jeudi 26 juillet 2018

Censorship of my blog on Google and Twitter

Charles Danten, former veterinarian



Forest of the Dead at Katyn

I’ve known about censorship on Google and other internet platforms for a long time, but I never thought I would be the victim of it for my views on animals and other related subjects. 

It seems Google doesn’t want me to criticize the pet culture in any way shape or form. Do they have financial stakes in the pet business? Is someone paying them not to reference me? Or maybe they don't like my link between bolshevism and the pet culture? I don't know for sure why they are doing this, but they are doing it.

So Google doesn’t even reference my blog and any of the articles I have recently published. What you find on their search engine when you do a search of my name is old articles dating back to 2003, 2011 and 2012. 

They even have in the second place of the first page of a search, the only bad article about me and my work written by an old crazy cat lady who went ballistic when I wrote an article on Hitler’s love for animals. 

You can see this in the two screen shots below. 



The screenshot above of the first page of a search on DuckDuckGo lists my new book, my blog on the first page as well as an article recently published by Animals 24-7. 




While the screen shot above of the first page of a search on Google doesn’t list my blog or any of my recent articles. It doesn't even list the new version of my book published on Amazon. Most of the results listed go back to 1999 and end in 2012. The book in French listed in the first place is no longer in print. There's one recent reference from a vegan group, but that's it. Recently, I finally spotted my blog on the 9th page of a search with my name! 

You can see in second place the bad article with the word "nazisme" in the header. This same article doesn’t appear anywhere in a search on DuckDuckGo or any other search platform for that matter. Why is it placed in second place? 

Same for Twitter, many of my tweets never reach their destination. 

So basically, I am shadow banned from the Internet and probably surveilled by a "commissar" of some sort. 

Free speech doesn’t exist anymore in our multicultural world which is supposed to enrich us. If you speak outside the box, you are just plainly ignored. Might as well shoot me in the back of the head if I can't speak freely. That's what censorship feels like symbolically.

And what will be the next step? When these bolsheviks at heart  gain enough power, will they come and get me at home and bring me to one of their killing fields where they will shoot me for real like they did during the Red terror in Russia in the 1920s and in Katyn

Given the right circonstances, we know what these people are capable of doing. Didn't they assassinate the Tsar Nicolas II and his family, didn't they torture and starve to death more than 30 million people in communist Russia? Take a look at the following article if you think I'm exaggerating: Your Schoolbooks Lied to You: What Happened After the Bolshevik Revolution

lundi 23 juillet 2018

The Love Argument

Charles Danten, former veterinarian

The King of the Urban Jungle

The notion that other species should have the same rights as humans is another dangerous fallacy. In the United States and elsewhere, in the name of equality for every species, parks and protected ecological sites, for example, are trampled and desecrated by pet owners who feel they have every right. On a good day in San Francisco’s Fort Funston, reports journalist Michael Schaffer in his book, One Nation Under Dog, there can be up to 400 dogs off-leash, spoiling the home of endangered species like the bank swallow or the western snowy plover. In the name of love and anti-specism, Peter Singer advocates everywhere are waging “dog wars” to gain free access for their dogs to rare and protected land.

Near my home there is a small, pristine forest, a protected national treasure, where dogs are admitted only on-leash and where walking outside the trails is prohibited. Unfortunately, a number of dog owners use it as an exercise park and a toilet for their pets. On one occasion, I saw as many as half a dozen dogs running loose in the woods, barking, trampling rare plants, and scaring birds away. The trails are often littered with feces. Plastic bags containing excrement are thrown in the underbrush and left hanging on the entrance gates. Whenever I have asked dog owners to keep their dogs on-leash and respect the law, I have been treated with contempt and derision, even verbal threats and physical intimidation. One day, an aggressive pet owner, out of her wits after I had told her to put her dogs on leashes, actually shoved my sister out of her way as she continued along the trail. The comment I most often hear is: “If you don’t love animals, why don’t you move to another neighbourhood!” I’ve complained many times to City Hall, and several of my letters on the subject were published in local newspapers, but to no avail. The love argument is a powerful one.


