Archive for September, 2010

 From Gary L. Francione’s blog .. Although I fully support PETA, I also agree withe Francione’s strict vegan views. Not easy to get things moving BUT most important is that the Vegan movement is progressing .. Most vegans in France are not abolitonist vegans morever many of them support the Meat and Milk industries by promoting their products that target the vegetarians.. a little like the McDonalds story

 La réponse de Gary LFrancione à une déclaration d’Ingrid Newkirk. Bien que je supporte entièrement PETA parce que pour le moment aucune autre organisation en France n’envoit les messages sur le végétaLisme, je comprends la position de Francione sur le veganisme. Nous voyons autour de nous trop de gens (en France) qui militent pour les droits des animaux tout en parlant avec larmes du végétalisme et qui pourtant lorsque nous lisons leurs blogs ou leurs commentaires sur des artilcles traitant de la souffrance animale, mentionnent manger “de temps en temps” des viandes animales, ou “ne pas pouvoir se priver de fromages ou de laitages animaux”.

Rester dans la tolérance d’un mauvais juste milieu ne fait que cautionner les maltraitances animales même si c’est indirect.

Mes recettes végétaLiennes sont maintenant également relayées en plus du Myspace sur le site JARDIN VEGAN


Dear Colleagues:

In an article in Time Magazine, PETA co-founder Ingrid Newkirk discusses “flexitarianism,” or “[p]art-time vegetarianism.”

The goal for many activists is simply to get more people to eat less meat. “Absolute purists should be living in a cave,” says Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). “Anybody who witnesses the suffering of animals and has a glimmer of hope of reducing that suffering can’t take the position that it’s all or nothing. We have to be pragmatic. Screw the principle.”

We can make several observations about Newkirk’s statements:

First, Newkirk repeats the mantra of the new welfarist movement: that animal welfare reforms actually reduce suffering. The reforms that are promoted by PETA and the other new welfarist groups for the most part do not provide significant welfare benefits for animals. They just represent a different form of torture. Waterboarding someone on a bare board and waterboarding them on a padded board is still waterboarding.

Moreover, for the most part, industry would eventually adopt these reforms anyway because they generally increase production efficiency. Giving slightly more space to veal calves or using alternatives to the gestation crate result in increased animal productivity, lower veterinary costs, and a better bottom line for producers. PETA explicitly recognizes that gassing chickens is an economically efficient thing to do. The symbiotic relationship between large animal groups and institutional exploiters is clear when we see that groups like PETA and institutional exploiters are involved in a drama whereby animal advocates target an economically vulnerable practice; industry puts up a token fight; the reform, or some modification of the reform, is eventually accepted because it does not harm, and usually helps, industry; the animal groups declare victory; the animal exploiters bask in the praise that industry gets from animal advocates. Only the animals lose.

Second, Newkirk conveniently ignores that the relentless promotion of these welfare reforms by PETA and other new welfarist groups and the claims that these reforms make exploitation more “humane” make the public feel more comfortable about consuming animals and, as a result, consumption increases. It is interesting to note that per capita consumption of animal products is going up and not down. When groups like PETA give an award to slaughterhouse designer Temple Grandin, or praise animal flesh/products peddlers, or call off the boycott of KFC in Canada because KFC agreed to phase in buying gassed chickens from producers, what does that say to the public? It is nothing less than one big stamp of “animal rights” approval.

PETA has made it possible for people who eat at KFC in Canada or at McDonald’s, or who buy “happy” meat or other animal products at Whole Foods, to proclaim themselves as “animal rights” advocates.

It should be increasingly clear that the “happy meat/animal products” movement is a giant step backwards.

Third, Newkirk conveniently misses the most important point in the debate whether to pursue a clear vegan moral baseline or instead to pursue welfare reforms.

It’s a zero-sum game. That is, we live in a world of limited resources. Every cent of money; every second of time; every bit of effort that we devote to welfare reform is less money, time, and labor that we devote to clear, unequivocal vegan advocacy. If the large new welfaist corporations put all of their resources into vegan advocacy, they could reduce suffering and death by reducing demand and helping to shift the paradigm away from the notion that animals are things that we can use if we treat them “humanely” to the notion that animals are beings with inherent moral value whom we should not be using at all.

