A slight pause in my animal welfare work - and an important message.

At the risk of making you think this blog about animal welfare and justice is a mere vanity project, I need to take a little excursus from the normal animal welfare topic and tell you about the journey I am going through at the moment, as I feel there is an important message for others and also to help me a little. I have had to step away from the animal welfare work for a short time, so in a way, this is me explaining why. I want it to be heartfelt, and honest. I will swear, I will make light of things and I will be serious. Unfortunately, there's a lot to say, so if you want to read it all, you might want to do it in more than one go.

On New Year’s Eve, although I didn’t realise it, life was about to change completely. The biology was already happening but my focus on it changed that day and it was, in the grand scheme of things, a turning point. I had noticed something strange about my body and whilst it was out of the ordinary, there was no lump. So I had done the typical Gavin thing and filed the problem for dealing with later.

I am not shy or prudish about this and will share completely. One testicle was firm. And I mean firm. Like a marble.

But there was no lump.

It was a while before I had decided to do anything and it was New Year’s Eve that I asked my partner what he thought. No, it hadn’t come up in conversation before, and it hadn’t been noticed by him as it isn’t something that you would notice if you weren’t looking for it. I wasn’t imagining it. He confirmed that it was not normal and that I should go to a doctor. My heart sank. He asked me how long it had been like this. My heart sank further, because I didn’t know, but knew enough to say it was a long time.

Being New Year’s Eve the doctor was unavailable until 4^th January. So I called, but didn’t really know what options to select. Was I urgent? Routine? I went with routine. I explained what I had noticed and was told an appointment wasn’t available for two weeks. Then a pause. ‘What did you say it was again?’ The tone of the call changed. Turns out I wasn’t routine. I was urgent. In fact it was so urgent that I had to speak with a doctor that day. They would call me that afternoon. I got off the phone and burst into tears. This didn’t sound good. My partner was at work and I was home alone. Panic set in. What I didn’t know was just how awful those feelings of panic would become over the coming weeks.

So I spoke to the doctor. She was perplexed by the symptom I described and asked about other symptoms. She was quite interested in my neck pain that has caused me problems for a while. She wanted to know how long. Months. I hadn’t got it sorted. Had I lost weight? I knew the reason she was asking all these questions. I felt good that I was putting weight on, not losing it. Never had I been so pleased to be overweight!

But there was no lump.

She said I clearly had to have a physical examination. In the circumstances it would normally be on the same day. My heart sank again. Fuck. I have had this for months. They are acting on the same day. What the Hell have I done by not going sooner? Due to how busy they were they couldn’t see me until the next day. Would a female doctor be ok? I wouldn’t worry about that anyway but now especially, I couldn’t care who did it. I just wanted it done.

Next day I went. Never before have I prepared myself for a woman in that area! Well, I know things get sweaty especially with stress, so I had to laugh at myself when I ensured it would be as pleasant experience for her as it could be. The first time I was tidying up for a woman, and quite possibly depending on how things went not the last. Genuinely, I found it amusing. And worrying at the same time. The doctor made me very comfortable and appreciated it might be weird for me and how I could preserve my modesty as much as possible. I told her I wasn’t at all bothered by that. So she examined me and would have to refer me for cancer but she thought it was infection. The fact the whole testicle was hard was unusual, I don’t think she thought it was cancer as a result. A glimmer of hope! That’s why I hadn’t done anything! There was no lump and it seemed to me the doctor felt (literally) it was not the normal presentation.

But I would be seen within two weeks. That was I would be scanned and consulted. It was all moving so fast, it was now only the 5^th January. I got a call later that day. My ultrasound was the next day. I was happy with this, as it meant we could rule out cancer quickly. I had the ultrasound the next day, and as we discussed it, the sonographer was perplexed by my suggestion that it was the whole testicle that was hard, like it was something she had never heard of before. She did the scan and as poker faced as she was, something wasn’t right. She said my GP would contact me within a few days, probably mid-week the week after. I went to work the next day with a lot of worry but I tried to carry on as normal. My phone went, I was hoping it was the GP to tell me all was ok. But it was the hospital to book me in with a consultant. Now this wasn’t unusual, I knew that I had to see a consultant. It was booked for the following Friday. I asked if I would still hear from my GP, but she said it was unlikely, that the appointment was to discuss the results and what happens next. What happens next. That phrase was like a bullet. I couldn’t work that day, I went home. And so began one of the worst weeks of my life, waiting to hear the results.

Of course the main thought was “is that it then?”. I thought that maybe I wouldn’t see the year out and be gone before Christmas. I had just had a nice long Christmas break, and it was nice to spend some time at home. Maybe I wouldn’t get that again. I remembered silly things. In December, whilst Christmas shopping with a friend, something we do every year and have done for nearly 20 years, we had lunch as we always do, and I said to her that if I wasn’t here next year that she should still do this. It was a joke. We joke about how time goes by and how we get old. But those words came back to me and were like a knife to the chest. Then there was New Year’s Day, putting away the Christmas decorations. Me and my other half had a very minor disagreement about how to put the lights away. For some reason I had thought about how if I wasn’t here when they were unpacked how it would be a horrible thing for him to remember and felt bad. By then I was already worried about the situation so I suppose that is where it came from, but nevertheless it was a heartbreaking thing to recall then.

