we go to bed with beautiful pictures

…then hunters are added to the list of threatened species and the prices of the trophies are traded in the black market

regards and good night, Venus


The “Holocaust on your plate” campaign is lawful

Gerlingen / Vienna – The controversially discussed “Holocaust on your plate” campaign by PETA-Deutschland e.V. is lawful – this has now been ruled by the Austrian Supreme Court in the last instance and all previous court decisions as unlawful.

The legal dispute between Jewish citizens and the animal rights organization is discussed on 19 pages and PETA-Germany eV is completely right: The striking juxtaposition of pictures from concentration camps showing emaciated people and of various animal species from the usual factory farming is legal and is under one to subsume of the highest democratic fundamental rights: Freedom of expression and freedom of the press.

PETA attaches particular importance to the finding that the Supreme Court has also emphatically rejected the allegations of anti-Semitism alleged by the Jewish plaintiffs:

“The contempt of a race or a people, as relevant by the plaintiffs, is not brought about by the advertising campaign: (…) The statement only goes to the fact that Jews were treated like animals.

In any case, the comparison does not lead to the conclusion (that it is a Nazi-like content) drawn by the plaintiffs for the relevant, intelligent average observer. “

“This is a good day for animals and the right to freedom of expression”, says Harald Ullmann, 2nd chairman of PETA-Deutschland eV.


For more…at https://worldanimalsvoice.com/2020/10/15/the-holocaust-on-your-plate-campaign-is-lawful/


And I mean…In March 2004, PETA started a campaign in Germany.
Animal cruelty is compared to the Holocaust on posters.

Children behind barbed wire. Next to it, piglets behind bars. One was a Nazi concentration camp. The other is a slaughterhouse.

It’s the same for Peta’s animal rights activists. For us too!

But the implementation of the campaign was then banned by the Berlin district court.
The Central Council of Jews in Germany had sued because the pictures played down the fate of the Holocaust victims.
Peta went to the next instance, but the Federal Constitutional Court upheld the decision.

In the USA, however, a similar campaign had actually run, one of the pictures showed children in concentration camp prison clothes standing behind a barbed wire fence and pigs crammed together behind bars.

Between the two motifs, it translates as follows: “Open your eyes to the Holocaust of the present.”

And sentences like: “One day our grandchildren will ask us: What did you do against the Holocaust of the animals? We cannot apologize for the second time that we did not know anything. “

PETA is right, the Holocaust never ended, it just changed species. In all of the wars and genocides in our entire record history, 619 million people have been killed.

We kill the same number of animals every 5 days.

“For animals, all people are Nazis and life is an eternal Auschwitz”, said the Jew Isaak Bashevis Singer.

Pigs are thrown into gas chambers and burned alive. Male chicks that are born have practically no purpose in the egg industry, so they are separated from the females and ground on the same day they are born.

Humans have victimized animals to such a degree that they are not even considered victims. They are not even considered at all.

They are nothing. They don’t count; they don’t matter; they’re commodities like TV sets and cell phones.

We have actually turned animals into inanimate objects like sandwiches and shoes.

Why do we find it so horrible to harm a child? It’s because they’re voiceless and defenseless, just like these animals.

Those with a voice must speak for the voiceless.

150 years ago anyone would have thought it absurd for people to advocate the end of slavery.

100 years ago everyone would have laughed at you for suggesting that women should have the right to vote.

50 years ago, the rulers would have objected to the idea that Africans have equal rights under the law.

Most people laugh at us now because we are fighting for the abolition of animal slavery because we want to end the holocaust of animals.
One day they won’t laugh.

We welcome every step towards education and awareness-raising in society, and we see the recognition of the campaign as legitimate as a big step.


My best regards to all, Venus

USA: 62 bears killed on 1st day of Psychoville N.J. bear hunt; opponents plan new lawsuit.

62 bears killed on 1st day of N.J. bear hunt; opponents plan new lawsuit

New Jersey’s controversial bear hunt opened 30 minutes before sunrise on Monday, with hunters heading into the woods on a dreary October day as the remnants of Hurricane Delta drenched the Garden State.

Those hunters killed 62 black bears, down from the 108 bears were killed on the first day of bear season last year.

Sussex County saw the most bears bagged on Monday, with 29. Elsewhere, 17 bears were killed in Morris County, 11 bears in Warren County, three bears in Passaic County, and one bear each in Bergen and Hunterdon counties.

