The irrationality of hunters and "mental violence"

David Borg Cardona writes another of his series of pro-hunting letters. I shall not reproduce it in full, only because most of it has nothing of interest to animal rights advocates and campaigners. The complete letter, entitled "The rationality of hunting", may be read in The Times.

However, some of what he wrote merited a reply, something that I did in the comments section of The Times online, which in turn produced some other replies from hunters and their few sympathizers.

I'll leave it up to you, dear reader, to judge on their merits, after you read the excerpt from Mr Borg Cardona's letter, my reply, the comments by the hunters and hunting sympathizers, and my further replies to their comments.

Mr Borg Cardona writes:

"From the start, I must make clear that this is not a plea for compassion, though some will deny it, but a call for rationality...Gone are those April days when on seeing the game bag slung across your shoulder, the neighbour would inquire about your catch, or at times ask you for "żewġ gamiem għal brodu" (a brace of turtle doves for broth). Spring hunting was taken for granted and accepted as part of life in spring.

But all of us are now portrayed as camo-clad gunmen, and branded as killing machines...

I was brought up to appreciate and nurture hunting as a way of life. It is in fact an integral part of my life and of all those who like me, are real hunters. And hunting is partly what makes us agreeable humans. Those who try to restrict, or worse, to abolish hunting, are acting against our humanity, and that is something I and my fellow hunters will never, repeat never, tolerate or accept".

It is ironic that Mr Borg Cardona mentions compassion in his first sentence, when he shows no compassion for the birds he kills.

Mr Borg Cardona writes that "gone are those April days when on seeing the game bag slung across your shoulder, the neighbour would inquire about your catch, or at times ask you for "żewġ gamiem għal brodu" (a brace of turtle doves for broth). Spring hunting was taken for granted and accepted as part of life in spring".

Yes, dear Mr Borg Cardona. Thankfully, gone are those days. Many people are coming to see hunting as it really is - unnecessary slaughter.

Mr Borg Cardona concludes his letter by writing:

"And hunting is partly what makes us agreeable humans. Those who try to restrict, or worse, to abolish hunting, are acting against our humanity, and that is something I and my fellow hunters will never, repeat never, tolerate or accept".

I honestly would like to know how hunting partly makes one an agreeable human. Does this mean that those who do not hunt are less agreeable humans?

As for his claim that he will not tolerate those who are acting "against his humanity", (does his humanity really rest on being able to hunt? - Will he lose his humanity if he does not hunt?), I thank him for letting us know that he will not tolerate the democratic right to oppose hunting and work for its abolition.

I personally not only tolerate, but respect his right to lobby on behalf of his outdated "tradition". His concluding sentence, however, shows that his letter, far from being about the rationality of hunting, is actually about the irrationality of hunting (or hunters).

And, incidentally, how will he go about not tolerating those who want hunting to be abolished? If he means by replying to letters with counter-arguments, to me that does not involve not tolerating abolitionists. But if it is not this, it would be interesting to know what he means exactly.

Meanwhile, a certain D. Cachia writes:

"As for Kenneth Cassar, why does hunting lack compassion towards non-human animals, as you insist on calling them? I think the bird's mother will surely miss her son, or the bird will miss going to bird University because a heartless hunter shot him. Boo hoo hoo. Maybe they should start wearing bullet proof vests, and then they wouldn't have any problems! If this seems exaggerated and farfetched to you, please realise that this is the only logical conclusion of your attempt to humanize birds".

First of all, I insist on calling non-human animals "non-human animals" just for the simple fact that they are non-human animals. It's not too puzzling at all.

Why does hunting lack compassion towards non-human animals? Simple. It is for the same reason that would make me lack compassion if I decided to shoot an innocent human being just for pleasure.

As for "humanizing" birds, I am doing nothing of the sort. But if D. Cachia takes some time off killing non-human animals and starts reading some good books on evolutionary biology and zoology, (nothing to do with zoos, by the way), he or she would learn that all sentient and conscious beings (who have a brain and nervous system) care about their own life (a life that D. Cachia chooses to violently end for them) and would rather live than die, given the choice.
And why mention "bird university"? Does this mean only intelligent humans have the right to life?

Meanwhile, M. Cardona writes:

"To the abolitionists I dare ask; why only here in Malta and not everywhere else in the EU? Is the local practice of such an encompassing magnitude and effecting global avian populations? My appeal is seeking a truthful and unbiased answer. Then and only then may you some day come to the realisation that the local efforts with foreign intrusion are just that; misplaced and counterproductive efforts as regards global protection of a species, when the same efforts could with the co-operation of the hunting fraternity, yield better protection for those species really in need!".