Of course, there are selfish reasons behind this unruly behaviour. Pet owners feel guilty about locking their animals up most of the day while they go about living their lives. Affection-slavery comes at a moral price. They find some solace by treating them like "kings," 
hiring a dog walker or trainer, buying their pets an expensive brand of food, playing ball with them on the week-ends, or letting them loose for a few minutes in the woods or with their own kind. Some make these outings into social events. But everyone knows the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

samedi 21 juillet 2018

Animal Rights, Barbarism With a Smiley Face

Charles Danten




I argue that animal rights, along with no-kill shelters, unscientific vaccination, animal activism, and “medical training” of pets to lessen the stress of manipulations, for example, is one of the ways our society validates the use of animals as a commodity. 

Indeed, mankind is clever at finding ways to rationalize and put a smile on this and all self-serving, unnecessary, wasteful, cruel, and aggressive exploitations of those we metaphorically call our children. 

In a world of consumers, everything has a price, including peace of mind. 

While the emancipation of women and blacks makes sense, the same cannot be said about the emancipation of domesticated animals. From their cognitive perspective, emancipation within the status quo is meaningless. No domesticated animal will ever be free to exercise his rights. An emancipated domestic animal is by definition a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron. 

Lawyer Anne-Marie Bourgeois Sohm, lecturer at the Faculty of Law of Clermont-Ferrand, France, is clear that the need to give rights to domesticated animals is a false one:

Would this change [giving rights to animals] really make a difference in the animal condition? Would the end justify the problems caused by the change in our traditional legal structure? We must, alas, answer in the negative. The animal, the beneficiary of such rights, can never exercise them, it is his master, or a body authorized to do so in its place, which does so. However, in the present context, it is already the case. (1)
In the context of our legal systems, animals will always come last. We all know it is easier to write laws than to enforce them. Where will we get the resources to do so? Will we have a special animal brigade, the equivalent of the Miami vice squad? Come on. 

The best example is the multiplication of violent crimes in our society, or the persistence of behaviors contrary to the law, like drug usage, pedophilia, and prostitution, despite stricter laws, closer surveillance, and more and more severe punishments. The difficulty involved in getting people to treat animals decently is less surprising when we look at how people behave towards each other. 

Putting the focus on animal rights will serve only to make lawyers richer and animal activists more passionate.

Furthermore, by perpetuating the fallacies described in this blog, animal rights - and adoption for that matter - does more to nullify the wanted effect of saving animals and to amplify the dreaded effect of consumerism, with all its inseparable atrocities. The equivalent would be like paying a ransom to terrorists for a hostage; we don't do it because we know it just feeds the problem viciously. So we sacrifice a few for the common good. It makes a lot of sense.

The intention is undoubtedly sincere in a number of people who are truly concerned for good reasons by animal suffering, but it is legitimate to ask if this will to humanize animals is not diverted from its true purpose for business and ideological reasons in order to prevent any hindering to consumption and to impose on the public ideas and customs contrary to the laws of nature and common sense.

The industry and animal rights advocates, which are a kind of fifth column financed by private donors and the wealthy multinationals that control the market, are seeking, for example, to pass a bylaw that would prevent Quebec apartment building owners not only to prohibit pets, but to expel the owners of delinquent pets. 

Is this really out of goodness of the heart? There’s reason to doubt it, as no action to help animals where it really counts, at the root, is truly taken. For understandable reasons, from a commercial point of view, all the preventive and corrective measures taken are aimed at issues adversely affecting demand, consumerism, and serving at the same time to inflate sales of the many services offered by this commercial sector such as dog training, psychological assessments, etc. 

In other words, just as certain countries use human rights and democracy to invade and destroy countries that don't think or behave the required way or to impose by force on their citizens unpopular policies, such as massive immigration, multiculturalism, and globalization, animal rights activists and other animal activists use a humanistic and progressive rhetoric to silence all criticism and impose and defend practices and ideas that are not in the interest of the public, animals, and the environment.

Emancipation of domestic animals within the status quo may be meaningless, as explained above, but emancipation for animals in general would have meaning only if it referred to granting animals the right to live out their lives without interference or exploitation. 

This would mean the end of domestication and thus pets. 