Hunters killed 315 black bears in the state during the entire 2019 season. New Jersey’s highest bear hunt totals were recorded in the 2016 season, when hunters killed 636 of the animals.

The bear hunt is open for bowhunting only through Wednesday. Muzzleloaders will also be allowed Thursday through Saturday. A second segment of bear season, for firearms only, will open Dec. 7.

Though black bears are found throughout the state, the hunt is restricted to Sussex, Warren, Passaic, Morris, Bergen, Hunterdon, Somerset and Mercer counties. Bear hunting is prohibited on state lands thanks to an executive order issued by Gov. Phil Murphy in 2018.

The coronavirus has had one major impact on this year’s bear hunt: In an effort to promote social distancing, the state’s traditional weigh stations are not being used. Instead, successful hunters must call and report their kills to the state Division of Fish and Wildlife. A state biologist will then contact the hunter to legally check the bear and collect biological data.

New Jersey’s bear hunt was restarted in 2003 and being dormant for decades, following a crash in bear numbers in the 1970s. Advocates for the hunt say it is the most effective method of controlling the bear population and preventing threats to human safety and property.

A 2018 report from state wildlife officials warned that ending the bear hunt could cause New Jersey’s bear population to double by 2022.

Murphy, who campaigned on a promise to close bear season, announced a plan last week to stop any future bear hunts under his watch. That plan calls for an amendment to the state’s game code that removes the current bear management policy from the regulations.

The New Jersey Fish and Game Council, which has the final say on the state’s game code and has been Murphy’s biggest obstacle in cancelling the bear hunt, is scheduled to meet telephonically on Tuesday morning. Murphy’s proposed changes are on the agenda.

Opponents pledge to sue

While hunters spent the day in forests and fields, animal rights activists went online to voice their displeasure.

Raymond Lesniak, the former Democratic state senator from Union County, used a Zoom press conference to announce that a coalition of animal rights activists plans to sue the state over the statutory makeup of the state fish and game council.

The council currently consists of 11 members: Six sportsmen, recommended by the New Jersey State Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, three farmers recommended by the state agriculture convention, the chair of the state’s Endangered and Nongame Species Advisory Committee and one person with expertise in land management and soil conservation.

Brian Hackett, the state director of the Humane Society of the United States’s New Jersey branch, argued its unfair that a council with such a make-up gets to decide how wildlife is managed in the Garden State.

“Nobody is allowed on this fish and game council except for pro-hunting hunters, and pro-hunting farmers and some mysterious person who needs to know about soil,” Hackett said.

Lesniak echoed that sentiment, and said the council should include scientists, hikers, bird watchers and other people who use New Jersey’s outdoors for activities beyond hunting. He also argued the state’s bear population belongs to all residents, and should be protected by the public trust doctrine in the same way that access to waterways and beaches is protected.

Jeff Tittel, the director of the New Jersey Sierra Club, supported those points.

“It really has to be a council that manages public lands for the public benefit,” Tittel said.

The planned lawsuit, Lesniak said, is similar to Humane Society of the U.S. v. N.J. State Fish and Game Council, a 1976 case in which the Humane Society claimed the structure of the state fish and game council was unconstitutional.

That effort failed, with the state Supreme Court issuing a 6-1 ruling in favor of the state.

“The governmental interest in establishing regulations to ensure a plentiful supply of game animals for consumption and sport is suitably furthered by placing a degree of regulatory control in the hands of a Fish and Game Council composed of sportsmen, farmers, and commercial fishermen,” Associate Justice Robert Clifford wrote in the majority opinion. “Opening the Council’s membership to persons with differing philosophies might reflect the art of public relations, but it is not a constitutional necessity.”

Clifford’s decision acknowledges the council’s make-up is may be “less than ideal” to the general public, but left it to state lawmakers to handle any changes to who sits on the council.

Associate Justice Morris Pashman was the one dissenter in the 1976 case. He argued there was no good reason why membership to the fish and game council should be tied to sportsmen’s clubs and the agriculture convention.

“I especially cannot sanction this practice where its practical effect will deprive an organization, whose interests are intimately affected by the decisions of the Fish and Game Council, of any chance to achieve the representation which it needs to protect those interests,” Pashman wrote in his dissent, referring to groups like the Humane Society and the Sierra Club.

Lesniak said the planned lawsuit will rely on Pashman’s dissent, and “additional evidence” that was not presented in 1976.

“It’s an old case,” Lesniak said. “A lot of things that need to be presented to the court were not presented at that time.”