So M. Cardona asks abolitionists "why only here in Malta and not everywhere else in the EU? Is the local practice of such an encompassing magnitude and effecting global avian populations?".

M. Cardona's first question is presumptuous, and assumes that we do not care about the killing of birds (or other animals) outside of Malta. But since we live in Malta, we think globally and act locally.

As for the second question, it shows that M. Cardona has no idea on what it means to be an abolitionist. An abolitionist opposes any and all exploitation and killing of any animal (human or non-human). Therefore, M. Cardona's question on whether local hunting effects global avian populations makes as much sense to an abolitionist animal rights advocate as much as the question of whether killing a single black child effects the black population, makes sense to an anti-racist one.

Finally, Sylvana Zarb Darmanin writes:

"Mr. Cassar, you seem an expert on compassion - is this the type you show towards hunters and the pro-hunting individuals? Intollerance, vindictiveness and infliction of mental violence are bad traits in a human being. Unfortunately these bad traits are all existent in the anti-hunting individuals and their foreign masters. Group up and learn to co-exist with others who hold different views".

So Ms Zarb Darmanin tells me that I "seem an expert on compassion". Perhaps I am. In any case, I am certainly more compassionate than hunters. I live a lifestyle that is totally free of purposeful killing of any sentient being. If she does not call that compassion, she may as well suit herself.

Regarding showing compassion to hunters, I do not harm hunters in any way. I only campaign for the abolition of a practice, (or practices) that harms to a much greater degree, (kills and exploits), than any abolition of a hobby could do. That hunters enjoy hunting does not make me uncompassionate just because I would want to stop them from hunting, just as that thieves enjoy stealing does not make me uncompassionate if I don't allow them to steal from me or others.

As for intolerance, vindictiveness and mental violence, I can only say the following:

I am certainly not vindictive. I do not care about what people do, unless what they do harms innocents.

Regarding mental violence, I am only voicing my opinions. If they have the desired effect, it could only mean that I am making sense and that many people are agreeing with me. If not, then what makes no effect cannot be mental violence anyway.

Regarding intolerance, I am all for freedom of speech (which includes hunters' freedom of speech), which is not what could be said of David Borg Cardona, who says that "Those who try to restrict, or worse, to abolish hunting, are acting against (his) humanity, and that is something (he) and (his) fellow hunters will never, repeat never, tolerate or accept".

So who's intolerant?

As for co-existing with others who hold different views, that is precisely what I do on a daily basis. I expect others with different or opposite views to do likewise. I do not make laws. I can only seek to influence those who make the laws. Others have the same right. This is what we call democracy.

Of course, people addicted to killing will still call what I write, "mental violence", just as people addicted to stealing will find their possible arrest unfair. And just in case someone says that my analogy is unfair, since hunters do not necessarily steal, my reply would be that they actually steal the most valuable thing from others: life itself.

What if the myth that Hitler was a vegetarian were true?

A simple comment by Fr Joe Borg in his blog post on world poverty, where he wrote that "Some blame corrupt governments in Third World Countries, others blame climate change, still others say that higher standards of living lead more people to eat meat and put more pressure on food production; others say that the poor have too many children", has elicited the latest gem from hunter fanatic Alfred E. Zammit.

Mr Zammit, naively believing the myth that Hitler was a vegetarian (as if this made any difference to any moral claim on behalf of veganism), among other off-topic irrelevancies, wrote:

"I should like to add something that is not so well known. The first country to enact 'animal rights' legislation was Nazi Germany. Hitler himself was a vegetarian and a fanatical animal lover who disliked hunting and 'poachers' (meaning hunters). He felt depressed whenever his dog (an Alsatian named Blondi) was ill, but he did not bat an eyelid when signing the death warrant of some German officer on the front. We should ask why an animal lover could bring himself to plan and sanction the killing of so many millions of fellow humans. The answer is that some animal lovers are so extremely sensitive to the cruelty that humans continuously inflict on animals that they develop an extreme hatred towards humans. The Jewish practice of 'kosher' slaughter was declared illegal in Nazi Germany in 1934, and in order to justify his persecution of the Jews, Hitler used graphic films of how Jews slaughtered lambs. Hitler was also convinced that the future world would be vegetarian, which is perhaps one good reason why Fr Borg says that he does not augur that we all become vegetarians".

First, to dispel the myth that Hitler was a vegetarian, a claim that Mr Zammit does not support with any references or evidence, and somehow relies on hearsay from those who, failing rational arguments, would wish to discredit animal rights by associating it with one of the world's most infamous murderers.

As Michael Bluejay points out, "many meat-eaters are threatened by vegetarianism because it implies that they're doing something wrong. But armed with the (mistaken) idea that the most infamous butcher ever to live was a veggie, that allows them to easily dismiss the whole concept of vegetarianism in one fell swoop. How convenient. That's why they require no proof when they hear that Hitler was a vegetarian. That idea comforts them, so they're all too happy to latch onto it".

