On the Christmas “festival of love”

Christmas is once again just around the corner, and some who already have “everything” may be looking precisely for this occasion for something “special” for themselves and their loved ones.

So perhaps a living gift under the Christmas tree? Although often wished for by children, this is frequently ill-considered and, in the long run, not a good idea. Depending on the species – whether dog, cat, mouse, or feathered companion – one must be prepared to share one's home with the new animal family member (hopefully seen as such!) for up to 15 years or more. If, after careful consideration, one decides in favour of this, then it makes sense to “adopt” such an animal from a shelter and under no circumstances to buy one from a breeder, so as not to further fuel the trade in animals as “goods”. Animal welfare organisations know what they are talking about: no spontaneous decisions – for it has been shown that every year, precisely after Christmas, the number of animals surrendered to and abandoned at shelters unfortunately rises enormously.

The (hopefully!) quiet, reflective time now before Christmas, the festival of love, is a good opportunity to take a deeper look at the situation of animals in our midst.

If one is to believe politicians' statements, everything is in the best possible order. After all, in Germany, Austria and Switzerland alike, we supposedly have “the best animal welfare law in the world”.

Experts in the field, however, speak of an “animal-use law” that in practice protects no animal from mistreatment. For the term “animal welfare law” obscures the fact that, unfortunately, the law's main concern is rather to ruthlessly regulate – and ultimately also legalise – the exploitation of animals, rather than to protect them. And we are said to be among the most animal-friendly countries. For there are many animal lovers among us. Very many. Whether in official surveys or private conversations, people repeatedly declare just how much they “love animals”…

It is "in", nowadays simply part of good form, to demonstratively profess one's commitment to environmental protection and show a heart for animals. But how animal-friendly are we in everyday life? What does it really look like? Is much of it perhaps just an empty lip service?

Thus an animal experimenter – occupied by day with dripping caustic liquids into rabbits' eyes – calls himself an animal lover in the evening, during a television interview, while demonstratively stroking his tail-wagging dog for the camera.

It is not without reason that, following a supreme court ruling, the products of a form of chicken husbandry in extremely cramped cages may be labelled "concentration-camp eggs". Such a court verdict was already won years ago by the well-known "animal professor" Dr. Bernhard Grzimek. Yet the operator of such an animal-keeping facility also sees himself as an animal lover and is not ashamed to try to defend this repulsive animal cruelty with perfidious excuses, "… his hens were so caringly protected from natural enemies (fox, hawk) and laid their eggs well sheltered in warmth“.

One can compare the forced mass confinement of animals to the slum conditions of people in disaster areas, where the outbreak of epidemics can then also only be prevented by high doses of chemical application. A permanent state of health catastrophe exists due to the overcrowding in many concentrated animal-keeping operations.

Riders who, out of ambition, overexert their "sporting equipment" horse, even work it to death; breeders of every stripe who often proudly additionally "create" crippled torture-bred animals, or ultimately breed the "merchandise" animal solely for the slaughterhouse, as well as professional animal dealers and profiteers and so on and so forth… – all of them, all of them haunt the statistics as "animal lovers".

Even among small-animal lovers, the step from love of animals to cruelty to animals is not too great. Usually out of ignorance of animals' needs, indifference, or sheer culpable stupidity, birds vegetate in cages that are too small, fish in poorly ventilated, overcrowded aquariums, and rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, domestic rats or mice, once they have lost their initial appeal for their keeper, become boring to him and are given only the bare minimum of care until a merciful death releases them from their suffering in their cages. Cats, too, are often left unneutered — against better judgement — by „animal lovers“ out of sheer stinginess – despite the flood of cats, despite the unmistakable plight of cats, and the ever-repeated desperate appeals of animal welfare organisations. The dog spends its whole life on a chain, or never gets out of its kennel or a dark cellar vault – its ‘owner’, too, sees himself as an animal lover, for he conscientiously feeds it whatever leftovers happen to remain, treating it like a four-legged rubbish bin.