What would our dog think when I suddenly wasn’t there any more? How would my family cope? What about all the things I still had to learn, as a physicist there is still so much to learn about the Universe. What about all the places we like to go on holiday. How many will I get to see again?

What about the charity? What about all the other animals I wanted to help? There were still too many things I had to do. Dying is not an option.

I hadn’t at this stage told my mother. I couldn’t. The waiting was killing me, it would destroy her. She had to know only when I knew. My step-father had only just been in hospital after a fall. I hadn’t seen him. I had to go round, but I knew it would be difficult for me not to say anything. I managed it though.

I returned to work. It was really tough, although the teaching took my mind off things for a while. I hadn’t discussed it with the students. I had only told a very few people who needed to know. As the time went on I convinced myself it was just an infection. It had started to hurt more. But my chest had started to get tight. I was getting pains elsewhere too. The anxiety was getting to me.

Other strange thoughts came to me too. For instance, as I joked, it would be embarrassing if it wasn’t cancer, all the fuss I was making. Then I felt bad to think such a thing. I had to be strong, but was struggling, and I wondered if I was being weak. Others deal with this, others actually have cancer and deal with it. I didn’t even know what was wrong.

It was cancer.

The appointment with the consultant came around. I was very calm that morning. Of course worried, but strangely calm too. The news was quick. Blood test results were fine. But there were the ultrasound results. I did have cancer. It had been in me for a while.

Fuck.

I cannot describe how it feels to be told that. We surely all know someone who has had it. We’ve seen it. We think we know how it would feel. It isn’t like you imagine at all. I didn’t cry when he told me. I knew what it was now. There was no anxious wait. I was on autopilot. I had to get through the appointment. I was lucky though, because he could put my mind at rest.

He had never had anyone die from this. If he had to have cancer, this is the cancer he would choose. I laughed at this. Nor sure he did, but I found it funny. I asked, as I have had it a long time, what if it has spread? He told me the prognosis wouldn’t change, I would be fine. We discussed my chest pains, but he said I didn’t look ill and he didn’t think it had spread. He was referring me for a full body CT scan and surgery within one to two weeks. After he had finished this consultation I went with the nurse to talk further.

I got in the room with her and burst into tears. At that point it hit me, but she reassured me. She said it was hard to receive that news, but that I should know I was not going to die. After chatting, I had to go to the main hospital building for a preassessment for surgery. I couldn’t believe how quickly it was happening. I had to wait to be taken over to the hospital. I had just one or two minutes to tell my partner and best friend it was cancer. I had to do it by WhatsApp message. I knew they would want to know and I didn’t know how long I was going to be.

Whilst waiting for my preassessment it hit me hard. The tears just would not stop. I couldn’t believe it. I had cancer. I never thought it would happen to me. We know just how common it is, yet nothing had every prepared me for receiving that news. That is why I wanted to share this. What you get in a quick advert is not enough. It is so much more complex than that.

I got back home and had a Bailey’s coffee. And then a beer. There was still something bad that had to be done. I had to tell my mum.

She took it ok, I did tell her as quickly as I could that I would be fine, and all the positive things the consultant and nurse had said. She was upset of course. But she has shown strength in this. My closest family and friends have been amazing. Work has been amazing.

More people had to be told. It was time to tell my students, they had a right to know. I had to tell some more friends who also had a right to know. It was strange. That phrase. “I have cancer”.

The pains in my chest and tummy were always there now and they were getting worrying. I had a tumour marker blood test on that day I was told I had cancer. Being a Friday I had to wait until the Monday for the results. It was agonising, but they were fine. The chest and tummy pains got much better almost immediately. However, only a CT scan would be conclusive. That was booked in for the following Friday. Potentially another wait over a weekend.

I had the CT scan, and the results were available that afternoon. After catching a glimpse of my scan with some worrying dark blobs in my tummy area, I was told they were clear. It hadn’t spread. Next thing was the surgery.

It is booked for 4^th February. The cancer will need to be analysed to see what treatment I might need going forward.

Once I had the CT scan results it was time for me to tell everyone. I didn’t want to hide this. I wanted to tell people to check themselves. It isn’t always a lump. It is sometimes not what you would expect. And it isn’t necessarily terrible. The support I have received from friends on Facebook has been immense. I have received all kinds of support on Twitter from strangers, both public comments and private messages, people sharing their experiences, or just offering their support. Perhaps one of the nicest messages was from a friend on Facebook. She had been diagnosed with cancer on Christmas Eve, and had only told close family and friends, but seeing my post had encouraged her to share her news, to get people checking themselves. I haven’t seen her for ten years, but instantly I felt a connection with her. We are not alone in this, we all have others to support us, and we have an important message. Check yourself and get emotional support from others. I look forward to celebrating with her when we can both say we beat cancer.

And we will.

Check yourselves. Find out what to look for. There isn’t always a lump. I am so thankful that I mentioned it to my other half. If I hadn’t would I still be ignoring it? What would have happened if I had continued to ignore it? I think it is not too melodramatic to say he has saved my life.

 

 

The Flaws in the Reasoning Around the Afghanistan Evacuation

 

Please note this was written before the Nowzad rescue had been achieved.

 

Anyone who has watched Sophie’s Choice will have come face to face with the idea of a gut wrenching impossible decision to choose between two options where no choice should ever exist.

How could a mother choose between two children?

