Petition to include animal protection in EU Constitution

Originally from: mona parr
                        
Please support the call to include the protection of animals against avoidable, senseless cruelty as an objective in a future EU Constitution :
<A HREF="http://animals-constitution.info/">http://animals-constitution.info/</A>

The European Convention is a body preparing the draft of a future EU Constitution. It consists of 15 representatives of the heads of state or government of the EU member states, 30 representatives of the national parliaments, 16 members of the European Parliament and 2 representatives of the European Commission, amongst others (<A HREF="http://european-convention.eu.int/">www.european-convention.eu.int/</A>

Three examples showing the negative consequences of animal welfare having no constitutional ranking at European level:
Since, pursuant to the present EC Treaty, animals fall under the free movement of goods, they are subjected to cruel transports across Europe lasting for days. Each year, about 250 million animals must endure these journeys, many of them starving to death or dying from dehydration during transport. The export refunds granted by the EU for the export of live cattle, rather than of frozen meat, into countries outside the EU are an additional incentive to adhere to this practice. A revision of the refunding policy, which is opposed by a growing number of EU citizens for both ethical and economic reasons, could considerably, and quickly, reduce animal transports.

 The »Herodes« premium introduced, above all, for market-regulation purposes and paid for eliminating newborn calves was considered a scandalous and unethical waste of tax money also by tax payers not committed to animal welfare. Owing to the free movement of goods within the EU, some EU member states not implementing this practice, such as Germany, were not able to prevent calves born in Germany from being exported alive to France where they were killed and burnt for the premium.

 Furthermore, the recognition of the »non-vaccination and culling« policy to control the foot-and-mouth disease as established in the judgment of the European Court of Justice dated 12 July 2001 is questionable not only in ethical terms: anyone who takes animal protection seriously also in terms of preventive protection against risks will consider the legal situation allowing such judgments as intolerable and in need of change.
                        

Originally from: brentns
                        

From: ...
Reply-To: ...
To: ...
CC: ...
Subject: [farmtalking] Petition to include animal protection in EU
Constitution
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 17:38:30 EDT

Please support the call to include the protection of animals against
avoidable, senseless cruelty as an objective in a future EU
Constitution :
<A
HREF="http://animals-constitution.info/">http://animals-constitution.info/</A>

The European Convention is a body preparing the draft of a future EU
Constitution. It consists of 15 representatives of the heads of state or
government of the EU member states, 30 representatives of the national
parliaments, 16 members of the European Parliament and 2 representatives of
the European Commission, amongst others (<A
HREF="http://european-convention.eu.int/">www.european-convention.eu.int/</A>

First of all.. No One in the UK should consider giving up their own legal system.. It would be a disaster.. Why trade the Anglo Saxon systems which are the best guarantee of Individual liberty, for something inferior..

Our problems are to stop government from taking away our natural rights, As we following the FMD disaster.. and the action by our govs.. effectively sidestepping parliament via "administrative rulemaking" should know only too well...

Canada.. already screwed up.. via Trudeau "repatriating" the constitution.. Don't make the same mistake we did..

Tribute to Trudeau
The deception, imposed upon a nominally free people, changed Canada’s system of government from its foundation in the evolutionary common law, in which individuals exercised their inherent freedom to abstain from doing what the law prohibited, to a system where their "Rights" and "Freedoms" were no longer inherent; they were written down and "Guaranteed" by the state, that is, they were vulnerable to whatever meaning the state or its courts decided to give them." (p. 49)
The Canadian people were stripped of the one and only absolutely benign and dependable system for the protection of individual freedom in the world the British common law. In its place Trudeau gave to the people the French kind of constitution, which submits the interpretation of a set of enumerated individual rights to the pleasure of a group of judges who are unelected and who are accountable to no one. Furthermore, this colossal constitutional change was implemented without consulting the citizens by referendum, as they rightly should have been consulted. It was a robbery of precious rights, and the people cherish Pierre Elliott Trudeau for being the robber. Some things
truly are beyond human understanding! http://www.interlog.com/~girbe/Trudeau.html

US Declaration
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness-- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it