As Michael Bluejay further explains in his website, "Hitler's 'vegetarianism' was that doctors tried to put him on a vegetarian diet for health reasons, but he didn't really stick with it".

In his book called "Food Revolution", John Robbins writes:

"Robert Payne is widely considered to be Hitler's definitive biographer. In his book, Hitler: The Life and Death of Adolph Hitler, Payne says that Hitler's 'vegetarianism' was a 'legend' and a 'fiction' invented by Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of Propaganda.

According to Payne, 'Hitler's asceticism played an important part in the image he projected over Germany. According to the widely believed legend, he neither smoked nor drank, nor did he eat meat or have anything to do with women. Only the first was true. He drank beer and diluted wine frequently, had a special fondness for Bavarian sausages and kept a mistress, Eva Braun. His asceticism was fiction invented by Goebbels to emphasize his total dedication, his self-control, the distance that separated him from other men. By this outward show of asceticism, he could claim that he was dedicated to the service of his people. In fact he was remarkably self-indulgent and possessed none of the instincts of the ascetic".

So much for the myth, more about which one may read at http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/hitler.html

But what if Hitler really was a vegetarian, what would it matter?

Hitler opposed smoking. Is smoking to be encouraged just because Hitler opposed it?

Regarding the supposedly Nazi animal rights laws, any animal laws in Nazi Germany were not animal rights laws at all. They were animal "welfare" laws that only gave limited protection to a small minority of animals. Non-human animals were still eaten in Nazi Germany. Non-human animals were still forced to work for humans in Nazi Germany. Non-humans were bombed along with humans by Nazi planes.

And since humans are animals too (despite protestations from those who still insist - against all scientific evidence - that humans are not animals), Nazis tortured and murdered millions of human animals. How about that for an animal rights policy!

Mr Zammit says that "some animal lovers are so extremely sensitive to the cruelty that humans continuously inflict on animals that they develop an extreme hatred towards humans". Mr Zammit should perhaps note that this type of "animal lovers" are usually animal exploiters themselves, who have no idea on what animal rights really means.

Mr Zammit's confusion in this regard is evident when he bizarrely believes that Hitler could, in someone's wildest dreams or imagination, be considered as an "animal rights" person.

Mr Zammit says that Nazi atrocities and hypocritical propaganda is the reason why Fr Borg would say that he does not augur that we all become vegetarians. I am sure that Fr Borg is above such silly reasoning, though perhaps, he should explain what he meant by his claim that he does not augur that we all become vegetarians, as if this would bring about harm to anyone, instead of the actual opposite. Veganism, after all, rests on the principle of non-harm.

And may I remind Mr Zammit (or perhaps surprise him with the fact) that Saint Martin De Porres was a vegetarian? Would Mr Zammit say that Saint Martin De Porres was a Nazi? (It would also be interesting to read Fr Borg's thoughts on this. After all, his unthinking statement seems to imply that he would equally say that he, a Catholic priest, would not augur that we all become like Saint Martin De Porres).

Going back to Hitler, it should also be said that the fact that Hitler felt some affection towards a dog, in the same way that millions of humans, feel affection towards their dogs, while they disregard millions of other equally sentient non-human animals exploited and killed just for pleasure and convenience, Hitler felt nothing for millions of Jews tortured and murdered in his death camps. This only goes to show how mentally unstable and hypocritical he was. It says nothing about vegetarianism or veganism, even if he really was a vegetarian, which he was not.

Stalin was a meat eater. So was Charles Manson and Pol Pot. Does this say anything about other meat-eaters and their treatment of other humans? Of course not. Only fools make illogical connections where there are none.

Mr Zammit ends his comment by saying:

"Fr Joe, should pay a little bit more attention to the insidiousness of all the new-fangled ideas creeping into this fair isle of ours".

In view of the above, Mr Zammit's warning amounts to nothing but hot air, which is something I have gotten accustomed to read from people who insist on defending the indefensible, such as the completely unnecessary killing of non-human animals for food, clothing, and entertainment.

Speciesism of the utmost concern

Mr David Borg Cardona's letter in today's The Times, entitled "Species of 'least concern'", is a very good example of the speciesist prejudice that makes it possible for otherwise rational people to find nothing wrong with the totally unnecessary killing of sentient non-human animals.

Mr Borg Cardona writes:

"The letter (The Times, May 2) by Axel Hirschfeld and David Conlin, Committee Against Bird Slaughter (CABS) on turtle-doves deserves a rebuttal. Here is a typical example. In September 2007 one wounded Lesser Spotted Eagle was picked up locally. CABS arranged a free Air Malta flight to Germany for treatment, designated the bird 'rare', named it Sigmar, featured the event on the German TV station ARD and pounced on this unfortunate incident to smear all Maltese hunters hitting at this country in the process".