Bibliographie

Budiansky, Stephen (1998). If a lion could talk. The Free Press.
Bernardina, Sergio Dalla (2006). « Épilogue en forme de satire. Du commerce avec les bêtes chez les Terriens civilisés. » L’éloquence des bêtes. Métaillé.
Hoffer, Eric (1951). The true believer. Thoughts on the nature of masse movements. Harper and Row.
West, Patrick (2004). Conspicuous compassion. Why sometimes it’s really cruel to be kind. Civitas.

Reference

Anne-Marie Sohm-Bourgeois (1990). La personnification de l’animal: une tentation à repousserRecueil Dalloz Sirey, 7e Cahier. 

jeudi 19 juillet 2018

Les chiens tueurs et les mondialistes

Charles Danten, DMV, MA




Signalons d’entrée de jeu la délirante affirmation de l’avocate propitbull, Anne-Marie Goldwater : « On utilise des mots péjoratifs pour identifier un certain sous-groupe de chiens qui ne forme pas une race. Tout comme les Noirs, les Latinos, les Arabes... ce ne sont pas des races. Il n’y a qu’une race, c’est la race des êtres humains. Il n’y a qu’une race, ça s’appelle des chiens : canis lupus familiaris. (1) »

Or, le chien est une sous-espèce domestiquée du loup, elle-même divisée en plus de 450 races ou variantes qui produisent des petits parfaitement conformes au phénotype de leurs géniteurs. Personne, en d’autres mots, n’a jamais vu un couple de terriers Staffordshire américains (pitbull pure race) produire une portée de caniches. 

La race chez les chiens, comme chez les humains d’ailleurs (2)(3), est une réalité indéniable et cette réalité ne se limite pas aux apparences, mais concerne aussi les comportements (4). 

L’inné et l’acquis


On dira : « il n’y a pas de mauvais chien, il n’y a que de mauvais maîtres. » Bill Bruce, par exemple, le rédacteur des règlements municipaux actuels sur les animaux de la ville de Calgary, est un adepte de cet adage fort répandu qui passe pour une vérité : « Nous pensons que l’agressivité canine est foncièrement un problème humain, et que, si nous réglons le problème à la source, le problème canin se résoudra de lui-même. (5) » 

C’est d’ailleurs cette solution que nos décideurs libéraux ont retenue : davantage de surveillance et l’obligation pour les propriétaires de garder leurs chiens en laisse, mais sans muselière. Autrement dit, ce n’est pas la peine de faire de la discrimination puisque tous les chiens se valent et que les races n’existent pas.

Or, l’inné joue un rôle important dans l’agressivité des chiens, même si l’acquis y fait également pour beaucoup (6). L’adage favori des propitbulls, un copier-coller de la théorie du bon sauvage de Jean Jacques Rousseau, est archi faux. Tous les chiens ne sont pas nés égaux. Les mauvais chiens existent. Tous les éleveurs sérieux vous le confirmeront ; en général, selon la race, ils choisissent dans une portée, dès la naissance ou peu de temps après, les plus dociles pour la compagnie ou les plus agressifs pour la garde. Les autres sont « jetés à la poubelle ».

Étymologie révélatrice


Ce qui ne veut pas dire que tous les pitbulls sont des tueurs potentiels. Un nombre indéterminé ne le sont pas (voir ci-dessous). Mais comme il n’existe pour le moment aucun test pour séparer le bon grain de l’ivraie, on serait bien mieux de les bannir complètement par mesure de précaution. Ces chiens qui servaient autrefois à combattre dans des fosses (pit) les taureaux (bull) ont un passé génétique très lourd, comme en fait foi l’étymologie de leur appellation. Ils ont été sélectionnés pendant des siècles pour leur agressivité et leur combativité. Ils sont en outre notoirement réputés pour l’imprévisibilité et la violence de leurs attaques.

Ces tueurs nés sont par ailleurs encore élevés en cachette pour leur agressivité par un certain nombre d’amateurs. De fait, même si les combats de chiens sont aujourd’hui interdits, ils existent toujours clandestinement, notamment dans les quartiers difficiles où la criminalité est répandue. Les moins performants sont vendus sur le marché ou pour la reproduction à des éleveurs légaux ou clandestins (usines à chiots) qui les reproduiront à des centaines d’exemplaires, sans aucun souci pour le comportement pourvu qu’ils soient plus ou moins conformes aux critères morphologiques de leur race. Les gens achètent ces docteur Jekill et M. Hyde sans se douter que dans leur gentil toutou peut se cacher un véritable monstre prêt à bondir à la première occasion.