The German tourist who supports the barbarity of bullfighting in the dusty arenas of Spain by buying a ticket (quote: „… you really have to have seen it to be able to join the conversation“) and afterwards, in a fashionable restaurant, relishes a lobster that has been tortured to death alive in boiling water, or foie gras resembling in consistency „axle grease“, devoured as a „delicacy“, may well also call himself an animal lover – after all, he has put up a pretty little birdhouse in his garden back home.-

Priests of the established churches, would-be authorities on charity, deliver unctuous sermons from the pulpit, yet tolerate, when „politically correct“, the vilest cruelty to animals such as the unstunned slaughter (ritual slaughter) of animals, or glorify, pharisaically, the actions of fellow hunters described as wildlife management, and, in distorting „Hubertus masses“, incense with hypocritical pomp and ceremony the killing of animals in forest and field. It really is bad, what terrible mistakes the good Lord made in his creation, and alongside the malicious, competing „vermin“, such as foxes, stray dogs, and cats, roe deer grazing on greenery, even rooting wild boar and other troublesome animals he created. All this failure must the noble „thorns”-crown of creation in a green coat, now laboriously making amends with traps, firearms and over 1,500 tonnes of lead and iron every year. With a hand trembling in hunting fever, animals are thus “hit”, crippled by gunshot, dying an agonising death with shredded legs and a perforated torso – often only after weeks or months. By no means do all animals drop as desired “on the spot”. “We hunters are gifted people” — thus once formulated hunting author Fritz von Forell, with an overwhelmingly modest self-assessment. For these loden-green-clad, gifted, chosen ones, only their lust for killing animals seems to surpass their joy at the supposedly so exorbitant worth of their own human existence…

Thus everyone fashions for themselves, according to their own discretion, an arbitrary understanding of animal welfare and lets the calluses grow at will over their sense of empathy. For many animals, the devil has no clubfoot and no horns – but a human face.

The word “tfriend to animals”, that is, “a friend of the animal” is used all too carelessly, indeed often abused, since applied in the true sense of the term it constitutes a high demand. Thus it is easy, indeed practically self-evident, to be a good “friend” to the dog or cat living in one's own household, kept in a species-appropriate manner as part of the family. One may then be a friend of dogs or of cats.

But does that already make one a friend to animals? A big question mark is warranted here.

If our friendship, our compassion for animals is to be credible and sincere, it must not select and classify into pet, farm, laboratory and fur animals, as often – all too often – happens even among some self-proclaimed friends of animals. For one does not exploit friends, does not skin them alive – and friends do not end up as a Christmas roast on the table, simply to be eaten.-

For “meat is not a necessary component of human nutrition. (…) Abstaining from this foodstuff does not constitute an unreasonable restriction on one's personal freedom of development.” These sage insights do not, in fact, come from some vegetarian handbook. Rather – believe it or not – they are quotations that can be found in black and white in the grounds for judgment of the Higher Administrative Court of Hamburg and the Federal Administrative Court in Berlin, in connection with the horrific practice of slaughtering animals without prior stunning (which has been imported here).

Here, at the highest judicial level, it is confirmed what physicians, health-conscious citizens and animal lovers have long known: eating meat is absolutely unnecessary. On the contrary, it is well known to be significantly responsible for many illnesses: obesity with resulting circulatory problems, high blood pressure, strokes, heart attacks, diabetes, high uric acid levels, arthritis, gout, and so on and so forth.

Consuming pieces of animal corpses cannot fundamentally be healthy – regardless of the recurring scandals involving salmonella etc. and revolting, half-rotten spoiled meat products that keep coming to light.

Eating meat is as unnecessary as a hole in the head, and is undoubtedly not only harmful to the animal concerned. What's more: the meat lying on your plate soon nestles itself around your hips as a roll of fat!

Who would want to be seen as an animal abuser or animal killer? Yet it is precisely the latter that can indirectly be laid at the door of every meat eater. Because demand determines supply! And meat, as we all know, does not grow on trees – it is “produced” as a mass commodity under frequently the most wretched conditions, and then sold off dirt cheap.