Yet choose she must. No one would deny that she, or any real person in her position, whether in Nazi Germany or in the modern world, would have more love for one child than another. No one would question the fact that both children had the right to life as any less viable a truth than the fact that one of them was destined to die nevertheless.

Consider Re A (Conjoined Twins) [2001] 2 WLR 480. No one would seriously suggest that one of those twins had any less right to live than the other. Yet a decision had to be made that would lead inevitably to the death of one of them, to avoid the death of them both.

When choices must be made, there is no reason to believe that it is anything to do with the rights of one being somehow more valid than the rights of the other, albeit there are many cases where this is the rationale that face courts every day.

The country is gripped by the story of Pen Farthing and the Nowzad Team who are trying to escape Afghanistan. The arguments for and against the evacuation of the rescue animals have taken a staggering variety of approaches. One persistent theme is the claim that animals’ lives mean less than humans’; that when the choice comes, a human life should be saved over an animal. My argument here is that those two statements are not inseparable, that you do not need to have both of these opinions, or both of their opposites.

Some of the online arguments have caused those who don’t want the animals rescued posing the hypothetical question to those that do, whether they would be happy to rescue a dog over their own child? Let me be clear, I want those animals rescued, but I will answer those critics of such an opinion that pose this question.

If I had the choice to rescue my dog or my partner (I don’t have children but the same would apply) with equal chances of success, my partner would win. I love my dog. I would rescue my dog at a huge risk to my own life, without a shadow of a doubt. If I had to use lethal force to protect him from a crazed criminal, I would like to think I would do what was necessary, albeit facing the full consequences of the law. But to choose between Dexter and my partner, my partner would have to win.

But here’s the thing. Saying that I would rather save my partner than my dog does not mean that I don’t think Dexter has a right to life equal to my partner or myself. The Nowzad debate has gone down the route of: either you want to rescue people, or you think animals should be rescued before people. This is not the case.

Being faced with a difficult choice of who (animal or otherwise) to rescue, does not entail that you have to rescue animals if you believe in the inherent right to life for all life. Many seem to claim that if you believe animals are worthy of rescue, you would automatically rescue them before a human being. That is patently not the truth, any more than Sophie preferred one child over another in order to choose between them, or that the court in Re A could have preferred one child over another for no reason other than personal preference. It is perfectly possible to believe in the right to life for all life, and still make an ethical decision over who to rescue first. The point to this is simple. Just because people want to rescue the dogs and cats of Nowzad, they are not saying animals are more important than people or that they would not prioritise their own human family over their animals. Attacking those people as some kind of deranged individual who thinks too highly of animal life, betrays an argument that basically says:

·        *  If animals and humans equally deserve life

·        *  Then animals can be saved before humans

·        *  I choose to save a human first

·       *   Ergo I don’t think animals deserve life as equally as humans, those that do are bad people.

There is a flaw here. Substitute animals for ‘Sophie’s daughter’ and humans for ‘Sophie’s son’ and you quickly see the flaw.

All life can be equally deserving of life. In the event that a choice must be made, other considerations will come into play, but at no point does that mean we must believe in the lesser rights of some beings. Neither is there any real answer to the question of why an animal should count less than a human. It is an opinion (of some people, not me), not an inherent truth.

If you don’t think we should rescue the Nowzad animals, don’t attack those that do on the grounds of their belief in a right to life for all life. People who believe that, wouldn’t ditch their human family for their dogs, so don’t attack them for such a belief that they do not possess.

The argument is wider. Don’t criticise those who believe in an end to speciesism on the basis that it must mean they would rescue their dog before their child. Any person who rescues their dog before their child, when there was an equal chance of success but when only one could be rescued would be making a highly suspect decision. That does not mean that everyone who wants to see an end to speciesism is suspect. The wish to end speciesism and the choice to save an animal over a human are not synonymous, one is not the prerequisite of the other and they are independent beliefs/choices. I won’t say mutually exclusive, since there will be some who would believe in/do both. But to wholesale rubbish the view that we should end speciesism on that basis is flawed.

So if all life has the right to life, and if that doesn’t change the fact that when choices must be made, one will be saved over another without having to detract from that position, where does that leave us with Nowzad?

Regardless of the respective rights of people and animals, there was never a question of an animal being put in front of a person for space on that plane. So the ethical decision, regardless of your opinion on respective rights, (even if you believe they have equal rights to life and are left with a quandary in a situation of whether to rescue a person or an animal), of choosing between individuals or between humans and animals, quite simply did not exist.

The analogies and examples used in my writing here have centred on what to do when two individuals had an equal chance of being rescued and when only one could be saved. The ethical debate on that only arises when that situation is manifestly before you. That was not the case here.

If the originally chartered plane had been used in line with intent, then animals and people would have been saved. To not use that plane would mean no animals, and no people, would be saved to the same degree as if it had been used. Sure, there were planes rescuing people. That was true irrespective of the privately chartered plane. The additional plane would have offered more seats to more people.

Would the privately chartered plane cost space on another plane? Some argue it is the time to load – staff would have done that. Some argue the take-off slot would have cost another plane. Really? Really, though? How many planes were taking off? What is the flight schedule like at Kabul? What windows between flights are needed at that particular airport? The frequency of flights from places such as Heathrow will give you some idea. Yes, it has more runways. So scale it down. Do the mathematical adjustments demonstrate that the number of flights leaving was commensurate with other airports? I have my opinion, but I won’t share it, as I have absolutely no authority on this. And neither do many of those who brandish their opinions online in sometimes hurtful ways.