Statistiques déficientes


En ce qui concerne les animaux du Québec, selon les conclusions du Comité de travail sur l’encadrement des chiens dangereux (CTECD), les statistiques sur les morsures de chiens sont actuellement un véritable trou noir pour les raisons suivantes : l’obligation d’enregistrer son chien est souvent inégale et incomplète puisqu’il n’est pas obligatoire de signaler la race de l’animal enregistré. En outre, les policiers, les médecins et les vétérinaires ne sont pas obligés de déclarer les morsures, sauf si la rage est soupçonnée. Ce qui n’arrange pas la situation, certains médias comme Radio-Canada refusent par ailleurs de nommer la race des délinquants canins pour ne pas faire de discrimination. Cette convention absurde est calquée sur l'interdiction chez les humains de faire un lien entre la race et le crime.

Or, sans savoir la population des races, le nombre de morsures de même que la race impliquée, il est impossible de calculer avec précision les races les plus dangereuses. Ces lacunes providentielles sont un frein substantiel à toute mesure de prévention efficace ; bien qu’elles soient bonnes pour les affaires, elles sont aussi dans les faits une fuite de responsabilité flagrante de même qu’un déni de la race et de l’importance des gènes dans le comportement. 

Le cas de Toronto


Heureusement, la situation est différente à Toronto où les données sont suffisamment étoffées pour faire la part des choses (voir le tableau ci-dessous). Est-ce pour cette raison que les quatre races les plus impliquées dans les morsures y sont bannies avec succès ? Évidemment !

Ville de Toronto, adapté d'une illustration de Eric Andrew-Gee et Joel Eastwood.
(3 octobre 2014). Pit bulls were Toronto's biggest biters, before the ban

On peut aussi se faire une bonne idée de la race des délinquants en consultant les revues scientifiques en médecine et en chirurgie. Depuis au moins les quarante dernières années les études épidémiologiques sérieuses – c’est-à-dire celles qui ne sont pas réalisées par les vétérinaires ou commanditées par les sociétés humanitaires et les associations propitbulls – sont unanimes : en Amérique du Nord, la majorité des morsures de chiens nécessitant une hospitalisation ou entraînant le décès sont infligées par des chiens de type pitbull (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16).

Ceux qui affirment que tous les chiens se valent prétendent que leurs idées sont étayées par la science. Or, rien n’est moins vrai. Aucune de leurs allégations n’est étayée scientifiquement. Elles s’appuient uniquement sur une autorité morale abusive. C’est d’ailleurs pour cette raison que ces personnes passent rapidement aux mensonges, aux insultes et à l’intimidation dès qu’on s’attaque à leurs convictions.

Conclusion


Malgré leur petit nombre comparé aux autres races beaucoup plus populaires comme le labrador, le golden retriever et le berger allemand, les pitbulls comptent parmi les chiens les plus dangereux et les plus fréquemment impliqués dans les morsures. Ce serait par conséquent une bonne chose de les museler et de les enlever en fade out de la circulation. 

Mais le problème des chiens mordeurs ne sera pas réglé pour autant, tant et aussi longtemps que les problèmes de fonds suivants ne seront pas réglés : la surconsommation en zone urbaine des animaux de compagnie, les fausses allégations de la zoothérapie qui sont le leitmotiv de cette surconsommation inédite, le biais des vétérinaires qui sont complices par intérêt, l’humanisation outrancière des animaux de même que les vœux pieux. 

La compilation de statistiques valides est capitale, car sans connaître la population des races, le nombre de morsures de même que la race impliquée, il est impossible de mettre en place des mesures de prévention efficace. Refuser dès lors comme Radio-Canada de nommer la race des délinquants soi-disant pour ne pas faire de discrimination raciale est criminel.

Pour bien faire, il faudrait aussi que nos élus libéraux arrêtent de croire que les races n'existent pas et que la biologie (l'hérédité) ne joue aucun rôle dans le comportement. C’est faux. Ils ont du mal à l’admettre, car toute leur politique mondialiste s’appuie sur ces fausses notions. En d’autres mots, nos décideurs refusent de protéger le public pour de vulgaires raisons idéologiques qui n’ont aucune prise sur la réalité. 