Winston Churchill.. Sinews of Peace

“But we must never cease to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man which are the joint inheritance of the English-speaking world and which through Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, and the English common law find their most famous expression in the American Declaration of Independence.
All this means that the people of any country have the right, and should have the power by constitutional action, by free unfettered elections, with secret ballot, to choose or change the character or form of government under which they dwell; that freedom of speech and thought should reign; that courts of justice, independent of the executive, unbiased by any party, should administer laws which have received the broad assent of large majorities or are consecrated by time and custom. Here are the title deeds of freedom which should lie in every cottage home. Here is the message of the British and American peoples to mankind. Let us preach what we practice
– let us practice – what we preach.
I have now stated the two great dangers which menace the homes of the people: War and Tyranny
http://www.townhall.com/documents/sinews.html

Giving rights to animals is a slippery slope... Animal (or plant ) Rights is not some warm fuzzy elevating of status of non-human lifeforms.. It means than Human life has no more value than any other lifeform..

Something i should be at pain to point out.. You should always look at what the radical leaders say.. After all.. the leaders are just that.. and if you cannot gain control of a movement.. and change it's orientation.. then one is a follower.. and will inevitably be drawn.. along step by step..(a La Fabian Socialist approach to implementing change) behind the radical idea.. unless one makes a clean break..

Concern about "animal welfare"... is no reason to try to enshrine "rights" in a constitution.. unless you wanta go the slippery slope..

And even if you think you are only dealing with "welfare" it's stillsubject to the future change in a legal definition of "welfare".. After all.. the AR radicals already believe that owning animals is slavery..
And that is was no worse to kill Jews in concentration camps than to kill chickens for food..
http://www.johnandkenshow.com/audio/
http://www.arborwood.com/awforums/show-topic-1.php?start=1&fid=7575&taid=8&topid=870#5

You can deal with any legitimate "welfare" issue.. outside a constitution..

So what do the AR leaders say?? And what are "rights" and from whence do they derive.. For example, under the US constitution.. rights are inalienable.. and natural rights.. and come from God.. Which means no stupid government is entitled to take them away..
The US bill of rights was intended to preclude governments from taking them away..

United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Defender or Destroyer of Unalienable Rights?

But then the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Bill of Rights are not comparable. The fundamental difference arises from the concept of rights. The Bill of Rights recognizes natural rights, that is, that which inherently belongs to every person simply by virtue of having been born (e.g., the unfettered right to speak, assemble, defend oneself) The drafters of the UDHR on the other rejected natural rights in favor of "human rights" and (non-existent) "non-human rights." This perversion is in accordance with the views of Julian Huxley, the Director-General of the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organizationat the time the UDHR was being drafted. (Huxley later became Sir Julian, definitely not one of the "common people".) A founder of the British Flora and Fauna Society and an advocate of euthanasia Huxley approved of plants and animals but detested humanity. ("Mankind is the greatest blight on the face of the earth," is how INGRID NEWKIRK, a Huxley disciple and director of an American animal rights group, puts it.)
The UDHR of course deals only with "human rights". Huxley's "non-human rights", the "rights" of plants and animals, are advocated in other UN publications such as the 1994 book Our Global Neighborhood, the UN's tyrannical plan for "global governance." Unfortunately for people Our Global Neighborhood declares that "respect for life", a code name for plant and animal rights, has in effect supplanted "human rights." "Respect for life" is the view that mankind is just another lifeform not even necessarily on a par with plant or animal lifeforms. When necessary -- the UN and its accredited non-government organizations will decide what is necessary -- mankind must yield to the "rights" of plants and animals such as Torrey's mountain mint and the bog turtle. So much for the UDHR as protector of "human rights."
http://www.committee.org/NJcos/njcos08.htm