I will admit, I do not know the answer to many of these questions. I have some idea about flying a plane. I am working towards a pilot licence. But I do not have the audacity to comment on such things. Do those who criticise the whole Nowzad affair know any more than I do in that respect? Even having experience in the military is not enough to discuss that particular situation. Hardcore researchers find reflexivity difficult, so what can a layperson really add? Sure, trust the MoD to make these decisions. But do not forget that the MoD, as with any other organisation of its ilk, is inherently political. Decisions might seem black and white. Decisions might seem to be the preserve of a single individual whose job it is to make those decisions. It does not mean those decisions are made in an apolitical vacuum. It may be fiction, but if you want to see that in action watch Eye in the Sky.

It was never a case of animals before people. If it was, there would be no need for the continued persistence of the pet rhetoric by the Government. The political use of terminology like ‘rescue animal’ and ‘pet’ is analogous to the political use of ‘migrant’ and ‘refugee’ that we see all the time with reference to Channel crossings. Words are powerful, and are used to the advantage of those using them. Question why anyone should feel the need to do that before you criticise those whose hearts are in the right place.

 

As ever, whilst comments are welcome, please #BeKind. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. No one is entitled to be nasty. I am not in favour of censorship. But spite and hate will be removed.

The Petition Aftermath and the British Journal of Canine Science

Well it has been a crazy few months, the pandemic really threw things out of sync for me as I have had to steer my business around the rocky outcrops of the COVID sea, and adjust to life teaching in  an actual college in Oxford, rather than the private work I had been doing for years. What with that, my PhD work in human rights, and my dabbling in animal rights/welfare, I have had to neglect writing updates for this site. I shall do better.

The dust has now settled following the “debate” for my petition, Replace BSL with a new Statutory Framework. Whilst the fight was always going to be a tough one, there was a little glimmer of hope having spoken with Elliott Colburn MP (he was the one who introduced it). Sadly, and I believe with the sole aim of silencing the campaign, the debate was listed with just over a week’s notice (most MPs don’t get through emails that quickly so would have been unaware of my representations or any emails from those who signed the petition). Only the required attendees were there, i.e. Elliott Colburn on behalf of the Petitions Committee, a spokesperson for the opposition and a spokesperson for DEFRA.

Clearly there was going to be no meaningful discussion. Then again all meaningful discussions previously have failed to get anywhere. The ludicrous issue is, the alternatives to repeal were not even discussed. As Elliott said, they could be effected with secondary legislation, and take no time from the legislative schedule. When the dust has settled a bit more, I will make representations to Lord Goldsmith as appropriate.

So where else do we go from here? You might be interested in Anita’s new petition so do check that out https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/592813. For my part, I am interested in the long anticipated Middlesex University report, which is being peer reviewed. Until I have had sight of that, I feel I should hold my tongue. There are only so many things that can be done in our time on this planet, and so I want to know the Government’s next move  before doing anything that may turn out to be a waste of time. Victoria Prentis (speaking for DEFRA) was a little cryptic in places (although I think we can take for granted that little will change) and sometimes it is impossible to know what is just around the corner.

Once the report is out, another petition may be on the cards but we must also remain mindful that there is no obligation for Parliament to hold a debate on a petition. One of the reasons they refuse to hold a debate is that one has already been held recently.

For more info on the meeting I had with the Petitions Committee, please have a listen to the podcast I present with Hannah B, https://anchor.fm/gavin-ridley.

Well, I must leave further discussion for a new blog entry, so as not to bombard you on this revival. However, I think it worth giving you a sneak preview: there is a new academic journal, literally just born: The British Journal of Canine Science (sorry all those who love the others of our animal friends, something else may be appropriate in the future). The journal is recruiting volunteers for the editorial board, focusing on canine science topics ranging from the evolution of the dog to dog law. Interested parties should email info@britishjournalofcaninescience.co.uk.

One last thing, please do check out the revamped website for the Abused Pet Refuge Project (www.abusedpetrefuge.com).

Next time I will make more effort to get the vegan recipes back on with some plant based food reviews, and will start to look over all the different petitions that are now circulating relating to animal welfare. We will also be looking at some great fund raising ventures being undertaken by Dog Desk Action.

Look after each other, human and non-human animals alike.

Petitions Review, and Sir David's 'Extinction'

 I am sorry for the lack of a blog for so long, I hope to do better! As a key worker, it has been a very very hectic time trying to keep up with the continued changes to COVID restrictions….

There has been a flurry of activity on the petition front lately, with many petitions now doing the rounds. Here is a synopsis of some, my apologies if I have missed any important ones!

Ban Puppy Imports

This one smashed through the 100k target pretty quickly. Created by Lucy Parkinson, and following the tragic death of a puppy imported from Russia in just 6 days. By allowing the importation of puppies, this circumvents the need to inspect a puppies mother at the time of purchase, something which we know is the right thing to do, but is also the Government’s own guidance. By allowing puppies to be imported,  it sends out a very wrong message about the moral and ethical duty we all have to ensure we know the conditions the puppy has been bred and reared in.

Signatures currently at 125052, open until 27^th December 2020, available at https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/326261

 

Bitch Brockering

Now another petition related to puppy breeding, is the petition to “Close loophole allowing licensed dog breeders to broker pregnant bitches”.