En définitive, la société doit choisir entre mentir pour des raisons financières et idéologiques et dire la vérité pour protéger le public.

Un dernier point


Les races obéissent à leurs gènes, mais si vous mélangez plusieurs races dans un parc à chiens, ils ne se mélangent pas selon la race parce qu’ils n’ont pas été sélectionnés pour reconnaitre les membres de leur propre race (ethnocentrisme). Les pitbulls dans un parc à chien, par exemple, ne sont pas particulièrement attirés par les autres pitbulls. Ils sont en quelque sorte aveugles à la race. Or, les libéraux comme Anne-Marie Goldwater, citée en ouverture, présument faussement que si c’est vrai pour les chiens, c’est aussi vrai pour les humains. Ceux-ci devraient aussi être aveugles à la race. Mais ils oublient que les humains ont été naturellement sélectionnés pour reconnaitre ceux de leur race. Dès lors, si vous mélangez plusieurs races ensemble, ils vont éventuellement se grouper selon leur race, comme ce qui survient dans les prisons. Les gens sont naturellement attirés par ceux qui leur ressemblent génétiquement (théorie de la similitude génétique de Philippe Rushton). Ce qui n’est pas le cas des chiens ou de toute autre espèce domestique. Par contre, chez les animaux sauvages, il est important que les races se reconnaissent afin de transmettre les gènes qui leur permettent de survivre dans leur niche écologique. Ces races ne sont pas par conséquent aveugles à la race.

Références

1. Thomas Gerbet (21 septembre 2016). L’avocate Anne-France Goldwater défend les pitbulls à Longueuil. Radio Canada.
2. Steven Pinker (2002). The Blank Slate. The Modern Denial of Human nature. Penguin Books.
3. Steven Pinker (2012). Fear of Race Realism and the Denial of Human Differences. Conférence sur YouTube.com (vidéo consultée le 19 novembre 2016).
4. Richard Murray (2020). Human Diversity. The Biology of Gender, Race, and Class. Hachette Book Group.
5. Barbara Kay (11 août 2015). Pit bulls are disproportionally dangerous. Why is Calgary importing more of them? The National Post.
6. Mark Derr (6 février 2001). It Takes Training and Genes To Make a Mean Dog Mean. The New York Times.
7Michael S. Golinko, MD, MA, Brian Arslanian, MD et Joseph K. Williams, MD, FAAP (2016). Characteristics of 1616 Consecutive Dog Bite Injuries at a Single Institution. Clinical Paediatrics. 
8. Mark A. Prendes et coll. (2016). Ocular Trauma From Dog Bites: Characterization, Associations, and Treatment Patterns at a Regional Level I Trauma Center Over 11 Years. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg: 32(4).
9. Garvey et coll. (2015). Morbidity of pediatric dog bites: A case series at level one pediatric trauma center. Journal ofPediatric Surgery: p. 50, pp. 343-346.
10. O’Brien et coll. (2015). Dog bites to the head and neck: an evaluation of a common pediatric trauma and associated treatment. Am. Journal of otolaryngology – head and neck medicine and surgery: p. 36, 32-38.
11. Prendes et coll. (2015). Ocular trauma from dog bites: Characterization, associations, and treatment patterns at a regional Level 1 trauma center over 11 years. Ophthalmic Plastic Reconstructive Surgery.
12. Bini, J.K., et.coll. (2011) Mortality, Mauling, and Maiming by Vicious Dogs. Annals of Surgery; 253 (4).
13. Ricky L. Langley (2009). Human Fatalities Resulting From Dog Attacks in the United States, 1979–2005. Wilderness & Environmental Medicine; 20 (1):19-25.
14. Jeffrey J. Sacks, MD et coll. (2000) Breeds of Dogs Involved in Fatal Human Attacks in the United States Between 1979 and 1998. Renters for Disease Control and Prevention.
15. J. J. Sacks, R. W. Sattin et S. E. Bonzo (1989). Dog Bite-Related Fatalities from 1979 through 1988. Journal of the American Medical Association; 262:1489-1492.
16. William G. Winkler (1977). Human Deaths Induced by Dog Bites, United States, 1974-75. Public Health Reports; 92 (5):425–429.



mardi 17 juillet 2018

Chaleur de bête et froid de canard: Vies et morts d'une vétérinaire par Dominique Lange. Le zèbre volant. 2017.