Lesniak said he expects the lawsuit to be filed early next year. Until then, he said he and his fellow activists are working to persuade Murphy to halt the bear hunt that is currently underway.

“We don’t have many options,” Lesniak acknowledged. He said that bear hunt opponents had urged Murphy to cancel this year’s hunt out of COVID-19 concerns — he noted a concern about hunters traveling to New Jersey from hotspot states — but the governor declined to do so.

Lesniak also called on hunters to just go home, and not participate in the bear hunt.

“Be content that you have made a positive contribution to the moral fabric of our society by not contributing to the slaughter of our bear population,” Lesniak said.

Will the European Parliament make the Future of CAP animal welfare-friendly?

Will the European Parliament make the Future of CAP animal welfare-friendly?

14 October 2020

On 20 October 2020, the European Parliament will vote on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) 2021-2027. With a lot at stake, MEPs will also vote on whether the new CAP will finally be able to deliver toward its objective of ‘promoting animal welfare’.

An overwhelming majority (94%) of EU citizens believe it is important to protect the welfare of farmed animals. Additionally,  in the most recent EU wide survey on European, Agriculture and the CAP in the latest Eurobarometer, citizens listed animal welfare as the second most important responsibility farmers should have in today’s society.

The reform of the CAP provides numerous opportunities to take into consideration these citizens’ demands on animal welfare. 

On 20/10/20, Members of the European Parliament will vote on what the future CAP will look like and whether animal welfare will be an integral part of the programme from 2021 to 2027.

Eurogroup for Animals and its members call on the MEPs’ support of improving enforcement of animal welfare legislation (conditionality measures), and promote best practices on farm animal welfare (in the newly created eco-schemes and under the in Pillar II listed measures for rural development plans). 

What is the CAP ?

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is the first, biggest, and one of the few pieces of legislation entirely decided at the EU level. The CAP accounts for almost half of the EU’s entire budget – around 58 billion euros yearly. In paying European farmers in exchange for producing food in a certain way, the CAP determines which type of farming practices are likely to thrive in the EU. 

What we call the “CAP” is in fact a series of regulations: four regulations under the current CAP; reduced to three for the next CAP reform. The Regulation on Strategic Plans, which determines rules for payments to farmers (so called “Pillar I”) and the measures for rural development plans, which are essentially bonuses afforded to producers who undertake good practices (so-called “Pillar II”). The Common Market Organisation (CMO) Regulation relates to technical measures supporting production and consumption, such as promotional measures, regulation on denomination of food products, and all the measures actionable during crisis (surplus stocking for instance). Unlike the CAP Strategic Plans Regulation, the CMO regulation is not regulating payments, but technical measures to regulate the agri-food market. Finally, the Horizontal Regulation mostly provides for penalty measures. All three regulations have tremendous effects on the number of animals produced, and the ways in which they are treated.

Does the present CAP take animal welfare into account ?

Yes. The EU is the only  jurisdiction in the world to include an animal welfare component in its agricultural policy. This, more than the enactment of animal welfare legislation, contributes to the exceptionalism of the EU when it comes to the taking into account of  animal welfare in policies. The articulation between the CAP and animal welfare is instrumental to achieve the objectives set in EU animal welfare laws, since the CAP is  the one piece of legislation which most affects the lives of the seven billion farm animals raised and slaughtered each year in the EU.

Even though the CAP contains only a few provisions on animal welfare, these provisions affect greatly the treatment of farm animals in our union.

To understand the extent to which CAP and animal welfare intersects, it is important to know how it is structured. The CAP is divided into two main “pillars”, with:

  • Pillar I, which grants farmers subsidies in exchange for producing agricultural products: crops for human or animal consumption, and livestock. Under Pillar One, EU law requires that all farmers receiving payments should be submitted to additional inspection to ensure they comply with minimal legislation on animal welfare. A livestock producer who fails to comply with certain minimal requirements – such as providing enrichment materials for pigs – will receive a reduced amount of subsidies. This measure is popular among EU citizens, with 82% in favor of reducing subsidy payments for noncompliance (Eurobarometer, 2016). 
  • Pillar II provides additional funding for good practices that go beyond legal requirements. Member States have the possibility to offer a series of financial aids to those farmers who commit to improve animal welfare beyond legal requirements, by providing them support to help them transition to or maintain more humane production models. For example, to farmers who raise free range chickens. 

