Showing posts with label animal rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label animal rights. Show all posts

Wednesday, 18 December 2013

European candidate urges people to vote Green next May to protect animals

Last week I became a candidate for the Green Party for the European Parliament for the North West of England region. Elections will be held next May along side local elections, for which I will also be a Green Party candidate in the Manchester City Council elections, for the Chorlton ward. As a vegan and an animal rights activist I urge all who care passionately about animals to vote for the Green Party in the European elections, and I will explain to you why this is one of the best things we can do to help animals.

From a purely animal rights point of view there really are not many political parties in the UK worth bothering with. There's only really the Green Party and the Animal Welfare Party (AWP) who are active and have even semi-decent animal rights policies. You can take a look at the Green Party's animal rights policies here: http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/ar . Both the AWP and the Green Party are standing in the European Parliament elections next May hoping to gain seats. The AWP (under their former name Animals Count) only stood in the Eastern region in the 2009 European election and received 13,201 votes (around 0.8% of the vote). This time round they are committed to standing in the London region, but will not stand in other regions unless they can get hold of enough funding/donations. They say they need 140,000 votes in London to get an MEP elected claiming that there are around 500,000 vegetarians/vegans in London and therefore they only need a small percentage of their votes. It is very unrealistic that they will achieve that quota given that the Green Party only managed to achieve 190,589 votes at the last European election and UKIP only managed 188,440 votes at the last election. The AWP does not have the national, regional or local presence and has not built it's name up enough to achieve that level of success. They need improve their vote by more than 10 times the amount they received in 2009, yet their profile has not significantly grown at all since 2009 and they still no not have a single person elected at any level.

The Green Party's MEPs (Member of European Parliament) have an excellent record when it comes to animals. Every few months the Green MEPs publish a newsletter on the work that they and the Green group in the parliament have been doing to improve things for animals (latest issue can be read here: http://www.keithtaylormep.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Final-Making-Tracks-Compressed.pdf ). Keith Taylor, MEP for the South East for example worked hard to keep the EU wide ban on the sale of cosmetics that have been tested on animals to 2013 when the industry was putting on pressure to delay the ban. Green MEPs worked hard to ensure the ban on battery hens was achieved. The Green group has worked hard to tighten up regulations on fishing so that fishing trawlers do not destroy our oceans. These achievements wouldn't be possible without Green MEPs. Voting for the AWP in London could prevent the Green Party's animal spokesperson Caroline Allen from being elected as she is second on the Green Party list. Being very generous, if the AWP get around 30,000 votes that could be the difference that the Green Party need to getting Caroline Allen elected. In many parts of the country the Greens were just less than 2% away from getting someone elected. In the North West where I am a candidate they were 0.3% away from defeating Nick Griffin.

If more animal advocates voted for the Greens next May it might be that extra amount we need to get a handful of extra MEPs. Since the last Euro elections in 2009 the Greens have grown tremendously, in 2010 Caroline Lucas was elected as the first ever Green MP. In 2011 Brighton & Hove City Council became the first Green-led council ever, which has led to vegan options becoming available in council owned canteens and other places where the council has influence. This year Jenny Jones became the first Green Party politician to be appointed to the House of Lords. We have never had such a great opportunity to make so many gains nationally. Good results in the European elections will do wonders for our chances in the General Election in 2015 when Caroline Lucas is up for re-election as an MP. Caroline Lucas does a lot of great things for animals in parliament. She has fought against the badger cull and has fought for the ban of wild animals being used in circuses amongst other things. If she did not get re-elected it would be a great loss for British politics at a time when people have very little faith in politicians. Well the Greens are something different. We care about the common good. We care about creating a society that benefits the planet and all beings living here, including animals.The very realistic alternative if people don't vote Green is that we will get more UKIP and Labour MEPs and they will not champion animal issues.