Charles Danten, ex vétérinaire*


Courez vite vous acheter ce merveilleux petit livre d'une vétérinaire française. Le sujet est certes un peu triste, il y a en effet beaucoup de drames dans la vie et la mort professionnelles d'une vétérinaire, mais c'est dit sobrement, sans sensiblerie, avec une plume d'écrivain, voire de poète.

Madame la doctoresse a en effet un talent fou. Elle manie le verbe aussi bien que le bistouri. Le lecteur en sortira les émotions à vif, mais enchanté par le style et ce qu'il apprendra non seulement sur les animaux, mais sur les gens. Car ce récit vécu est aussi une histoire d'hommes et de femmes. Et cette histoire n'est pas toujours drôle surtout lorsqu'on est paysan à Saint-Pierre, à Tahiti ou en Corrèze.

Le métier de vétérinaire, hélas, est difficile. Cœur sensible, abstenez-vous. Surtout si vous partez du mauvais pied en pensant être l'amie des bêtes. Vous serez déçue, car ce n'est pas tout à fait vrai.

Si la vétérinaire a l'obligation de protéger la santé des animaux, c'est toujours au profit de ceux qui la rémunèrent. Ce qui veut dire en terme clair, à quelques exceptions près, dans les cas atypiques de cruauté extrême, que le dernier mot revient aux propriétaires des animaux que vous soignez.

Ainsi, si un maître veut faire piquer son chien ou son chat au lieu de le faire soigner, vous devrez obtempérer. Si vous devez envoyer à l'abattoir une vache que vous pourriez sauver, vous devrez vous y résoudre. 

Si vous ne le faites pas, vous êtes tout sauf une vétérinaire. C’est ainsi, et ceux qui vous disent le contraire vous font du cinéma. 

Et puis, c'est dur par moment. On voit parfois des choses atroces, des chiens abandonnés qui croupissent dans des fourrières sordides, des hommes qui se pendent au bout de leur désespoir. Il y a beaucoup de routine aussi, une vétérinaire ne passe pas son temps à soigner des animaux malades. Et si vous travaillez avec les animaux de ferme, vous serez souvent livrée à vous-même, face à des mastodontes mal léchés, avec un minimum de moyens et de protections. 

Bref, tous les vétérinaires en herbe devraient lire, Chaleur de bête et froid de canard: Vies et morts d'une vétérinaire, avant de se lancer dans des études longues et difficiles. Cette lecture édifiante leur évitera beaucoup de malentendus et de frustrations. 

Avec ce témoignage sorti tout droit du cœur, la Dre Lange a rendu un fier service non seulement à son ancienne profession, mais au public.


* J'ai employé le féminin pour décrire les vétérinaires, car cette profession est devenue depuis peu un métier de femmes.



samedi 14 juillet 2018

The Truth About Animal Healthcare

Charles Danten, former veterinarian

It is a case of wishful thinking to imagine that a pet can understand and appreciate whatever good intentions are behind veterinary medical care. It is simply above and beyond their cognitive possibilities. From their point of view, a veterinary hospital is indistinguishable from a pound.

How can we be so blind to the true needs of those we love? Or, do we only pretend to love pets? After all, we cause their diseases in myriad ways on the one hand, then play dumb and profit from them on the other. This schizophrenic absurdity suggests that our concern for pet health has much more to do with trying to meet our own needs than with anything else.

Generally, sick animals cooperate as little as possible when hospitalized. The unfamiliar odours, noises, colors, and the presence of strangers and other animals of different species scare patients to varying extents depending on their degree of socialization. Although cats, birds, and exotic species are more sensitive, dogs are also deeply affected. In particular, those that rarely leave the security of their homes are overwhelmed emotionally by this experience, an immensely traumatic one from their point of view. Hyper-excitation, distress vocalization, uncontrollable urination and defecation, fear, excessive submissiveness, and manifestations of dominance and aggression are the norm in what the animal perceives as a chaotic, hellish, and life-threatening environment. Restraint is often mandatory and badly trained animals are a serious challenge. The veterinarian and his staff are exposed daily to bites, clawing, and episodes of aggression. When things get busy in such an environment, the tensions are palpable on both sides of the species divide. (1)(2)(3)

