Do you think that it is a good idea that animal rights advocates with strong opinions should be heading Great Britain’s largest animal welfare organisation and one of the biggest prosecutors in the country of crimes against animals? This is a follow up to an earlier article.
Peta Watson-Smith is a vegan who has compared farming to the Holocaust. She’s been elected to the ruling council of the RSPCA. She has made known her ambitions for the charity. Before she was elected, she said that she would like to encourage the public “to follow wholly plant-based diet”. She said:
“Encouraging people to eat less meat is going to benefit animals and the knock-on on is going to be human health and welfare. I don’t think people always appreciate what is the holocaust going on behind closed doors. You talk about the Jews. If we recognise animals as sentient beings, why are we treat them so abysmally on farms?”
Watson-Smith is a supporter of Animal Aid which wants to ban the grand National.
In her election address, she blamed hunting for turning people into sadists:
“There is a scientific psychological link between cruelty to animals in early childhood and delinquency and sadistic behaviour in later years.”
We all know about this link. It is well known. It is well used in an argument why we should, in society, have a very low tolerance to abuse towards companion animals by family members and neighbours.
Another hardliner was also elected to the ruling council, his name is Dan Lyons. He is the current chief executive of the Centre for Animals And Social Justice. This is a charity that has been exploring ways to represent animals in Parliament. To give animals of voice amongst the lawmakers of the country. I personally believe that this is a good idea. Although, it is highly unlikely to happen because it very much goes against the wishes of the establishment.
In addition the RSPCA members re-elected three other trustees one of whom was Jane Tredgett, who wants to combat “companion animal overpopulation”. Good.
Personally, I agree that people with strong animal welfare ideas and who are passionate animal rights advocates should be on the ruling council of the UK’s most important animal welfare organisation. I’m pleased about this development which tells people about my deep rooted thoughts on animal welfare. Animals need a voice and the voice has to be strong. It need not be too extreme. It should be fairly reasonable, understandable and acceptable to the mainstream. There is a lot of work to do to improve animal welfare.
Personally, I don’t find the comparison between the mass slaughter of animals on farms and the Holocaust as objectionable. I know it can be objectionable and it is a difficult analogy to get one’s head around but if we look at it coldly, it makes sense or at least it does to people who are concerned about animal welfare.