Further reading on Green Party animal rights campaigns, especially regarding the European parliament:

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Thursday, 17 October 2013

Speciesism: The Forgotten Discrimination

I often get good left-wing activists tell me that speciesism isn't a real thing and that it's used as a bullying tactic and that it's actually offensive to human-centric struggles. A lot of people have never heard of speciesism, or don't understand it and even get offended by the use of the term. I'd thought I'd clarify what speciesism is all about in this blog post. Hopefully this will help some people to understand speciesism.

To everyone who accepts speciesism as a genuine term, and especially to those who are anti-speciesist speciesism is one of the general forms of discrimination. Just like sexism is discrimination based on sex, racism is discrimination based on race, speciesism is discrimination based on species. It is the belief that your species is superior to other species. Some people have argued that discrimination can only be applied to people and therefore speciesism is not a general form of discrimination because in their eyes only human beings can be people. This way of thinking is in and of itself speciesist. Some definitions of discrimination do not use the term people, but instead use the term individuals, and that would class all non-human animals as open to discrimination in the form speciesism.

Like all forms of discrimination, the use of the term speciesism has often been wrongly used by both speciesists and anti-speciesists. In my view people discriminate on 2 different bases, through ignorance and through the belief that some individuals or groups of individuals are superior to others. Take racism for example, some people discriminate against immigrants because they wrongly believe that immigrants are taking more state benefits than the taxes they pay. This is factually incorrect, and is ignorance. In my eyes this does not make those people racists, but it does make those individual acts of discrimination racist. If they knew that most immigrants work, pay taxes and might not even be eligible to claim state benefits then they would be less likely to discriminate. A true racist, I would argue, is someone who continues to discriminate even though they are aware of all of the facts because they believe their race is superior to other races. They could (but not always) be persuaded to change their beliefs however. I apply this thinking to speciesism. Just because someone takes part in speciesist acts, it does not automatically make them a speciesist. There is a lot of ignorance about speciesist issues, and the ultimate solution to speciesism is a difficult one (veganism).

All forms of animal exploitation are in fact acts of speciesism, from meat eating to zoos, from animal testing to the fur and leather trades. If you believe it is okay to treat animals in this way, or even that they were put on this earth for this purpose, then you are being speciesist. If you are reading this and you are a meat eater, don't worry I am not calling you a speciesist. The meat industry is a speciesist industry and you are supporting that industry, but how am I to know why you are a meat eater? In a society where from the moment you were born to the day you die animal products are pressured and even forced upon every human being, it can be difficult to know any better. One example of ignorance about a speciesist issue is how the dairy industry hides forced impregnations (in my view, rape) and tearing a calf from it's mother 2 days after the calf is born. I didn't know that even when I was vegetarian. Another example is that some people believe that greyhounds or horses in the racing industry are looked after well, but this is not true - over 300 horses are raced to death every year in the UK, and more than 15,000 greyhounds are put down every year because they are not good enough to race. The speciesist industries put an awful lot of money into advertising to make you unaware of these issues. When you get handed a burger at a takeaway or when you buy a leather jacket you weren't informed of how they were produced, weren't shown footage of the screams of the animals. Ever seen an advert for cheese or milk where they show (often cartoon) cows actually wanting the product for themselves? There is a lot of money put into creating a false image that animals are happy to be exploited for our own indulgence, when the reality is very different.

When people state that the term speciesism is offensive to human-centric struggles I get baffled. I have heard the claim that all struggles have to be fought and won by the groups that are oppressed, (I.E. women's struggle fought for by women, class struggle fought for by the working class, etc.), and that only oppressed groups can liberate themselves. I wonder if this would apply to child abuse, where children usually cannot stand up for themselves, or with other oppressed groups that are not able to liberate themselves. Should we not try to liberate oppressed groups who are not able to liberate themselves? I'm not advocating that people should get involved in direct action and smash up animal laboratories, animal liberation can take legal forms such as vegan outreach as well. In fact, all you have to do to be a part of the anti-speciesism movement is to be vegan, boycott animal industries and value all animals are morally equal to humans. This does not stop you from being involved in human-centric struggles, nor does it stop you from being further involved in the anti-speciesism movement. Often when I take part in animal rights actions I get asked why I am not campaigning about human issues, or even if I care about humans, I question them why they aren't at that moment themselves campaigning on human issues, and that I do in fact also campaign on human issues as well. It is often the person who accuses anti-speciesism activists of not caring about humans that does not campaign on any issues at all.