Due to a legal loophole, licensed breeders can rotate their breeding bitches so that they can stay within their license but always have pregnant bitches. The claim is that a breeder can produce 5 times as many puppies as their license permits.

This currently waiting for a Government response, having received over 10k signatures. To be fair, the changes needed could be easily achieved by an amendment to the Licensing Regulations, rather than a full on piece of legislation.

You can sign it at https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/330704 It currently has 14675 signatures and is running until 3^rd February 2021. The petition originator is Wendy Embisu Mulela.

 

Sol’s Law

This is a more unusual petition as it relates to an incident where a horse was stabbed multiple times. The attacker was prosecuted for criminal damage and the judge explained they were limited to a maximum custodial sentence of two months. The petition seeks a new offence of attacking an animal which would treat animals as something other than property.

Now I agree animals should not be regarded as property. However we already have an offence of causing unnecessary suffering under the Animal Welfare Act. It is unclear why this was not prosecuted as such, unless they perhaps thought that the sentence could be higher if prosecuted as criminal damage, since animals are property under the law. The sentencing in this case also appears strange. The Sentencing Guidelines are that for damage under £5000 the maximum is 6 months custodial sentence, and for damage exceeding £5000, the maximum is ten years. Where the two month’s maximum came from is unclear.

Of course, prosecutions under the AWA would be a maximum of 6 months, currently, which is why Finn’s Law Part 2 is so important, as this will raise the sentence to 5 years. The Animal Welfare Party seeks to increase sentences to ten years, and I proudly support this as their membership manager.

The petition ran until 4^th September 2020 and attracted almost 2000 signatures. You can see the results here https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/300015

 

Ban the Import of Dogs with Cropped Ears

Ear cropping of dogs has been illegal in the UK for a substantial period of time, but just recently there has been an increase in the number of dogs being brought in to the country with cropped ears. There is no functional purpose for this activity, and it is questionable whether there ever has been. The motivation now appears to be the look of the dog, i.e. fashion. This is a repugnant and completely unacceptable trend. Started by Jordan Shelley, this petition has been going from strength to strength and has received some high profile support.

The petition currently has 15096 signatures and can be found at https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/333456 I urge you to sign it.

There is a worrying trend in Parliament, particularly with the incumbent government, to hold the opinion that things should not be ‘banned’ with comments such as ‘Parliament is not in the habit of banning things’ (in relation to fur imports). Of course we have to remember that Government is not there to restrict behaviour necessarily. As we are our own leaders, legislators and rulers, in accordance with our democracy, if we don’t want a certain behaviour, there is a simple way to achieve it – just don’t import dogs with cropped ears. Or whatever else we are petitioning for. It should not be necessary for a written law detailing it. But the reality doesn’t reflect this. Time and again, Parliament has to legislate against certain behaviour, particularly to protect the vulnerable. When those vulnerable to negative behaviours are animals, Parliament’s response is not so protective as it is with humans. This is speciesism, and it has to end. Nevertheless, where we can’t achieve laws to prevent certain behaviour, it isn’t the end. We simply have to remember that to eradicate the behaviour, you have to stop the people doing it another way. For this, it has to be education, and removing animals from the category of possessions that leads to ‘fashionable’ practices.

 

The Fireworks Petition

We have a new Fireworks petition, and this time the approach is a little different (and I think for the better). This time it includes focus on humans (although it is sad that animal welfare isn’t enough in itself – speciesism at its best) and doesn’t demand a complete ban on fireworks, but a restriction on their use to licensed displays only. The Government has responded already, saying no, as expected.

The petition can be found at https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/319891, and currently has 38881 signatures. It has been started by Julie Doorne.

The major issue with petitions concerning fireworks is that what we are asking for is the balancing of the rights of animals, and some humans who worry for those animals, and the rights of humans who want to use fireworks. Many would argue that they have the right to have fun and use fireworks if they so wish. Of course, as a child I loved them. Some can be impressive. But I can weigh the fun of them against the suffering of an animal and make the right decision. Some do not agree though, and they are entitled to those opinions and to exercise their right to have fireworks whilst the law permits them. Therefore one thing that is important is to educate the public about the effects of fireworks. Certainly in Bournemouth, the amount of fireworks being used at both Bonfire Night and New Year has steadily dropped for the last two years, as it becomes very anti-social to use fireworks. Even if you don’t have pets, and therefore don’t care about their welfare, you almost certainly do have neighbours with pets, who do care. It gets to the stage, I think, when people would weigh the bad feeling of neighbours against their right to have fireworks, and decide against fireworks, even if when weighing the rights of animals against their rights to have fireworks they decided the balance tipped in their favour. When things affect us directly, like the bad feeling of neighbours, we are more likely to make changes. I would like to see warnings on firework packages that the use of fireworks severely affects animals, maybe with a picture, like on cigarette packages. Then for those who feel that you should not impose bans on activities, you aren’t banning people from doing things, but are appealing to their better judgment. I am, though, not saying that this is the best outcome.

 

Now a few comments from elsewhere in the world of animal welfare ethics.

David Attenborough’s Extinction

If you didn’t watch this documentary, then please do so. It was heartbreaking and very worrying. Carrie Symonds response was one of alarm and emotion. One has to wonder how persuasive she is with the PM.

