Topics
Basic (free) Member
|
| | | |
Bruce Boyd
|
4/13/2008 1:15:58 AM
Canada Declares War!!
In a move that technically constitutes an act of war, armed officers of the Canadian Coast Guard have boarded and seized the Dutch registered vessel "Farley Mowat" in International waters . The Farley Mowat was gathering evidence of the inhumane methods used in Canada's annual seal cull. More details at:
http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_080412_1.html
|
|
satch
|
4/13/2008 8:05:09 AM
Why is there all this fuss ONLY about seals and whales?
People also eat dogs, cows, sheep, pigs, chickens, ducks, geese.... how come people don't try to stop the slaughter of all these other animals? They are usually killed really cruelly and are often treated pretty darn poorly too!
Just to clarify, I am only asking questions, I do not eat meat and I support the anti-seal-cull movement.
|
|
mysticangel_001
|
4/13/2008 8:16:55 AM
Two sides to every story...
SYDNEY — A crew member from the anti-sealing vessel ``Farley Mowat '' maintains Canadian authorities had no right to seize the ship Saturday as it was in international waters beyond the 12-mile nautical limit.
David Jonas, a New Hampshire resident, described a tense scene to the Canadian Press early Sunday after being released from custody in Sydney. An RCMP tactical squad boarded the ship around midday Saturday while in the Cabot Strait.
``We were placed under arrest, forced to lie down on the deck,'' Jonas said as heavily-armed officers stormed the vessel from one boat, which he said was accompanied by two coast guard ships.
``We were then escorted to the stern of the ship, and kept under armed guard.''
Jonas claims later, some of his shipmates were handcuffed once aboard the Canadian coast guard vessel Des Groseilliers, which brought them to port in Sydney late Saturday evening.
Jonas claims all of the 17 or so crew members were originally arrested and told they'd be charged with violating Canada's sealing laws.
However, once on shore, he said they were told charges were being dropped against all but the captain and chief officer. About six crew mates are still being detained as they refused to pass through immigration and customs checks, Jonas claimed.
``Half of us have denied that opportunity, and will be interned,'' Jonas stated. ``It's clearly an unusual circumstance for all involved.''
Jonas and the crew maintain Canada had no legal grounds to detain them.
``They were brought to Canada against their will, Canada did not have a right to board us and bring us to Sydney. We were in international waters,'' Jonas argued. ``We're a Dutch-registered vessel and had the right of free passage.''
The captain and chief officer have a court appearance in Sydney Sunday morning at 10 a.m. local time, and Jonas and crew intend to be in attendance to show support.
Until they're released, the crew is going on a hunger strike, Jonas added.
Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn said Saturday the ship's captain and chief officer were arrested for allegedly violating Canada's marine mammal regulations and the Fisheries Act.
He said those charges were related to a high-seas confrontation in the Gulf of St. Lawrence between the Farley Mowat and a coast guard icebreaker two weeks ago.
``We did the right thing,'' Hearn told a news conference in Ottawa. ``I'd rather act when nobody is hurt, rather than react when somebody got killed.''
Hearn insisted the Mowat was seized legally in Canada's ``internal waters,'' without providing the specific location of the seizure.
Last week, the Fisheries department brought forward charges alleging the Farley Mowat's captain, Alexander Cornelissen, and First Officer Peter Hammarstedt broke rules that prohibit anyone without a valid observation licence from coming within 900 metres of the seal hunt.
Cornelissen is also charged under the Fisheries Act with obstruction or hindrance of a Fishery Officer or inspector.
|
|
the kozy king
|
4/13/2008 9:18:15 AM
I use charcoal too Laree. I also love animals and they love me.
I was tempted to buy McCartney's "Red Square Concert" video on my last trip to the big city, but after his display of stupidity at the seal hunt I couldn't bring myself to do it and exclaimed so in a loud voice (to the embarrassment of my wife). Two helicopters and two dozen people brought in at what expense -- enough to pay all the seal hunters to stay home that year. Use your friggin' head man! I guess if he doesn't have to kill stuff to make a living then he's superior in some way and isn't required to share the wealth with the poorest people in Canada.
I was at a nature film festival once and some dumb woman complained because one film showed a guy in Mongolia catching a fox with a trained EAGLE!!! He lived in a frozen desert with a family of eight in a shack the size of her Volvo, He actually spoke to the eagle its own language! But she (in her infinite wisdom) thought the fur trade was something wrong for him.