EUGENICS: THE DISTILLED ESSENCE OF THE ANTI-LIFE MENTALITY

Introduction. Despite all of the posturing and lofty theorizing of the eugenicists, there stands one immutable, diamond-hard fact: We must not, we <cannot>, dispose of human life if it is perceived as valuable and sacred. The eugenicists know that, once the connection between God and man is severed, man is no more than a product of the evolutionary chain, and is just another animal to be bred, aborted, neutered, or 'put to sleep' for the general good of society. If the eugenicists can successfully convince society in general that "man is just another animal," they have virtually accomplished their ultimate goals. After all, we have no moral or ethical problems with breeding, aborting, and slaughtering animals. If the nature of man as God's greatest creation is generally denied, then we truly <are> just another species of soulless animal. The practice of eugenics is nothing more than the anti-life mentality put into action. The theory and execution of eugenics-related activities ties all of the anti-life practices together
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLENC/ENCYC105.TXT

Henry Lamb
Unlimited Property Confiscation http://www.ruralcleansing.com/articles/article006.htm

Peter Singer.. is the Godfather of the AR movement..

PETER SINGER LINKS
Peter Singer was born in Melbourne, Australia, in 1946. He is Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values, Princeton University. He has taught at the University of Oxford, New York University, the University of Colorado at Boulder, the University of California at Irvine, and La Trobe University. He is the author of Animal Liberation, first published in 1975, and is
widely credited with triggering the modern animal-rights movement. His Practical Ethics is one of the most widely used texts in applied ethics, and Rethinking Life and Death received the 1995 National Book Council’s Banjo Award for non-fiction. He is the author of the major article on Ethics in the current edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and, with Helga Kuhse, co-editor of the journal Bioethics. Singer and His Critics (edited by Dale Jamieson), a collection of essays focusing on Singer’s work, was published In 1999.
http://www.petersingerlinks.com/

Here for example.. he's saying that, by his reasoning.. it's no worse to sell a child to organ peddlars than for someone to buy an upgraded TV.. I had to run for the Barf Bag..

All of which raises a question: In the end, what is the ethical distinction between a Brazilian who sells a homeless child to organ peddlers and an American who already has a TV and upgrades to a better one — knowing that the money could be donated to an organization that would use it to save the lives of kids in need?
http://www.petersingerlinks.com/solution.htm

Which is it Mr. Singer: Children or Cattle?
Peter Singer managed to anger animal rights activists with a recent article in the New York Times Magazine, "The Singer Solution to World Poverty." With his typical flair for sweeping (and baseless) moral judgments, Singer argued that Americans who do not give at least 20 percent of their income to solve world hunger are morally equivalent to someone who would sell a Brazilian child to be killed for his or her organs (a situation he borrowed from the Brazilian film "Central Station.")
Unfortunately for Singer, he angered some animal rights activists and groups by recommending that people
donate to Oxfam which, all things considered, is probably the best place to donate money if stopping world hunger is where you want to concentrate your charitable giving. The only problem for the animal activists is that Oxfam helps poor people in the developing world buy cattle and other animals for agricultural purposes.
Since Singer is already on record that eating meat is superfluous and therefore equivalent to murder except
in dire emergency situations, his position seems to be that Americans are heartless murderers regardless of what they do. Are we to save a child at the expense of a poor cow? In his book, Animal Liberation, Singer is unwavering in his view that this is unacceptable, especially since animal agriculture is completely unnecessary.
Aside from this there are a couple other problems and inconsistencies with Singer's argument. First, he repeatedly mentions the horrors faced by children in the Third World, which is certainly a legitimate concern. It is surprising that given his well-known views on suffering, that Singer does not simply recommend that Americans underwrite a program to painlessly euthanize children who are probably
going to starve to death or die from malaria anyway. This would probably be less expensive as well as meet Singer's utilitarian criteria of minimizing suffering.
http://www.animalrights.net/articles/1999/000068.html

Euthanasia and Prof. Peter Singer

The flaw in Professor Peter Singer's argument (Herald, September 25) that any resources acquired by individuals in excess of their own basic needs should be contributed to saving destitute children is the assumption that child poverty and misery arise out of nothing with nothing and no-one to blame.
The main moral duty in relation to child poverty and misery rests with those that cause child poverty and misery. It is not charity, love and gentleness after the fact that is primarily called for, but absence of greed, hate and violence before the fact.
The primary moral spin-off from this main moral duty is that the perpetrators of actions that lead to child destitution should be prevented from committing their crimes. The secondary moral spin-off is that poor, miserable children should be helped.
Singer's article tries to put all the responsibility for eradicating child poverty and misery on individuals that through industry and thrift can afford a little or a lot of luxury. He tells them that, really, they should feel guilty and give it all away. This is an unfair argument.
To answer Singer's question of what the ethical distinction is between a Brazilian who sells a homeless child to organ pedlars and an Australian who has a TV and upgrades to a better one: enormous, as long as the upgrade is not funded through involvement in organ peddling. http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/aasi/aasi0261.htm

Note the letter below..first para..