A lot of people will have been naturally concerned by the content of the documentary, but might not really know what they can do to change it all. This is the tragedy of the commons. If everyone else isn’t working to change the world for the better, why should anyone? If you do something good, does it not get swamped by all the bad from others? Can any of us really make a difference? Generally people conclude no, and so fall into the same bad practices, and so the tragedy of the commons is perpetuated. But remember: Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little. (Excuse the patriarchal language, it is a direct quote from Edmund Burke). So for those who don’t know where to start, I am compiling a new book, possibly in the format of a diary, where each day will give you inspiration for doing something little to make a small change. Remember small changes add up. I would love to have ideas for these little things, so do send them to me. I will acknowledge those contributors whose ideas are used in the book!

Going to have my work cut out as that is now another title to work on alongside the others. Not entirely sure how I am going to find the time for these and all the other projects… but I must put my money where my mouth is – do lots of little things and the changes add up.

Plant-based Diet

I am journeying through all the plant based products that are springing up all over the place. Some are not so great, some are brilliant. I thought I would share my findings with you. There really is no excuse to not try these things if they are nice, if two food items are equally tasty but one involves the abuse of an animal and one does not, why is this not a no-brainer?!

Products this week are:

This is not bacon – They are right. It tastes like fish. Texture is good, not mushy like a lot of vegan bacon, but still not nearly hitting the bacon mark. I know that bacon is missed by a lot of people, so we really do need to continue working on this one.

This is not chicken – This is good! A definite success for the two boys who created this one. It looks like chicken, has the texture of chicken (slightly mushy, but not like Quorn or similar products) and tastes like chicken. Slightly expensive, but compared to chicken, it isn’t really.

Richmond Sausages – the best plant based sausages I have found so far, and I know a lot of people are in agreement. The skin behaves like meat sausages, the taste is pretty close (as long as you don’t over cook them) and they look fundamentally like sausages. Brilliant.

Squeaky Bean Spanish Omelette – made with aqua faber, this works very well. I’ve only had it cold, as that is how I like a shop bought Spanish Omelette, so can’t comment on how it tastes hot, and I know that Omelette has a different taste cold and hot, but cold, it is a good equivalent. Reasonably priced. Will be adding this to my regular lunch from now on, it’s a firm favourite.

Well done to Sainsbury’s for its massive increase in plant based food in the last couple of weeks, I would say at least three times as many products introduced overnight in the chilled food section. I hear ASDA is dedicating a whole aisle, and Tesco are doing well, but I haven’t surveyed them as yet.

 

Final Words

Can I please encourage you to visit www.animalwelfareparty.org – a UK political party focusing on animal welfare issues. You can sign up for free as a supporter, or subscribe for very low cost options as a member. If you are already a member of a political party, you can still sign up as an associate member.

Time to write to your MP! Breed Specific Legislation and the Dangerous Dogs Act

Well, what a hectic time it has been. Sadly, I have been unable to keep up with the blog these last few weeks, as COVID has created such a huge workload for me. That workload has settled slightly, and I am now writing a full blog on the current animal welfare related petitions which are in progress at the moment, with some legal points about these. I hope this will be ready in the next couple of days, so keep an eye out.

I am putting this entry on today, however, because it is time for us to start contacting our MP’s regarding the petition to “Replace Breed Specific Legislation with a New Statutory Framework”. I have previously discussed this in the blog and won’t do that again, but if you want more information on it, you can contact me directly. I am also writing a legal journal article on this issue. However, the letter below has some points too.

Remember, your MP is YOUR representative in Parliament. They are under a moral obligation to listen to you. We must flood Parliament with our letters, both printed and emailed. I will also be writing directly to the Petitions Committee, Cabinet Ministers and Shadow Ministers with some material which is more hard hitting than that contained in this letter.

I have produced it here for you to copy and paste into your own letter. I would please ask you to promote the link to this, rather than copy and reproduce the letter on your own sites, for legal reasons. When sending the letter, there is a bit for you to add your own thoughts, but I would also encourage you to reword bits of it as you see fit, so we are not all sending identical letters, which might look a little odd.

There is a lot of information that could have been put in the letter, and of course you can add that if you like. I have tried to keep it brief as you may find the MP will only read for 30 seconds before turning off.

If you want help finding out who your MP is, you can use this link: https://members.parliament.uk/FindYourMP

Here is the letter:

 

Re: Petition – Replace Breed Specific Legislation with a new statutory framework.

As a member of your constituency, I wanted to let you know why I signed this petition [insert brief reasons here].

A debate in Parliament is needed to discuss matters beyond simply repealing BSL. These have been highlighted by discussions around the petition as follows:

·       * Why should specific breeds be targeted? Research evidence is building that breed of dog is not an indicator of aggression as highlighted by the RSPCA, Blue Cross and many academics.

·       * When assessing whether a dog is dangerous, it should be decided promptly, and by experts.

·       * There is no need to detain dogs pending investigation as to type or level of risk. It is an insult to the Rule of Law that a person is deemed guilty of owning a banned or dangerous dog before it has been established that this is the case. Recent research suggests that the cost of running the DDA system costs the tax payer over £3 million per year. When the dogs are detained, there should be a strict time limit, as the psychological harm caused to the dog is unnecessary suffering. Some have even been mistreated or neglected, for which photographic evidence is available.

·       * We hear of numerous cases where frightened dog owners are told to sign papers surrendering their dog to the police, in order to avoid having to go to court. The dogs can then be destroyed without a court order. They were not told the full consequences of signing.