Another foolish statement by animal rights activists -- use 20% of Sunami funds to help animals. There were NO wild animals hurt in the sunami, stupid. God gave all of them the sense to head for the hills.
I was never so proud to be a Canadian as when Pamela Anderson was booed at the Juno's last year (Canada's Emmy's) when she shot off her mouth about the seal hunt while hosting the show. Hooray for the righteous hecklers!!
Send money to the East Coast if you're worried about the seals -- THEY NEED THE INCOME!! I'm very disappointed in this post.
|
|
Bruce Boyd
|
4/13/2008 5:59:58 PM
Larree I too eat meat with a clear conscience. Living in a small country town I have taken the opportunity to attend when our local butcher did a slaughter to ensure undue cruelty was.not involved. Humans are omnivores - part of the reason that they evolved was the quick release of protein that meat provides in the diet. People in tribal societies kill in fairly primitive ways - but usually without conscious cruelty involved. Many animals including the much revered wolf kill to survive in (what to us) are fairly horrible ways.
KK - my post highlights the heavy handed methods of the Canadian Government rather than the reasons for that behaviour.
Australia too has been heavily criticized for a recent kangaroo cull with sentiment rather than reason prevailing.
I provided a link to the Sea Shepherd site because to me conscious cruelty is the issue at stake.
I'm sure there are both animal rights activists and pro-hunting people who will disagree with me.
|
|
the kozy king
|
4/13/2008 8:19:31 PM
Sounds like a fair point of view, Bruce.
From my experience there are very few people who enjoy killing -- most of us are able to do it through a simple suspension of empathy.
I'm sure you'd find the same if it came to it.
Thanks for your response. All I'm saying is I'm a "people first, animals next" kind of guy all the way. And I have no use for anyone who would put an animal first for any reason (including those who harbour vicious pets -- another contentious topic?? :-)
Best wishes bro'
TT
|
|
Maria Daines
|
4/14/2008 2:46:58 AM
Hi all,
just as I read this post an excellent article appeared in my mail box & I thought it was worth sharing here. We all have our own beliefs regarding human & animal rights etc., etc., the world is such a complex & amazing place and it's personal choice in everything we do but I wish I'd written this as it expresses so well the need for compassion & peace for all living creatures.
Maria xx
Published on Saturday, April 12, 2008
When We Abuse Animals We Debase Ourselves
by Barbara Cook Spencer
Moving a cow by chaining it to a tractor and dragging it by its leg says a lot about how we perceive and value animals. When the Humane Society video that showed this and other brutal slaughterhouse treatment made the rounds on the Internet a few weeks ago, it caused public shock and led to a federal investigation. But there’s a deeper lesson that all of us - whether or not we eat meat - need to take to heart: we degrade ourselves when we degrade animals.
Much as bullies demoralize themselves when they dominate or ride roughshod over those who are meek, vulnerable, or defenseless, it should be obvious that human beings are the ones demoralized by the commission of inhumane acts.
Over the years, many have been caught up in the debate over what is, or is not, man’s obligation to animals. But the debate is transcended by the growing realization that neither our civilization nor our planet will survive unless human beings grow richer in moral qualities like mercy, kindness, compassion, and temperance.
Yet in order to establish a platform for speaking out against cruel and painful laboratory experiments and slaughtering techniques, animal rights advocates are often asked to prove that animals have a moral sense and can feel physical and emotional pain.
But even if animals could be proved amoral and immune to pain, human beings would have no basis for even careless treatment of them. Most of us were taught as children to take good care of inanimate objects, even though they feel no pain and have no moral sense. We are taught to treat fine books with virtual reverence. We are taught that it is actually a crime to vandalize buildings, cars, and other inanimate objects.
But even setting aside the degradation brought upon the humans who commit acts of cruelty, research has consistently revealed evidence of the morality and sentience of the nonhuman world. By now documentaries abound in which we can see earth’s creatures disciplining members of their own species for “crimes” within their communities. Conversely we’ve also seen them care for each other, as well as for members of other species, in the most intelligent, unselfish, courageous, and tender ways.
This evidence of morality in nonhumans tells us that mankind and “creature-kind” are inextricably woven together, not separate “worlds” attempting coexistence.