A letter to Peter Singer

Third, Bio-ethics which began in the 1970’s as a way of scrutinising medicine from outside has rapidly become what was described by Professor John Wyatt as "an adventure playground for philosophers" and a field of theory and speculation where medicine itself is marginalised and bio-ethics been hi-jacked by philosophers, ethicists, lawyers and even journalists. Clinicians are no longer involved. However , the debate on medical ethics cannot take place in a forum far removed from clinical practice. Either bio-ethics should move to the medical schools or clinicians and medical scientists should be part of the faculty of any academic department of medical ethics. Singer is not the right man for the job .

Fifth I know that Singer would claim that he is not proselytising that all severely handicapped infants should be automatically killed,or that euthanasia is a good thing. He is "only" saying that such an action is justifiable and he gives other instances when he is not inciting actions, simply condoning them.However by this acquiescence, it is then possible for legislators and medical practitioners to cite Singer to justify their actions. There is a difference between freedom of speech which of course should be part of any academic debate, and applying these opinions to real life situations. Would Princeton be willing to countenance the dissemination of a view in its African Studies programme that apartheid was justified on utilitarian grounds and benefited the economy of South Africa? .
sixth The following arguments are to do with Singer’s views on infanticide. One flippant comment that could be made is that one of Singer’s arguments `is about a utilitarianism which ranks human beings as to their usefulness to society- a disabled infant being bottom of the heap. This would, taken to its logical conclusion , rank a fisherman, a fire-fighter or a factory worker of far greater utility to society than a professor of bioethics. http://caslater.freeservers.com/singer.htm

Peter Singer Medical Ethics
While Europe Slept
History’s clock turns full circle
The holocaust and the horrific 1939–45 World War had small beginnings. The Nazis talked such absurdities that few thoughtful people took them seriously. Common wisdom reasoned that the Nazis could serve a useful purpose: let them take out the Communists and then we’ll take care of them. But while Europe slept the Nazis transformed themselves from a crazy gang into an all-but-unstoppable juggernaut.
This is why we cannot view the growing demand in Western culture for genetic selection and euthanasia as straws in the wind. Parallel to events like the legalisation of euthanasia in Belgium and the Netherlands, is a highly significant philosophic paradigm shift that threatens to break us from our ethical moorings. Peter Singer, past editor of the Bioethics Journal, and one of the most influential thinkers in bioethics is on record as saying: ‘We can no longer base our ethics on the idea that human beings are a special form of creation made in the image of God…’.
1.
Failure to value the human person as bearer of the Creator’s mark could easily propel us onto a slippery slope towards a replay of events in Germany in the 1930s. Dr Leo Alexander, a psychiatrist in the Office of the Chief Counsel for War Crimes at Nuremberg, traced the process: ‘The beginnings at first were merely a subtle shift in emphasis in the basic attitude of the physicians. It started with an attitude, basic in the euthanasia movement that there is such a thing as a life not worthy to be lived. This attitude in its early stages concerned itself merely with the severely but chronically sick. Gradually the sphere of those to be included in this category was enlarged to encompass the socially unproductive, the ideologically unwanted, the racially unwanted …’.
2.
There are similarities between Germany in the 1930s and the direction of medicine today. Most worrying is removal of the Christian ethic of the strong laying down their lives for the weak (Romans 5:6) and support for a form of Darwinism that sees no problem about the weak being sacrificed for the strong.
http://www.cmf.org.uk/helix/sum01/helix_16.pdf

Originally from: mona parr
                        
I put this forward for consideration as during FMD animals and their owners lost any 'rights' they thought they had.
I certainly thought at the start that my animals were safe as long as they stayed healthy--not so.
Some EU countries had access to vaccination--why not all.
If vaccination to live, was written in the Constitution would we not all sleep easier.