The term ‘animal lover’ entails responsibility towards all creatures, towards every individual animal and species, even those that are not close to us personally or that we do not find particularly likeable. To illustrate this, let us take an example: who forces us to kill the ‘repulsive creature’ that is a spider in our home, rather than catching this useful little crawler and carrying it unharmed out of the window? Is it the fear of making ourselves look ridiculous, or mere thoughtlessness? Over 150 years ago, Heinrich Heine already wrote on this subject: “Any stupid boy can crush a beetle, but all the professors in the world cannot create one.“

What is called for is more honest animal welfare behaviour in everyday life. Credibility is measured less by lofty declarations of intent or bold lip service – and more by actual conduct.Noble ethics of conviction must lead to ethics of action. What use is a constitutional goal of animal welfare in Germany if the implementation of this constitutional provision is brutally blocked by federal politicians refusing to introduce the right of associations to sue on behalf of animal welfare organisations? Every “No” from an elected representative regarding the rule-of-law instrument of “association lawsuits” also exposes that politician’s unequivocal no to animal welfare – and must also influence the voting behaviour of every serious(!) animal lover!

Everywhere in everyday life, a little more seriousness and reflection could advance animal welfare. This begins with shopping. The well-known animal welfare advocate Dr Andreas Grasmüller of Munich already stated in a television interview 40 years ago: “If all housewives who claim to love animals stopped buying eggs from battery cages, the problem of caged hen keeping would have been solved long ago”. Demand regulates supply. Eggs from species-appropriate free-range farming are now available everywhere. Otherwise, ask for them specifically – also for other animal products – to motivate retailers to list animal products produced as free of suffering as possible, bearing an organic seal. If we were to give up wearing fur clothing in Neanderthal fashion (also with regard to accessories, or hidden as lining), many completely unnecessary torments in this area would also be avoided. Today, in the age of the most modern manufacturing techniques and high-tech materials, we can dress warmly and elegantly without having to satisfy perverse vanities at the expense of wild animals cruelly caught in traps, or crippled captive-bred “fur” animals. «A fur coat is supposed to represent distinction. But amid so much agony, distress and blood of the tormented creature, it reveals a very different mentality – emotional coldness, arrogance and nothing but vain stupidity». Otherwise, one must ask the question: «How would gracious madam like her fur – gassed, strangled, or from a trap?»

In the development of ever more new products from the chemical industry – absolutely superfluous for our well-being – for cosmetics, cleaning agents and detergents, thousands of animals are “consumed”. They suffer and die in laboratories for products that are already available on the market in immeasurable abundance. This need not be so if consumers – aware of their responsibility and purchasing power – relied exclusively on natural products or tried-and-tested items that are no longer tested on animals.

And finally, in the medical field: given the numerous drug scandals, when will we finally understand that veterinary medical knowledge – gained through animal experimentation – cannot cure the ailments of Homo sapiens? For humans are not mice! And precisely here, as with the genetic manipulations that have recently come under criticism, the following applies in particular: not everything that appears feasible is also permissible. Morality and ethics cannot be applied or set aside at will.

So let us not be deterred in our commitment to our fellow animal creatures – the truly poorest of the poor. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832): “What matters is not the number of legs, the fur, or the colour of the skin (…) An adult horse or an adult dog is far more rational than a child that is a day, a week, or even a month old. But even if this were not so, what would it change? The question is not, can they reason or speak, but – can they suffer?”

Animals are the slaves of our time. The poorest of the poor. And as long as we cannot loosen their shackles, we must at least ease their chains, without, of course, losing sight of the goal – the liberation of all creatures groaning under humanity's yoke.

Thus, animal welfare work today is more than ever a sad necessity. Compassion alone is not enough – helping is what matters! And everyone can help in their own individual way. Be it through active involvement in the animal welfare movement, or through financial support of a committed animal welfare organisation of their trust. Every individual, every animal friend in the true sense of the word – as a friend of the animal – can, through their own behaviour, contribute their part to filling animal welfare with more life. By acting responsibly towards all (!) animal species and animal individuals, and especially in everyday situations – looking beyond the confines of their own sphere – by committing themselves to the rights and protection of our older, yet so helpless, fellow animal creatures.

Let us seriously resolve to do this for the New Year 2022!