Consider the following example: you have one hour to spend today on animal advocacy. Should you spend that hour educating people about eating cage-free eggs or about not eating eggs (or animal products) at all? You cannot do both and to the extent that you tell people—as these organizations do—that they can satisfy their moral obligations to animals by eating cage-free eggs or other “happy” animal products, you virtually guarantee that the best that will happen is that people will choose a different form of torture rather than no torture at all.

The choice is not, as Newkirk suggests, between reducing suffering or promoting veganism. It is only by promoting veganism—by working on the demand side of the equation rather than the supply side (the focus on welfare reforms)—that we will reduce suffering—and death.

A related point is that it is not just suffering that matters, as Newkirk suggests; killing matters as well. Newkirk apparently buys into Peter Singer’s view that animals for the most part do not have an interest in continuing to live but only have an interest in not suffering. I reject this view as a factual matter. To deny that any sentient being has an interest in continuing to live is absurd. All sentient beings prefer, or want, or desire to continue to live. The welfarist position, which Newkirk and Singer accept, is that animal life per se has no moral value. Perhaps this accounts for why PETA kills most of the animals it takes in at its Norfolk facility. In any event, I reject that view as speciesist.

As long as the issue is how we treat animals, as long as we think that we are justified in exploiting them as long as we treat them “humanely,” and not that we cannot justify animal exploitation, however “humane” it is, the paradigm will never shift.

Fourth, I understand why animal businesses like PETA promote “flexitarian” principles and are hostile to veganism. They want the biggest donor base possible. According to a PETA executive, half of PETA’s membership is not even vegetarian. If you want those people to make contributions and leave you in their wills, you need to make them feel good about their continued exploitation of animals. If you want to hobnob with Hollywood celebrities and other famous people who consume animals, you cannot have a clear vegan policy. So, instead, you have a position that includes everyone but, precisely because it does not rule out any behavior as morally unacceptable, the position means nothing.

The moral schizophrenia is astounding. PETA routinely condemns institutional animal exploiters but then fails to acknowledge that the consumers who demand animal products—including all those PETA members who are not vegan—are the animal exploiters who create the demand in the first place.

In sum, it is sad that the biggest opponents of veganism as a moral baseline are so-called animal advocates like Newkirk and Singer (1; 2). It is distressing when Newkirk’s response to principled veganism is, “Screw the principle,” or that those who advocate principled veganism “should be living in a cave.”

It is a matter of concern when those who cry the loudest that veganism is difficult or daunting are so-called animal advocates.

Please understand I am not questioning Newkirk’s sincerity. I just sincerely believe that she is very, very wrong.

If you are not vegan, please consider going vegan. Don’t buy into the false dichotomy between flesh and other animal products. There is no morally coherent distinction between flesh and other animal products. Animals used for dairy generally live longer, are treated as badly if not worse than animals raised for meat, and they end their lives in the same hideous slaughterhouses as do their meat counterparts.

Going vegan is easy (despite what some large animal organizations claim); it is better for your health; it is better for the planet; and, most important, it is the morally right thing to do. Veganism is not a matter of compassion or mercy; it is a matter of fundamental justice.

Veganism is the least that we owe to nonhuman sentients.

Gary L. Francione
© 2010 Gary L. Francione

Read Full Post »