Nothing much to comment about so far, except perhaps that the people "hitting at this country" are the hunters who tried to murder Sigmar. However, Mr Borg Cardona goes on to say:

"What CABS did not tell the German public was that all law-abiding hunters condemn such illegalities, that the Lesser Spotted Eagle is listed by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) under the taxon 'Least Concern', that its population is between 80,000 and 110,000 individuals (2006 census), that one occurs on Malta once in a blue moon, that such a bird is usually a genetically defective straggler, that its loss far from being a threat to European bio-diversity may actually be considered beneficial for the species, and that the fuss and publicity was necessary for CABS to extract more money from a sympathetic and emotional public, unfortunately deficient in technical and ornithological knowledge".

Putting aside the fact that this species is actually listed as a species of "least concern", which shows the inherent speciesism in society, a society that gives protection to non-human animals only if they are members of a rare species or if the non-humans cannot be profitably exploited by humans for food, clothing, experimentation or entertainment, let's see what Mr Borg Cardona is saying here.

Mr Borg Cardona is actually saying that a Lesser Spotted Eagle, who somehow makes it to Malta "once in a blue moon", is usually a "genetically defective straggler", (a genetically handicapped bird), and that his loss may actually be considered beneficial for the species. If the same logic were applied to humans, this would translate to the following: "The loss, through killing, of "genetically defective humans", (the genetically handicapped), may actually be considered beneficial for the human species". This was exactly Nazi Hitler's policy for the goal of "racial purity" and the creation and preservation of a supposedly "higher Arian race", so this repulsive idea is not far-fetched at all.

Now, of course, I am not saying that Mr Borg Cardona is a Nazi, or that he supports human eugenics. I am inclined to believe that he finds the Nazi ideology, and racism in general, as repulsive as I do. However, it is only speciesist prejudice that creates a clear unbridgeable distinction in the case of humans and that of non-humans, justly condemning such an act as the killing of genetically handicapped humans, while suggesting that genetically handicapped non-humans should perhaps be killed, (or their killing tolerated), for the supposed benefit of the species.

Like all humans, all non-human animals are individuals, and not simply numbers in a collective species. All individual animals have physical and mental experiences, and a life that may fare better or worse for them depending on circumstances and the actions of others. All individual animals value their lives in their own way. Every individual matters. The claim that one, or a few, non-human animal may be sacrificed for a "common good" would seem to suggest that likewise, one, or a few, humans may equally be sacrificed for a "common good". There is no logical reason why there should be a distinction between the case of sacrificed non-humans and that of sacrificed humans. The only thing that creates the false distinction is speciesist prejudice. After all, despite the protestations of those who fail to recognize their own essence, humans are animals too.

Mr Borg Cardona then writes:

"Here the turtle-dove has been always considered, with the quail, as the principal quarry species of hunters. Contrary to CABS's declaration, both these species are listed on the IUCN Red Data List in the category 'Least Concern', meaning they are widespread and abundant species. This information is derived from the 2007 database of the IUCN. But now, in keeping with their promise to do their utmost to ensure that the turtle-dove and the quail 'are removed as huntable species from Appendix II of the EU Bird Protection Guidelines', we expect CABS tactics to include putting pressure on the IUCN and other institutions to list both species as declining and threatened".

Again, it is only speciesism that makes otherwise rational people, assume that just because a species is "widespread" and "abundant", its members may be murdered with impunity. And while a numerous species may not be threatened with extinction, each sentient individual animal is endangered every time a hunter aims his gun at her, as much as each individual animal is endangered by the actions and purpose of the "animal farmer", butcher, vivisector, breeder, and other speciesists.

Mr Borg Cardona concludes his letter by writing:

"While CABS proceeds with its fanatical and hysterical smear campaign, our organisation is determined to ensure not only that our birds remain on Annex II, but that other species that are equally abundant and widespread will also be included as huntable species".

In other words, Mr Borg Cardona is saying that his organization is determined to include more and more sentient non-human animals in the lists of those who may be murdered just because they happen to be members of numerous species, (provided they are not humans), the motivation being that in the year 2008, we still have thousands of people who derive pleasure from killing innocent and sentient animals, as well as the prejudiced assumption that non-humans do not matter at all, just because they are not human.

Speciesism, like racism and sexism, seeks to justify the otherwise unjustifiable, by depersonalizing individuals and by dismissing the plight of "the other". Speciesism is of the utmost concern, and is the final barrier to all-inclusive moral justice and progress.