Why are we hauling live slaughter animals hundreds of miles (up to 1500 miles) to their deaths?
The plight of horses from Eastern Europe travelling to Italy without partitions still goes on despite the work of charities like ILPH and VIVA. Why is Halal slaughter allowed?
Why when cruelty cases are proven in the court do magistrates sometimes allow the animals to be returned to the owner?
Horses have been dying this spring of EHV 1 the paralytic form of equine herpes--not a notifiable disease so DEFRA has given no advice, no recommendations, no travel restrictions, no help in tracing how it has spread. A number of livery stables and horse owners have had weeks of worry--although perhaps relieved that DEFRA did not come in and recommend culling to prevent further spread.

The way a country treats its animals and children is a reflection on its people.
Many children saw the full horrors of FMD and lost their pets, I wonder at the effect on them in years to come.

We have seen what happens when one country allows a treatment/euthanasia and another doesnt--people of determination just move countries. Is it so wrong to have basic legislation Europe wide.
Mona
                        

Originally from: brentns
                        
Mona..

My appologies.. I write very directly.. and my intention was not to attack you personally.. But to skewer the idea...

I hadn't paid attention.. if it had been suggested before..

It's a terrible idea to get anything related to Animals like that in a constitution..for all the reasons I've stated..
It will hand, game set and match to the AR radicals.. It is exactly what they want..Rights for animals.. And AR really means dehumanizing humans

We're gonna lose most domestic animals eventually.... It won't happen right away.. but that's clearly the course.. The AR agenda i consider just part of the government sanctioned social engineering effort. AR radicals believe owning domestic animals is slavery and putting anti-human, animal rights in a constitution greatly advances the agenda..
It will guarantee that we lose animals all the sooner..
And it doesn't matter if one thinks one is only putting "welfare" issues in the constitution..because they'll keep chipping away "redefining" "welfare".. they'll say..surely keeping animals in slavery cannot constitute good welfare after all..
Notice that quote and what she stands for..That straight AR radical stuff.

The problems of FMD have been with your own government.. And were not constitutional issues. The problems of an out of control government are not solved .. by having a bigger government , for example the EU..with a type of constitution that even further limits liberty, in fact doesn't recognize "natural" rights..

If they really wanted to fix the problem, and i suggested this earlier.. The UK gov should have allowed each farmer to decide for themselves whether to vaccinate.. That would've been a lot more empowering.. and they could've done it this time..
Nothing to do with a constitution.. In fact.. If Ben Gill hadn't been such an obstacle to vaccination.. and had he been in favor.. the government couldn't have used (however inappropriately) his position as an excuse.. And was the NFU a legitimate representative of UK farmers anyway??
What real right did Gill have to speak for individual farmers??
Maybe a best approach in retrospect would've been for farmers to rise in anger and impeach Ben Gill..

Think of it this way.. if your local county or council or whatever.. were a sovereign country..you would have much more direct input.. into issues.. The bigger the government,the less input you have..

For now.. the EU seemed like the good cop (wrt FMD).. to the UK government bad cop.. However.. as i recall, our good friend Chris Booker or Richard North.. revealed that actually the EU was already responsible for ensuring the UK had an up to date emergency policy.. So in that event . they had responsibility and let us down badly..

Part of the process, that they are trying to use,is to "validate" the EU in the UK citizens eyes..So the EU investigation offered a sympathetic ear..(but no tangible action)wrt FMD..

But later.. if the UK succumbs fully to the EU.. You will be faced with an even worse problem with less input..

And the proof of that is all the countless other EU regs.. . that the UK gov.. even now, insists they have to impose.. to comply with EU requirements...

A more distant.. and less accountable government is not what you want.. I know how sorely tempting it may seem at this stage.. to grasp for "salvation" to a "higher authority" when your own government has abused you so badly..But it's the wrong thing to do.