NO this is not all right .. we expected the ban of ALL animal experimentations be replaced by alternative methods of experimentations. One could say ok..Great apes are now protected.. but no it is no quite enough. Read more HERE
The compromise is not acceptable.  We are not near to changing times, “humans are humans, animals are animals.. animal experimentation is necessary “” stated the Italian Germano MP Dorfman.  Hell should wait for theses bloody MPs as hell is and will be for all the animals that have been, will be tortured, put to death in these bloody animal experimentation camps called “laboratories.
A march will take place in both Paris and Milano on Sat 25th Septembrer 2010 to protest the EU vote. The 40 green Euro MPs and others left the session to protest.
Our world is run by industrial lobbies .. what else could we expect from these bloody MPS who are only concerned by “profits and industries”..
En Français ICI  et ICI
Laboratory research: limit animal testing without hampering scientific progress say MEPs
2009 elections – Agriculture – 05-05-2009 – 14:09
Plenary sessions
For obvious ethical reasons, the use of animals in scientific experiments needs to be limited and their welfare improved. But this must be done without hindering research in Europe into fighting diseases, says the European Parliament in a legislative report adopted by MEPs in Strasbourg.
Around 12 million animals are used for scientific research in the EU every year. This number should be reduced to a minimum and any planned tests subjected to compulsory ethical assessment, to take account of the public’s concerns, according to a draft directive that has be approved under the co-decision procedure by the European Parliament and the EU Council of Ministers.
MEPs today adopted in plenary, by a majority of 540 to 66, with 34 abstentions, a first-reading report by Neil Parish (EPP-ED, UK) broadly backing these goals.
“We all want to see animal tests reduced. However, European citizens quite rightly demand the best and most effective medicines”, Mr Parish said. “The Parliament report makes it clear exactly when testing on animals should be allowed and under what circumstances. It strikes a compromise between ensuring that research can continue in the EU and improving animal welfare”, he added.
Great apes to be used only to conserve the species
In particular, MEPs endorsed a ban on the use of great apes (chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orangutans), who are threatened with extinction, except for experiments intended to conserve these species.
However, some aspects of the proposal, which would drastically restrict the use of primates such as ouistitis and macaques, could penalise European research to the advantage of its American or Asian competitors, which are less strict on animal welfare. The House therefore amended the directive to make it better balanced and enable medical research to go ahead.  At the same time it suggested measures to promote alternatives to animal testing.
Using fewer primates without compromising the fight against serious diseases
The reports rejects the idea that tests using non-human primates should be restricted to “life-threatening or debilitating” conditions, as this would seriously hinder research into, among other diseases, some forms of cancer, multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer’s disease. It points out that other European and international guidelines require that some drugs be tested on primates before they are approved, and says that tests using these animals should continue to be allowed in medical research as a whole. Also, the Commission should conduct a review of the use of non-human primates in scientific experiments every two years after the entry into force of the directive.
Feasibility studies before animal captures are halted
MEPs support the goal of putting an end to the capturing of wild animals (F0 colonies, in the jargon) by using second-generation specimens born in laboratories (F2) instead, but views differ over the possibility of setting up such colonies in the near future. MEPs therefore want the Commission to carry out feasibility studies to check whether the supply of animals will be enough for EU research purposes.  Meanwhile they believe a transition period of ten years is needed instead of the seven years envisaged by the Commission.
Classification of the severity of tests
MEPs also adopted amendments to clarify the text of the legislation, giving definitions for the three categories of pain inflicted during a test (“up to mild”, “moderate” or “severe”). To avoid repeated suffering, the Commission wants to allow the same animals to be re-used only if the test entails pain classed as “up to mild”.  MEPs, however, believe that applying criteria that are too strict would result in even more animals being used for tests, which would defeat the object. They therefore ask for animals to be re-usable if the test entails “moderate” pain. This would include blood tests or implants performed under anaesthetic.
More effort to devise alternative methods
One of the key features of the directive on reducing the number of tests on animals is the development of alternative methods. However, the directive is unclear about the role in this area of the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods. MEPs believe the centre should be expanded to give it a genuine role in coordinating and promoting the development and use of methods that can replace animal testing. They add that the Commission and Member States must provide material support for the development of such new experimental approaches.
More transparency without increasing red tape
Other amendments seek to spell out the requirements for transparency regarding any tests performed and to prevent red tape which would bring little animal welfare benefit.
In particular, MEPs want the prior authorisations required for animal tests to be limited to projects where the pain would be “moderate” or “severe” or to those carried out on primates.
Also, they do not want the directive to cover larval forms and embryonic or foetal forms other than mammals, because of the complications of counting and recording the thousands of eggs laid by some female fish or amphibian species.
The text approved by MEPs stresses that the directive will not prevent Member States from applying or adopting stricter national measures to improve the well-being and protection of animals used for scientific purposes.
Next steps after the elections
Owing to end-of-legislature calendar constraints, it has not been possible to conduct talks with the Council of Ministers with a view to reaching a first-reading agreement before the European elections in June. It will therefore be up to the newly-elected Parliament to confirm or amend the outgoing Parliament’s position and negotiate with Member State representatives in order to conclude work on this directive.

Read Full Post »

just laugh… !!! Laughing is one of the rare free stuff in this crazy world … Ahmed and Jeff Dunham makes me laugh although I haved watched so many times … and I think we all need to laugh, not you ?  French sub-titled – SOUS TITRE FRANCAIS

Read Full Post »