Veterinarians and pet owners often rationalize this subtle form of self-centeredness with the paediatrician argument: “Our own children don’t understand medicine either, but they have to undergo treatment for their own good, whether they like it or not.” Veterinarians see themselves as paediatricians of sorts, but the comparison is completely invalid. Parents are more often authorized to stay with their children while they are being treated; they can even sleep over in some cases. They can reason with their children and explain what is being done to them. Eventually, kids can be convinced that the procedures are necessary if they want to get better. They are rarely left unattended and without care for long hours, even whole days and nights, like animals are. Veterinary clinics and hospitals that pay staff to keep watch over patients overnight, on weekends, and on holidays are the rare exception. Furthermore, when a treatment becomes too inconvenient or expensive, parents do not get rid of their children by dropping them off at a pound (euphemistically called a “shelter”) or by having them euthanized for a pittance by their paediatrician. Pet owners like to think of themselves as the parents of their animals, but they overlook the fact that the children they claim are not their own. They are rather children that were abducted from their biological parents, from species that were abducted from their natural communities. And yet this attitude is so trite as to seem perfectly natural and legitimate.

In conclusion, pets dislike being muzzled, tied up, penned up, injected, bandaged, pilled, groomed, or subjected to often-excruciating cancer treatments or a kidney transplant. Even when bearing positive results, therapeutic egotism must be counted as one more abuse added to the end of a very long list. After all, is there any other way in which animals could possibly interpret medical procedures? This, in turn, begs the question, whom does animal healthcare really aim to please? Obviously, owners and veterinarians are far more satisfied than the patients themselves. How could they know that we want to care for them and cure them? Our egocentric drive to make them better allows us to remain blind to their deeper needs…and in very old or sick pets, it can add a twist of cruelty to the end of a life that was spent at the service of man.

Children are subjected to our unnatural affection and solicitations for their entire lives, and we forget far too easily that they never asked for any of it. We give it in a misdirected attempt to meet our own needs, and this exploitation is at the root even of the medical care that we kind-heartedly administer to them.

References


1. Joanna Swabe (1996). Animals as a Natural Resource: Ambivalence in the Human-Animal Relationship in a Veterinary Practice. Amsterdam School for Social Science Research.

2. Joanna Swabe (1996). Animals, Disease, and Human Social Life: The Human-Animal Relationship Reconsidered. Onderzoekers.


3. Sanders Clinton R. (1994). Biting the Hand that Heals You: Encounters with Problematic Patients in a General Veterinary Practice. Society and Animals; 2(1): 47-66.


Marley and me and the tragedy of no-kill shelters

Charles Danten, former veterinarian


One day, watching television, I saw a team of firemen trying to save a Labrador that was stranded on a piece of ice drifting along a river. While one fireman was holding the boat steady alongside the chunk of ice, another was trying to grab the dog and pull him to the safety of the boat. Suddenly, without warning, the panic-stricken dog, which obviously couldn’t fathom what this was all about, launched forward and bit the face of the unsuspecting fireman severely. Undoubtedly, the poor fireman had made a dangerous assumption: that the dog, like a human being, would know what he was trying to do. Such self-centeredness technically called anthropomorphism, which is the attribution of human qualities and needs to other species and objects, has endless consequences for both animals and humans.

Hollywood

Hollywood is particularly determined to entertain our ignorance and delusions regarding animals. In movies, animals are never portrayed as they are, but rather as mere props or narcissistic human projections. Movies like Marley and Me by David Frankel, The Bear by Jean-Jacques Annaud or The Emperor, a film sponsored by the World Wildlife Fund, to name but a few of the major movies that opinion-makers are constantly spinning out, use animals exclusively to highlight human ideals – friendship, effort, the joys of paternity, sacrifice, honour, and so on. Animal lovers and ecologists in general are under the false impression that by putting a human face to animals, people will be inclined to do good by them. [1]

How do animals think?

Although animals have emotions and feel pain just like we do, they do not intellectualize these sensations. They lack – perhaps fortunately for them, depending on how you look at it – a symbolic language like ours, which allows us to name our feelings and categorize them according to artificial conventions. Hume’s famous postulate, can they suffer, is not the only point to consider when dealing with “sentient beings.” Do they think like we do, do they construct ideologies are crucial questions we never bother to ask precisely because we tend to assume they do.