The real solution is to hold the UK government/others to account..
If we cannot easily do that.. Think how much harder it will be in the future to hold the fascist/soviet EU to account..

All the issues you cite are welfare issues.. Those that occur outside the UK.. have nothing to do with the UK.. except as they affect conditions of trade..

Allowing the freedom to be different.. is exactly the advantage of having separate countries.. being anti-EU is being Pro-European..as far as I'm concerned..

There is no reason to want one constitution.. in the first place.. but if other countries in Europe wanted a better system than their own.. surely they are free to adopt the Anglo-Saxon model.. It's by far the best system we had so far to guarantee "individual" freedom

But in any event, one should not put any animal issue within a constitution..for the reasons I've given..

Here's the process they use on us to try to condition us to implement the change they want..
Hegelian Principle
http://www.learn-usa.com/er011.htm

Government created the problem.. and their Synthesis in this case, is to greatly increase government power and control.. (like the AHB).. sigh.. And to hand over more power to Brussels..

And that's also what suggestion wrt the EU constitution would do..only worse..

Getting people to look to the EU for "validation".. would be one of the desired outcomes of the gov bungling of FMD.. And putting AR in a proposed EU constition would be an desired outcome of the AR's..

But wouldn't it just be simpler.. and more freedom to just let farmers decide for themselves whether or not to vaccinate.
If you don't and you lose your animals.no compensation.. free to choose and easy to implement.. and we could've done it this time..

No constitutional amendment is needed or desireable..Very much the opposite for the reasons I've given

When government is the problem.. bigger government isn't the solution.. Less government, and accountable government is.. (if we can only get it)

All the Best
brent

From: ...
Reply-To: ...
To: ...
Subject: [farmtalking] Petition to include animal protection in EU
Constitution
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 07:36:20 EDT

I put this forward for consideration as during FMD animals and their owners
lost any 'rights' they thought they had.

It was a shock to all the good folks who were hurt by the action of this government.. I know..

I certainly thought at the start that my animals were safe as long as they
stayed healthy--not so.

I'm sorry that it occurred..

Some EU countries had access to vaccination--why not all.

As above.. nothing precluded the UK government from vaccination.. they were allowed to as i understand.. They just decided that they didn't want to and gave various excuses..
For the UK government to claim it was just a bit of muddle.. just could never wash for me..After all, they took decisions.. What are they supposed to claim.. that the decisions they in fact took were inadvertant?? Of course not.. that's ridiculous..
I cannot overlook, that cutting back farming in the UK was in accordance with their long term goals... But the way they did it, abusing people so.. was just abhorent to me..

If vaccination to live, was written in the Constitution would we not all
sleep easier.

I know .. but you will never get such a narrow definition in a constitution.. And putting any "animal" related issues in an EU constitution will simply guarantee that the AR radicals agenda is implemented.. and sooner than otherwise.. It will greatly empower the AR's.. and disempower animal owners.. That would be the result..

Why are we hauling live slaughter animals hundreds of miles (up to 1500
miles) to their deaths?

Didn't EU regs gold plated by London do this?? vet inspections etc hurt cost structure of small abbatoirs

The plight of horses from Eastern Europe travelling to Italy without
partitions still goes on despite the work of charities like ILPH and VIVA.

This would be a welfare issue..

I'm not familiar with ILPH.. But remember, just as you may feel this doesn't meet good welfare standards, and i may agree.. AR feel that ownership of animals is slavery.. So if you want to legislatee.. be aware that there are others who want to legislate all ownership of animals away from you..And will do so if given an opening..

I briefly looked at the Viva site.. Viva IMO, is an AR/Eco organization although they don't acknowledge it.. They are trying to link vegetarianism to AR.. But i was vegetarian for a short time.. and never would have proseletysed AR.. I was not veg because of concern for animals but because i thought at the time it was a healthier choice..
I'm strongly in favour of what i consider, good animal welfare, for the record..

Why is Halal slaughter allowed?

Freedom of religion for now.. but i would expect this to come under pressure eventually

Why when cruelty cases are proven in the court do magistrates sometimes
allow
the animals to be returned to the owner?

i cannot comment .. i don't know any details..