·       * An independent review of Dog Liaison Officers must be conducted. There have been many concerns of over-zealous officers, and a diverse range of ideas and beliefs by these officers as to how to deal with a dog detained under the DDA.

·       * Ownership of the dog should never be transferred away from the owner pending investigation, the dog should remain the property of the owner, who should then also be allowed to instruct veterinary care as necessary.

·       * When the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was passed, and when Breed Specific Legislation was created, evidence which stated which breeds were the most likely to cause fatalities was not given full attention. 

All these issues have supporting evidence which the petition originator, Mr Gavin Ridley, could furnish you with upon request. He can be contacted at gsrlegaladvice@gmail.com or on social media (Twitter) @GavinSRidley.

Yours sincerely

Reflections on the Yulin Lychee and Dog Meat Festival

I must warn you, prior to reading this, that there is extremely distressing content, and your discretion in reading it is advised. If you tend to get upset by reports of animal abuse, and I know it can be really hard to deal with once you have read it, then you might want to give this week a miss.

So. This week, as I sit here writing this, Yulin is once again taking place. I feel sick knowing that right now, hundreds of dogs are being boiled alive, skinned alive and blow torched alive, as they are every other hour of the day for all these days, in the tens of thousands. I have watched videos this week and recently and have seen perhaps the vilest cruelty. I cannot imagine what greater pain there can be, or a more horrible way to die. One particularly distressing video showed a dog, hog tied and in a boiling pan of water. As the person inflicting this torture moved around the dog, its tail wagged. Maybe this was either an involuntary reaction of the nerves, or an appeasement gesture, begging for mercy, which never came. I hope that the dog died quickly, as with them all, but something tells me this is unlikely.

If we had news of a serial killer, and details were released that they were skinning their victims alive, or boiling them, or blow torching them, we would consider them the worst of all psychopaths. We would take in all the information, and talk about it. When it’s dogs, we have a curious tendency to shut our eyes and ears to it. We try not to think about it. Perhaps it hurts us more when it is animals. But the consequence is we don’t do anything. Year after year, Yulin occurs again.

So what can we do? Sure, there are the petitions. I think there was some poignancy when along with a group of humans, four dogs, rescued from Yulin, delivered a 1.5 million signature strong petition to the Chinese Embassy in London. But can this work?

As you may have heard, and certainly as I mentioned in my last post, China removed dogs from the official livestock list, rendering it illegal to farm dogs. As predicted though, this has not stopped Yulin. China mentions that, as Yulin is not State run, there is some issue with intervening. They do not have the incentive to ban it. What incentive can there be?

 

All those people horrified by Yulin could boycott China. Do any of them really take care in what they purchase? As sales in Chinese produced merchandise drop due to coronavirus, it certainly is possible. Yet when it comes to the dog meat trade, I am not so sure that people follow through with their disgust. I have to wonder why. Maybe it is wrong to target the many people in China who oppose the dog meat trade by affecting their business, but the point is a message needs to be sent that, whilst every State is free to fulfil self-determination, so we are free to refuse to trade with them. I am afraid that in this World, money talks.

I have read much discussion about the dog meat trade, and there are many threads which appear, just a couple of which I mention here.

·         "China is free to eat dog meat, if that is what they want to do." True, although over 60% of Chinese people, according to a recent survey, oppose the trade.

·         "It is yet another example of Western Imperialism to try to end the trade." This is an argument I come across all the time in international human rights law. With some issues, maybe it is wrong for a Western democratic view to prevail over the East, but with others, such as the right to life, it is a common thread of humanity. And that is what is at stake here too. It is inhumane to relish the torture of an animal in the perverse belief it makes them taste better. If an animal is to die to feed a human, then let it be with dignity. This is not a peculiarly Western view. This is a human view.

·        " It is wrong to say what animals can and cannot be eaten." To those that then claim they don’t eat any animals, I have even seen the come back that they eat plants and bacteria, and therefore are just as judgmental on who can live and die. Firstly, let us consider the taking of non-animal life. No one can seriously say that there is no difference between a sentient animal and a lettuce. I won’t even give time to that argument. Secondly, there is the argument that if we eat cows and pigs, then we cannot argue against dog meat. I used to eat meat, and yet felt strongly about the dog meat trade. I did, and still do, believe there is a big difference and not just a cultural one. However, I did become a vegetarian to avoid the hypocrisy.

So why not dogs? Am I just saying that we should ban the cruel deaths and allow the dog meat trade? We are not going to create a vegan world in the near future, so certainly we should at least end the torture if not the trade. Some research suggests that dogs have conscious self-awareness (see the University of Portsmouth. I hope to add to this at some point). This would certainly raise questions over whether we should be killing them to eat them. Other research is now suggesting other species also have self-awareness. However, I do feel there is a difference with dog meat, and quite simply, it is the betrayal.

Dogs are unique. We did not domesticate dogs. All scientific evidence points towards a gradual friendship, built between wolves and humans. It was a 50-50 relationship where both parties decided they wanted to know the other. True friendship. Research is suggesting this took place perhaps 30,000 years ago, perhaps even in China somewhat ironically. Since that time, dogs have evolved away from wolves, they try to copy us, they can read our emotions, they have unique methods to communicate with us that they don’t use with each other. Other than us, they are the only species that forms a stronger bond with another species, us, than with their own. They have been given royal burials with their own tombs in Egypt. What went wrong? I am not saying that it is right to eat other animals, but that there is a good reason why humans should not be eating dogs.