The CAP as. In fact, animal welfare requirements as an eligibility criterion for subsidies were included in the CAP in the early 2000s, but it wasn’t enough to prevent the proliferation of intensive farming. 

As a result, cruel practices are becoming increasingly common on European farms – in France, the UK, Poland and Spain, to name a few countries. The present CAP will expire in 2020 and a new one is being discussed in the European Parliament and Council. 

The EU’s subsidy scheme is in need of reform to ensure it meets our societies’ biggest challenges and expectations concerning our food system. Yet the reforms addressed so far are limited to the administrative intricacies of payment redistribution by the European Commission and the Member States: a shame, given the considerable effect the CAP has on animal welfare and its potential to improve food policies.

What are the limits to the inclusion of animal welfare into the CAP ?

Circling back to the compliance requirements on animal welfare under Pillar I, the CAP doesn’t cover all species – poultry welfare requirements are still excluded, for instance, despite the fact that there are two specific pieces of EU legislation imposing minimum welfare standards for laying hens and for broilers. Even for animals which are included in the CAP’s welfare provisions, compliance is not always guaranteed. For example, the EU Court of Auditors recently found that not all farms receiving money from Pillar I were being checked for adherence to the CAP’s welfare provisions, with some Member States’ inspection systems leaving farms – sometimes those most in risk of violations – outside their scope.

As for Pillar II, even though some Member States may have specifically chosen to fund animal welfare practices that go the extra mile, not all of them actually spent according to that express intention under the current CAP – 16 out of 28 Member States only, and for an amount totalling only 1.5% of the entire pillar. Secondly, while you would think if a farmer is getting Pillar II subsidies for the extra animal welfare measures, he or she would also be complying with the legal requirements of Pillar One, the EU Court of Auditors has revealed that this is not the case. Examples include farmers who are providing more space per pig than is required by EU law while not complying with minimal legal requirements in other areas, such as painful tail docking. An additional issue is that in listing the best practices they choose to fund under Pillar Two, Member States often incentivise those that are detrimental to animal welfare. Funding for modernisation could lead to the building of a state-of-the-art intensive farm, for example. 

In fact, the issue of animal welfare in the CAP goes beyond gaps in enforcement, and has more to do with the general objectives of the CAP itself. 

Since its creation in the early 1960s, the CAP has incentivised the increase in production of animal-based food products; first as a way to ensure EU’s food security, and more recently to gain global market share. By doing so, it has undermined an already weak animal welfare policy objective. At its current level, the CAP gives revenue to farmers for raising animals for consumption purposes to such an extent that animal agriculture accounts for 40% of the EU’s agricultural production, according to Eurostat’s Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery statistics from 2018. As a result, production methods have been further industrialised, making extreme confinement and painful mutilations the norm in EU animal agriculture. By incentivising the production of animals for food, the CAP also influences consumer patterns. Firstly, the more animals are produced for food, the more consumers will find animal products in supermarkets, and the cheaper those products will be. Secondly, to maintain consumption levels of animal products, certain intensive producers benefit from opportunities available under the CAP such as the EU’s marketing campaigns to promote and sell their products. For instance, certain Italian PDO pork producers have continued to benefit from these opportunities despite repeatedly violating minimal EU animal welfare standards. Similarly, the CAP gives privileged access to specific markets with programmes such as the EU “School Scheme,” providing milk to school kids across the EU, but also enabling producers to use European schools as a dumping ground for an overproduced commodity while influencing young Europeans’ food habits. 

What can MEP’s do to make sure the new CAP will be fairer for all; including animals

Not only has the CAP neglected to properly take animal sentience into account, it has led to a broken food system which fails animals, farmers, consumers and citizens alike. The CAP reform is a unique opportunity to reverse the trend of industrial farm animal production. To further the EU’s mandate to respect animal sentience, we must demand that the cruelest forms of animal exploitation must be ineligible for any type of public funding (subsidies and market measures), higher welfare systems rewarded and inspection systems in EU States strengthened throughout the Union. Only this would make the CAP consistent with the EU Treaty, and the EU a credible role model for animal welfare for the rest of the world.

The European Parliament, therefore, needs to (1) support enhanced conditionality on animal welfare; all directives on animal welfare should be included in conditionality, and conditionality should be extended to both pillars; (2) support funding to incentivise producers to transition towards more humane systems; under Pillar I with the newly-created eco-schemes; under Pillar II by making Animal Welfare Measure (“Measure 14”) mandatory in all national  rural development plan.