Horses have been dying this spring of EHV 1 the paralytic form of equine
herpes--not a notifiable disease so DEFRA has given no advice, no
recommendations, no travel restrictions, no help in tracing how it has
spread. A number of livery stables and horse owners have had weeks of
worry--although perhaps relieved that DEFRA did not come in and recommend
culling to prevent further spread.

I understand the concern..and sad to say i think they are not unjustified in being worried about the political aspects..
I tried to warn of some of my concerns previously.. http://www.warmwell.com/brentmar15.html

The gov wouldn't have implemented the AHB.. unless they were going to use it..At some point i'm sure they will..
Whether they would in this case i've no idea..

I've no knowledge at all about the disease.. It does sound like something for which tracing and travel restriction would help..
However this could be handled in a traditional disease management system.. if Defra could be trusted to act ethically.. as we decent folks understand the term.. But we know they, and this governemnt cannot be trusted.. Unfortunately.. this still cannot be remedied, to look to the EU for hope.. What really needs to happen is to hold the miscreants to account..

The way a country treats its animals and children is a reflection on its
people.
Many children saw the full horrors of FMD and lost their pets, I wonder at
the effect on them in years to come.

Yes.. it's a valid concern.. the government was brutal..

We have seen what happens when one country allows a treatment/euthanasia
and
another doesnt--people of determination just move countries.

The intent of all the new so called "bio-ethical" and other values.. is that they eventually be mandated everywhere..(they will replace for example the Christian based values of the west)..
So if you want the freedom to differ from some of these new values.. and want to be able to live in a society with your own values.. You've just pointed out exactly why it's a good idea to fight to retain sovereignty.. For example.. If the utilitarian Singer gets his way.. selling children for body parts could well be condoned.. Singer calls himself an utilitarian.. and that's an example of his thinking.. commodifying , "dehumanizing" humans..

 Is it so wrong

to have basic legislation Europe wide.

If that would force everyone to conform to the same values, contrary to the deeply held beliefs of some.. I would say yes.
For instance , why would anyone in the UK want to give up their form of government which has been the best guarantee of individual freedom, and adopt the Collectivist models..which have a consistent record of failure The bigger the grouping of people, the more likely you will have large minorities permanently disaffected from federal power..That is not healthy.. For example..right now, even in the UK, there's a major propanganda campaign demonizing farmers, animal owners and the countryside.. Has this been healthy?? Why does the Countryside Alliance exist??.. because people are disaffected from, and being disenfranchised by, the power center.. The bigger the federal state.. the worse the alienation from the center.. and the more likely one will have a draconian police state to keep "order".. You're also assuming that you get laws.. with which YOU concur.. that's not a good assumption.. The AR's don't agree with owning animals for instance..and they will win if one gives them the legislation with which they can bludgeon you..

The Utopian dreams turn sour when confronted with reality.. Russia had lots of major ethnic groups.. crammed together for a long time under their utopian Soviet..
Someday Turkey wants to be an EU member.. And i think the EU is working preparatory deals for North Africa.. and Egypt and possibly a good part of the Middle East eventually..
Can all these people be happy with for example Dutch Liberal values.. Were the Dutch happy with Muslim values.. Seems not judging by the rise of Pim Fortuyn's party.. The Fellow who was unfortuneately murdered..

I believe that all of mankind should share some core values.. but i would keep it to very few..
I'm not in favour of enforcing a comprehensive set of global values on everyone.. a la agenda 21, one world (pagan) religion etc
They talk about tolerance and diversity, but seek to eliminate it..

Originally from: Hilary Peters
                        
Dear Brent,
Thanks for www.learn.usa.com Yes. I've seen it happening.

I absolutely agree that what we need is less government. The question is how to get it in our intensely politicised world.
The great advantage of big governments far away is they don't have much control over the outlying regions of their empires. Eg the Roman Empire, The Soviet Union. Apparently you could lead a relatively free life far from the centre.

All the best,
Hilary

Originally from: Joyce
                        
Hilary...

"Apparently you could lead a relatively free life far from the centre."