There is a fundamental, qualitative difference between dogs and all other animals. They are our friends.

That’s all for this week. It doesn’t seem right to talk about anything else.

Tuk’s Law and The London Retired Police Dogs Trust

Gosh, not sure where the time has been going, but I seem to be rushing all over the place fighting to get through the daily list of tasks! I need to keep today’s blog entry brief, although I know that won’t happen….

In the news this week we see that China has published its list of authorised species for raising in agriculture. Any animal not listed is not authorised to be sold for consumption (my knowledge of Chinese Law is pretty much non-existent, so please don’t rely on my analysis). Dogs are no longer listed, and so this has been hailed as a great step forward in ending the dog meat trade. Sadly, there is no sign that Yulin has been cancelled. Cats are not listed on the published agriculture list, and to my knowledge never have been, yet are still eaten. So there are some genuine concerns that this move is more political game play in the international arena than it is actual progress. Still, it keeps the issue alive, and that in itself works wonders in keeping animals alive too.

Also in the news are the protests springing up world-wide in response to the killing of George Floyd. Firstly, Black Lives Matter. This is beyond doubt, and as a human rights lawyer I am appalled at this wanton loss of life. I also do not comment on whether the protests are right or wrong. However, it is completely unacceptable to throw bottles and bikes at police horses. There is no need for violence against police for the purposes of protesting, and there certainly is no need for violence against service animals who do not consent to even perform their work. This does raise the issue of whether animals should be in service, and I am leaving that discussion for another time. But for now, let us all condemn the actions of any protestors using violence against service animals, as there is no need for it in order to protest for racial equality.

Now I mentioned that I would be focusing on a petition each week, so this week I am bringing your attention to Tuk’s Law. This is named after a young rescue dog who was presented to a vet for euthanasia by a person who was not registered on the microchip. The dog was put to sleep without referring to the person who actually was registered. This is because there is no duty on a veterinary surgeon to scan the microchip of the dog.

I am horrified to hear that a cat has been euthanised by a neighbour, and a dog by the owner’s ex partner out of spite. As these people were not registered on the microchip, these deaths could so easily have been avoided. Tuk’s Law petition

asks that it be made compulsory for vets to scan microchips, to seek authorisation by the named persons only, and if there is a second name registered, they should be contacted too. Due to the difficulties in ensuring this practice of scanning takes place, it needs to be given the force of law.

Tuk’s Law is extremely important and I implore you all to sign it as soon as you can, and share that you have done so, so that others may do so. It is available at https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/300025

Currently, the petition has 33677 signatures and has until 4thSeptember 2020 to obtain the 100k signatures needed.

This is not the same as Fern’s Law which also deals with scanning microchips. I will discuss that petition next time.

Now to highlight the work of a charity to you. This week I am bigging up The London Retired Police Dogs Trust (LRPD UK), as this seems rather fitting with the issues surrounding service animals this week. We definitely owe service animals a lot of gratitude. LRPD (UK) is a charity that organises pensions for retired police dogs in the London area, and has Dame Judi Dench as its patron. Often, the handler would like to keep their dog after the dog has retired, which I am sure we can all appreciate, however they may not have the funds they need for things like veterinary care. These dogs do not get pensions! It is quite some oversight that we make these dogs work for us, but there is no provision for them by the State. That is where organisations like LRPD (UK), and the soon to be constituted Wessex Area Service Animal Pensions (WASAP), come in. LRPD (UK) is a great charity, and I had the great honour of presenting alongside them at the APDAWG Unsung Heroes event earlier this year. Please visit their website, and help out with donations etc, if you can. Their website is http://lrpd.uk/

As animal justice and ethical thought involves more than just law and helping pets, but also needs us to consider sustainability and the ecosystem at large, I thought it might also be nice to share with you a vegan recipe I have used recently. My partner is on slimming world but unlike me is not vegetarian or vegan, so it can be a challenge to find something we can both eat! I adapt Slimming World recipes where I can. Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn’t, however this recipe definitely does I think. What is also great is that this is from their five ingredient recipes, so although it has been adapted to include more, it is still pretty minimal.

Spicy Cauliflower Bake

You need: Cauliflower (1 large head serves two, well in our house), ready mixed spice sachet (we use Moroccan spices), 1 tin of chickpeas (drained), 1 pack of mixed cherry tomatoes, one pack of Quorn chunks (frozen best, so they hold their shape), 1 small pack of spinach.

How to make it: This is really easy! Cut the cauliflower into large florets and boil these until ¾ cooked. Meanwhile make a slightly runny paste out of the spices and water. Toss the quorn chunks in this paste. Place the partially cooked cauliflower into a roasting dish that has been sprayed with low calorie spray, and place the quorn chunks in amongst this. Pour the rest of the spice paste over the cauliflower. Roast in the oven, mixing the contents once or twice, and after 15 minutes add the tomatoes and chickpeas. Roast for a further 15 minutes. Just before it is ready, pour boiling water over the spinach, draining through a sieve. Serve the bake by placing the wilted spinach over it, and serve with a jacket potato or similar if you need a bit extra.

 

This time next week, when I next publish a blog entry, the Breed Specific Legislation should have reached its 100k target. In fact, this should be later today, as it now has 98543 signatures!

You are welcome to comment below, but please #bekind to each other.