Sri Lanka bans cow slaughter, but has yet to pass animal welfare bill.

Sri Lanka bans cow slaughter, but has yet to pass animal welfare bill

13 October 2020

The Sri Lankan government will be amending the Animal Act after the Cabinet approved a proposal by Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa to ban the slaughter of cows in this predominantly Buddhist country.

However, animal rights activists point out that there are no animal welfare laws in the country, and a bill to enact an Animal Welfare Act has been blocked in parliament since 2006.

After the Cabinet approved the proposal on September 28th the government released a statement presenting it as a rural economic self-reliance measure.

“As a country with an economy based on agriculture, the contribution of the cattle resource to develop the livelihood of the rural people of Sri Lanka is immense,” the government said in a statement. “Various parties have pointed out that the livestock resource that are required for traditional farming purposes is insufficient due to the rise of cattle slaughter and the insufficiency of livestock resource is an obstacle to uplift the local dairy industry”.

The statement further said that this decision would help to uplift the rural economy by developing a dairy industry, as well as saving a  substantial amount of foreign exchange, that is now spent on importing milk and milk powder. Immediate steps are to be taken to amend the Animal Act of 1958 and the Cow Slaughter Ordinance of 1893.

“The ban on cattle slaughter is part of the tradition of Dharmic religions” argues animal rights activist and lawyer Senaka Weeraratne. “Once these countries became colonies the ban was lifted and all three European powers Portuguese, Dutch and British freely encouraged the locals to flout tradition and Buddhist precepts by eating meat and drinking alcohol”.

Read more at source

Eurasia Review

Regards Mark

Iceland: A Story of Hope For All Imprisoned Sea Creatures. Keep Wildlife In the Wild.

Palm oil and the European fascism in Africa

Rainforest Rescue

Palm oil production in Nigeria is a destructive and violent business. Companies like Okomu Oil Palm Plantation Plc (OOPC) are clearing forests with breathtaking speed and leaving destroyed livelihoods and human rights violations in their wake.

Please support the struggle of local communities for their rights and for nature.

On May 20, 2020, the village Ijaw-Gbene in southern Nigeria was burnt to the ground.

Witnesses identified the Okomu Oil Palm Plantation Plc (OOPC) security force and members of the Nigerian army as the attackers.

Previously, three other villages had been torched under similar circumstances.

The attack in May 2020 left local farmers and fisherfolk homeless and their properties destroyed.

More than 80 villagers had no choice but to seek shelter in neighboring communities and in churches, rendering social distancing impossible and increasing their risk of COVID infection.

OOPC denies the allegations.

OOPC is a subsidiary of SOCFIN, a group controlled by French corporate titan Vincent Bolloré and the Belgian businessman Hubert Fabri.
SOCFIN operates rubber and palm oil plantations in ten countries in Africa and Asia.

Europeans have a bad reputation: whether in Cameroon, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast, or Cambodia, wherever Socfin works, the local population complains about brutal methods.

In a joint letter dated September 4, local communities asked the Nigerian president to take steps against OOPC. The struggle against the company is not an isolated case – it’s symptomatic for the palm oil business around the world.

Please support the affected communities in fighting for their rights and for the forests with your signature.

Petition: https://www.rainforest-rescue.org/petitions/1224/stop-nigerias-lawless-palm-oil-juggernaut


For more…at https://worldanimalsvoice.com/2020/10/14/palm-oil-and-the-european-fascism-in-africa/


And I mean…To clarify once again: First, there is practically no sustainable palm oil. The oil palm cultivation and processing is a highly polluting and dirty industry because it involves a lot of money.

But with the “help” of the Europeans, people are brutally driven from their countries, even with the help of the military.

The thousands of hectares of monoculture plantations in Asia and Africa are mostly the result of deforestation in the rainforest or the displacement of small farmers.

They leach out the soil, are very water-intensive, and require large amounts of chemical fertilizers and pesticides.

They also prevent smallholder agriculture, are known for the miserable working conditions and wages of palm oil workers, and thus contribute to increased land conflicts, impoverishment, and hunger.

After all, German chemical companies are also among the main buyers of this increasingly important raw material.

Palm oil has been linked to human rights abuses and violence.
Palm oil is forest destruction, human and animal life destruction.

Never buy products that contain palm oil.

With our purchase, we can also resist the big multinational oligarchs and save people and animals.

My best regards to all, Venus