Possibly – if one could get rid of all the little local 'jobsworths'.
J

Originally from: Farmtalking
                        
I think this thread raises a few very interesting thoughts that are really based on facts gleaned over a crazy lifetime!

Like most decent human beings Mona and Brent, and indeed as far as I can judge, most of the contributors to this list, are people who care for both human and animal life.

They are also law-abiding citizens who obey the rules and on the whole would not choose to 'rock the boat'. Fortunately most of the population of the world tend the think and act in the same way. Such thinking and acting allows those in power to frequently impose unreasonable or even silly rules!

Now and again some of us do seek to rock the boat, to gain power/control for our own reasons, purely for personal gain or because we seek justice.

I would place Saddam Hussein in the former Group, albeit aided and abetted by his friends in the West, because we should not forget that he started out as a member of the justice-seeking group and for that reason we were pleased to count him among our friends at the time!

So often, as Brent indicates, what is done with the best of intentions initially, can so easily evolve into unbelievable horror – consider the 1947 British Mandate in Palestine and the Northern Ireland Issue to name just two more instances!

It seems we tend to have very short memories, especially when we are in a position of power, reacting to events at the time they occur, rather than stopping to think and ask 'Has this happened before?' and learning from past mistakes.

Early in 2001, there were quite a few people who drew the Govt's attention to the Northumberland report, Pen-side testing and the efficacious vaccine available, but they were all ignored and all sorts of excuses for doing so continue to be given by Government. They maintain the firm belief that because they are 'in charge and in power' their decisions are the right ones.

Because the majority of farmers are, as I said, 'law-abiding decent people' they do as they are told. Of course, they moan about it but that is about all they do, they still comply. For a current example take 'on farm burials'. I have yet to meet a farmer who thinks the banning of fallen stock disposal in this manner is a good idea. Not only from a personal point of view, as it's going to cost them money, but also from an environmental one. However, apart from Joyce, I've yet to hear of farmers who are refusing to comply! At the same time I have noticed that one or two have stood up to DEFRA over certain other issues and have won their case. I hope Joyce will be equally successful if she continues to defy the ban if it is extended to cover the islands!

Farmers, like most people, get on with the job and left to make their own decisions, the majority may make a few mistakes but on the whole are successful and have been so for many years. They adapt to the circumstances including regulations. Who knows, maybe the banning of on-farm burials will be seen as an excellent idea in years to come.

For most farmers animal welfare has a high priority and they are as distressed as the rest of us when they hear of cruelty and neglect. Therefore the idea that animal welfare should be given legal status throughout the EU seems like a good idea to us all until we take time to consider the implications. Is Brent right? If he is it’s a very frightening scenario.

During FMD we were told that the slaughter of the animals was for the control of the disease and their 'welfare' and 'ours'. Not many members of this Group agreed at the time and still don't! Even more farmers I've spoken to, whether affected by FMD or not, now consider it was the wrong way to go about it. The welfare of the animals, British Agriculture and many citizens so badly affected, would, I believe, have been far better served by choosing an alternative, compassionate option, however difficult that might have been. It seems the Inquiries thought so too but does the Government? No! Is this just a tiny example of what might happen in future if animals welfare rights are introduced?

Messers Bush and Blair took the decision not to obtain a UN Security Council's sanction to go to war in Iraq believing that the slaughter of innocents – among whom I would include members of their armed forces – was for the welfare of the Iraqi's and the world in general. I have to wonder how many of the relatives of those lost and the injured would agree and with hindsight will any of us? I suppose their making this decision and ignoring the UN was certainly one way in which they've' rocked the boat' but was it right to do so?

I would hate everyone to think I'm electioneering but there is no doubt that the coming UK elections will reflect the general opinion and if we don't like what the Government is doing we should say so and perhaps not vote for them even if their representative on the local council seems to be doing a good job!

I know it is so much easier to keep one's head down and get on with your life making sure you're not 'rocking the boat'. I know only too well that if you raise you head above the gunnels you'll almost certainly get shot and injured as well as having to cope with a rocking boat which certainly makes you feel very sick!

Is worth it?

I guess that sometimes it is!

Jane