We may not be linked by trunks and tusks, wings and beaks, but I have yet to think of a single quality associated with the best in mankind that is not expressed by animals and often - as with loyalty, sincerity, wisdom, and forgiveness - more perfectly.
Our differences appear to lie more in the complexity with which we express our commonly held qualities. In fact, the caring, thoughtful observation of animals has taught, and can continue to teach, vital lessons about what we ourselves are and what we can accomplish.
We learn from an elephant, for example, that power and gentleness are not incompatible. We learn from any gazelle the naturalness of grace. Our dear canine or feline friends teach us that happiness doesn’t come from outside ourselves - from the act of acquisition - but is something we bring to the simplest object or experience. From birds, we’ve learned the concept of flight. And from any animal we can learn that we don’t outgrow childlikeness when we enter maturity, because childlikeness is a quality of thought, not a condition of age.
In fact, when we abuse childlike qualitie
|
|
Chris Pollard
|
4/14/2008 2:52:53 AM
I find this whole debate rather sad as everyone seems to be missing the point - the slaughter of infant seals ( don't give me the old story that now they don't kill whitecoats that they are not infants - the only differance is that instead of bashing 3 day old pups - they now bash 10 - 15 day old pups ! ) is the largest slaughter of infant animals in the world - it is the only slaughter of infant animals that is conducted in front of their mothers who by the way grieve and cry as any other mother does when their baby is dead ! Mother's have been seen trying to revive and nurse their babies after the ' hunters ' have torn the skin from the body of their pups ! We do not need the slaughter of seals to survive, we do not need their fur, their oil or their flesh - it is a slaughter of greed. As for the killers, twice I know of they were offered more money each NOT TO KILL SEALS - they turned it down. So this to me leave wide open the BIG QUESTION as to why these people need to continue with the slaughter at all.
Pride - Tradition - the only good place for this killing is in the history books under the chapter of THINGS WE WERE ASHAMED OF ! It is without a doubt CANADA'S SHAME !
From a Canadian who has been to the ice - and felt the amazing beauty of this birth place of the seals - now there is something that would be a better income for all, get people out there like whale watching - let them experience the magic of life instead of the horror of death !
Mary Alice
|
|
Chris Pollard
|
4/14/2008 3:04:06 AM
Amazing isn't it - and ** they ** call him ( and other protectors and activists for animals ) a terrorist ?! But guess it is ok if you are with a government body - gives one total protection and the right to conduct all kinds of illagal and underhanded acts against people !
|
|
Chris Pollard
|
4/14/2008 6:11:50 AM
Oh Satch - don't we fight that too - everything deserves to live a life free from suffering .. we all ( we as in PROUD TO BE, ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS ) campaign for free range only farming, to see an end to live transportation and to ensure that slaughtering is done as quickly and humanely as possible ! I too do not eat the flesh of animals or fish but know that as long as this business continues there must be laws that absolutely protect the rights of these animals to be free from stress and physical suffering. The laws have failed these animals far too long but it is up to the public to not support intensive farming, to go down the path of free range and organic. Only when the demand ends will the big business have to change - so it is a bit of both, better laws, enforcing laws, and public demand to do things right for their own health and the welfare of the aniimals.
Mary Alice
Cornwall's Voice for Animals.UK
Member: (OIPA) International Organisation for Animal Protection.
NGO affiliated to the UN Department of Public Information
http://www.cornwallsvoiceforanimals.org/Welcome.html
http://www.myspace.com/cvfa
|
|
kranky king
|
4/14/2008 11:50:31 AM
Laree says; "The vegan vs. carnivore war is just like the pro-choice vs. pro-life war..."
So true Larree. It sparks a tangent in my mind.
I wonder why some of the same people who are enraged by cruelty to animals are so comfortable with sucking living entities out of their mother's womb? You'd think they'd value all life -- especially human life.
I don't mean anyone in particular just a general kind of comment. It's up to you (not me) to look at yourself to see if everything adds up.
Think about it. Do you support life or death? Is it a sliding scale? What's it relative to (fuzzy seals but not slimy fish; vegetables but not bacteria?) Etc, etc. Slippery ground for sure.
Everything on this planet is a candidate for death, so I avoid as much guilt as possible without becoming self-righteous. In this regard, traditional ethics have been much more realistic for me (objective), while "modern" ethics have been woefully inconsistent (subjective).
|
|
| |
�2015-16 IndieMusicPeople.com All Rights
Reserved
| |
|