Egypt when the Animals Australia videos were released.

[pullquote] “Time and again Australia has suspended live exports of animals to the nations whose slaughter industries have been exposed.   Time and again the Australian government and the government of an animal-importing nation have promised to reform livestock handling and slaughter procedures.” It will never work because the bottom line is that the slaughter of animals is permitted in human societies, for just about any reason imaginable, and under the most brutal conditions. Humane slaughter is an oxymoron. Its amelioration simply denies the impossibility of making the martyrdom of animals a morally-sanctioned practice. [/pullquote]

Like video that Animals Australia obtained from the Bassetin slaughterhouse near Cairo in January 2006, the new videos––including footage from both the Bassetin slaughterhouse and another at Ain Sokhna––show butchers gouging the eyes of cattle and slashing their leg tendons, before crudely cutting their throats in a procedure falling far short of meeting the requirements for halal slaughter as prescribed by Islamic doctrine.

Australian and Egyptian government representatives affirmed some of the alleged violations at Ain Sokhna. “The management of the facility is implementing corrective actions to meet required standards,” said DAFF.

“Australian politicians and industry representatives have been quick to condemn the slashing of leg tendons,” acknowledged an Animals Australia statement. “But they cannot express horror at tendon slashing and deem it unacceptable and not find equally unacceptable the slashing of a conscious animal’s throat.”

Animals Australia investigator Lyn White, a former police officer, has since 2003 repeatedly directed undercover video operations that have documented mistreatment of Australian sheep and cattle, as well as other livestock, at facilities in Egypt, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Jordan, and Indonesia.

Time and again Australia has suspended live exports of animals to the nations whose slaughter industries have been exposed.   Time and again the Australian government and the government of an animal-importing nation have promised to reform livestock handling and slaughter procedures.

Time and again Andrew Wilkie, an independent member of the Australian Parliament from Denison riding, Hobart, Tasmania, has introduced legislation meant to stop exports of live animals. Introduced on May 13, 2013, the latest Wilkie bill appears to have no more chance of passage than any of the others.

But repeated failures by the Australian Department of Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry to ensure that exported sheep and cattle will be handled and killed according to international standards increasingly call into question whether past pledges of reform have been made in good faith, and whether reform is even possible.

Animals Australia contends that the only effective reform would be to replace live exports entirely with exports of frozen carcasses. A succession of Australian governments have resisted this suggestion to keep live export market share: Australia leads the world in live animal exports to the Middle East and the Islamic nations of Southeast Asia.

Historically, nations which practice halal slaughter, meaning slaughter as prescribed by Islamic law, have insisted that only meat from animals slaughtered under supervision of their own imams would be culturally acceptable. Frozen carcasses slaughtered according to halal rules in Australia would meet the religious requirements of Islam, but animals have traditionally been slaughtered close to the time and place of consumption in most of the world, not just the Islamic world, due to lack of refrigeration. Lack of refrigeration is still a problem in many of the nations to which Australia exports live animals, but increasingly less so, while frozen meat products have gained popularity.

The major political issue behind the live export controversy at present may be the desire of importing nations to keep jobs in the slaughter industry.

“The Australian government suspended trade with Egypt in 2006,” recalled Dowling of the Melbourne Herald, as result of White’s Bassetin slaughterhouse video, “and only lifted the ban after assurances from the Egyptian government that cattle would not be abused.”

Two years after the 2006 suspension, livestock exports from Australia to Egypt were re-authorized in May 2008. The Wellard Rural Export vessel MV Ocean Shearer in February 2010 arrived in Egypt with the first livestock sent from Australia since the 2006 suspension. In October 2010 the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service confirmed that nearly 300 cattle out of 16,460 and 360 sheep out of 40,282 had died in transit.

How the animals were treated after arrival in Egypt was disputed.

White observed in November 2010, however, that Australian-introduced “reforms” in Kuwait were mostly ignored. “In the Shuwaikh abattoir,” White recounted, “trussed and terrified Australian sheep were dragged up the ramp into the slaughterhouse right in front of a Ministry of Livestock Australia sign saying ‘don’t drag animals.’”

Sold for individual slaughter at the Eid, “Australian sheep were bound with wire and shoved into car boots,” White continued, “whilst others were dragged terrified on their stomachs amongst the dead and dying to have their throats cut.”

White in March 2011 obtained video of abuses similar to those at Bassetin from eleven randomly selected halal slaughterhouses in Jakarta, Bogor,   Bandar, Lampung, and Medan, Indonesia. Australian live cattle exports to those eleven slaughterhouses were suspended for 38 days, and all Australian live exports were suspended for 30 days. Industry pressure to promptly resume exports to Indonesia was intense: Indonesia purchases account for about 60% of the total Australian cattle export trade.

But the biggest recent losses to the Australian live export industry were not caused by an exposé of cruelty. Bahrain in August 2012 rejected a cargo of 22,000 Australian sheep on arrival, purportedly due to scabby mouth disease, a stress-related affliction similar to a human cold sore, which often develops among sheep on shipboard.

Leaving Bahrain, the transporter sought unsuccessfully to unload the sheep in Kuwait, but Kuwait would not accept them either. After another failed attempt to leave the sheep in Bahrain, the transporter left them in Karachi, Pakistan. Having spent a month at sea, the sheep were not released for sale in Pakistan, either, and were crudely massacred after six weeks of impoundment.

—Veteran journalist Merritt Clifton is editor in chief of ANIMAL PEOPLE, the world’s leading independent publication dedicated to animal issues.

IMPORTANT LINKS:
ANIMALS AUSTRALIA: Ban Live Exports