About death

For example, animals, like young children, are not conscious of their impending death. The fear of death is a human concept that must be taught. In other words, we are not born with it. To fear death, psychologically, like humans do, one must have an idea of what death is. And without a conceptual language such as ours, death cannot be described or anticipated. Pets in pounds and veterinary hospitals – and farm animals in slaughterhouses for that matter – are petrified and anxious, but they can’t fathom the end is near. How could they anticipate their future death? They are reacting to an unusual situation which they do not understand and cannot cope with, but they have no way of knowing if the man with the white lab coat and the gentle voice is there to heal them or put them down. Hospital, pound, it’s all the same to them. From the animal’s point-of-view, that funny thing with a needle at the end could just be a toy. When I euthanized an animal, and I have euthanized hundreds of them, the better-socialized dogs were quite relaxed and undisturbed by the procedure as I injected them with a deadly dose of a barbiturate. I could probably have played ball with them right to the last breath.

Newtonian time

Newtonian time is a human-invented time scale. Other species have their own internal clocks and they do not judge the success or the quality of life by its length. They can’t even imagine how long their life is supposed to be. They couldn’t care less if they live 10 or 15 years. When we think it’s a good thing for animals to live longer, we are simply projecting on animals our own wish to live longer and evade death. We are the only death-fearing species on earth.

No-kill “shelters”

Those who work in no-kill shelters to unduly prolong the lives of animals that will never be adopted because of unredeemable physical or psychological flaws should think twice before imposing their egocentric way of interpreting life events on those animals. Some of these animals spend their lives cooped up in cages or runs at the total mercy of so-called Good Samaritans, who are only pleasing themselves by insisting on keeping the animals alive, as a matter of principle, or for business and image reasons regardless of the animal’s best interest, sometimes for years, under miserable conditions from the animal’s point of view. Have you ever seen these places? A house of horror in most cases. No one is less dependable than volunteers. I know, I’ve worked in shelters. They come and go whenever they feel like it. Animals are often left for days without being cleaned and fed.

A lot of people make a living out of these incredibly self-centred views that see what is worthy in nature as that which resembles us. Their attempts to humanize animals with high-sounding words like “refugee,” “children,” ‘adoption,” "rescue," and “companion” is counterproductive, even dangerous. Dogs bite millions of people, for example, mostly children, because their owners think animals are like us in their thoughts and feelings. Most of the animals involved are destroyed. “It is folly and anthropomorphism of the worst kind, says scientist Stephen Budiansky, to insist that the intelligence that every species displays must be the same as ours to be truly wonderful” [2][3][4].

You have to agree with People for the Ethical treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Physician’s Committee for Responsible Medicine. [5] Unadopted and unredeemable animals are better off dead. Yes, PETA puts them down, but so does the SPCA and other animal welfare agencies. Nobody makes an issue out of it because most reasonable people know it’s the best outcome possible for these throw-away left-overs of consumerism. Besides, pet owners who complain about the destruction of unwanted pets should take an honest look at what they themselves are doing in their own homes. As described in this blog, they are also killing animals with their self-centred "love," albeit in a less spectacular way.


Bibliographie

Budiansky, Stephen (1998). If a lion could talk. The Free Press.

Bernardina, Sergio Dalla (2006). Épilogue en forme de satire. Du commerce avec les bêtes chez les Terriens civilisés. L’éloquence des bêtesMédaillé.

Hoffer, Eric (1951). The true believer. Thoughts on the nature of masse movements. Harper and Row.

West, Patrick (2004). Conspicuous compassion. Why sometimes it’s really cruel to be kind. Civitas.

References


1] Éric Conan (1989). "La zoophilie, maladie infantile de l’écologisme".  Esprit, no 155, p. 124-126.

[2] Robert F. Brasky (1997). Noam Chomsky: a life of dissident. ECW Press, p.174.

[3] Stephen Budiansky (1998). If a lion could talk. The Free Press.

[4] Stephen Budiansky. If they’re so smart how come they aren’t rich. The Truth About Dogs. Penguin Books, p. 124.