There is often a hypothetical scenario given to discuss speciesism and animal issues in a philosophical way. Imagine you are on a boat which is sinking due to being too heavy, and that there's a dog and a human on the boat and the only way to stop the boat from sinking is to throw either the dog or the human overboard. Which would you choose? Let's say for arguments sake that it is a young puppy and an elderly human, both of whom have around 10 more years to live. As both species are sentient it is speciesist to favour one species over another in this scenario. Both have the ability to enjoy life and to suffer. Neither are superior to the other, nor more worthy of life.

Here, watch the film Earthlings. It's about our relationship with animals. Vegan actor Joaquin Phoenix (from Gladiator, Walk The Line) narrates it, and vegan musician Moby does the music.

For further info:
Wikipedia page for speciesism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism
Speciesism: The Movie: http://speciesismthemovie.com/
Earthlings film: http://earthlings.com/
Posted by at 5 comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, 13 October 2013

Introducing: Greens For Animal Protection

Anyone who knows me will know that I have two massive and major political loves that dominate my life. Veganism/animal rights and the Green Party. The Green Party has by far the best animal rights policies of any party which isn't a single issue animal party in the UK. This was a really important factor for me joining the party. Our animal policies include banning all forms of animal testing and putting research into alternatives, banning zoos, opposing the badger cull, banning the sale of fur, banning factory farming, ensuring all companion animals (often called pets) will be microchipped and registered while breeding of such animal monitored, banning all animal circuses, banning whaling and introduce animal rights officers for all local authorities. There's still a lot of work to be done to improve these policies, but there is also only so far we can go before we start to alienate the general public who by large are not abolitionist animal rights activists.

Greens For Animal Protection members at recent Green Party conference in Brighton. Source: http://carolineallengreenlondon.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/green-party-calls-for-immediate-end-to.html

I am delighted to announce the formation of Greens For Animal Protection, a group of individuals in the Green Party who care passionately about animal issues. The groups aims include improving the animal rights policies of the Green Party, promoting the animal rights policies of the Green Party, ensuring the Green Party works with animal rights groups and ensuring the Green Party is a part of the animal rights movement. The group is in it's early stages, only forming a few months ago. What the group plans to do has not been decided yet and it will all be decided over the forthcoming months when we hold a few meetings. I'm really excited about this group though, and it has gained a lot of support at the Green Party's recent Autumn conference in Brighton last month. The group also has had a presence at national marches including the national march for badgers and the march against the Tory conference last month where thousands of badger cull protests were involved in the wider anti-Tory march, and is starting to have a presence at vegan fairs around the country.

Green For Animal Protection at the nation badger march. MEP Jean Lambert is directly to the right of the banner


Greens For Animal Protection members and supporters include:
So far we have a Facebook page here: https://www.facebook.com/GreensForAnimalProtection and a Twitter account here: https://twitter.com/Greens4Animals . One day we might set up a website or a blog and when that happens I'll hopefully let you all know. Our email is: greensforanimalprotection@gmail.com and phone number: 07703 558724.

If you'd like any speakers from Greens For Animal Protection to come and speak at a meeting please do not hesitate to get in touch via Facebook or Twitter or email or phone.  I'll also give updates on this blog about Greens For Animal Protection activities.

Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: , ,

Thursday, 10 October 2013

The controversy of pets

In my last post I talked about the abolitionist animal rights approach. This is a follow up from the post to address a few comments I've been getting about one thing in particular I mentioned. I mentioned that being an abolitionist means opposing all forms of animal use and exploitation including pet ownership. I got a fair few comments from people either disagreeing with that view point, or not understanding what is wrong with owning pets. I find this issue is possibly the most controversial animal rights topic, or perhaps second to animal testing for medical purposes. This is the animal rights issue I came to terms with last myself. I turned vegan because I was opposed to how we get our food and clothes. It took me a couple of years to understand why I should oppose animals in the entertainment industry when I saw people protesting against horse racing. Id' probably been vegan for around 4 years when someone told me I can't be an animal rights activist if I believe in pets, which made me think. I thought about it a lot and did some research and came to the conclusion I hold today. I would say that owning a pet is towards the least cruel and least exploitative form of animal use, and nowhere near as bad as the food and clothes industries. First thing to be said is that a better term to use is 'companion animals' as that's what they are.

I would say that most abolitionists have a short term and a long term strategy separate to each other when it comes to companion animals. In the short to medium term it can be morally acceptable to an abolitionist to have a dog, cat, rabbit, guinea pig, hamster, whatever animal in your home under three basic conditions. Firstly, that you are re-homing an animal. So that basically means an animal which it's previous "owner" has abandoned. This will include all animals in animal shelters, etc. Do not buy from a breeder as this keeps up the 'pet trade', and someone is still profiting from exploiting animals. Secondly, everything you do with the companion animal must be to benefit the animal. Basically, look after it well and give it a good standard of living. Lastly, spay or neuter the animal if it hasn't already been done so it doesn't breed. Under these three conditions all you are doing is giving an abandoned animal a better quality of life than the animal would be getting in an animal sanctuary. Plus, you are helping out animal sanctuaries by ensuring there is one less animal they have to put resources into looking after. It costs a lot of money and volunteer house to run an animal sanctuary and most of the independent animal sanctuaries could use extra financial support (until capitalism is overthrown of course). If you go to one of these animal sanctuaries that re-home their animal and you are given a choice of what animal you would like to take home, it's always better to choose an older animal. The reason for this is that young puppies and kittens are more popular and a lot more likely to be chosen by a family than an elderly animal. An elderly dog or cat could spend years of it's life in an animal sanctuary before it ever gets re-homed, if it ever does. Plus, that will mean less of a commitment from you as the animal will have less years to live. This short term strategy will just help out animals now who might otherwise be suffering. For every dog in someone's house, there's likely to be another 4 in sanctuaries.

The longer term strategy (which the short term strategy will help achieve) involves no-one ever breeding animals, no-one "owning" any companion animal, or looking after one. No domesticated animals existing what so ever. Feral animals might still exist however, but they live entirely wild lives and it should be kept that way. The problem has been domesticating the animals in the first place, and then centuries of breeding and cross-breeding the animals and promoting our right to owning a companion animal. The vast majority of these breeds have been created by humans by cross-breeding other breeds. They are not wild or natural breeds at all. Plus nearly all companion animals are fed food produced by humans, and quite often that will include meat products. We are producing a lot of meat products for cats and dogs. As well as not supporting breeders, we need to educate the masses so they understand why we shouldn't be breeding and artificially keeping these animals alive. Once we stop breeding them then there will be no need for animal sanctuaries or groups like the PDSA. There will be no more abused companion animals. No more unwanted abandoned animals. No more animals that depend on us to keep them alive.

Companion animals have something important in connection with all other domesticated animals. Domesticating animals has always been for human benefit and never been for the animals benefit. Forcing an animal to breed (which is pretty much always rape) and then keeping them under our control for our benefit and forcing them to rely on us for their entire life. Pretty much every part of their lives is controlled by us, especially when you look at animals other than cats. Cats could possibly be an exception as they are let out of the house freely often, but all other companion animals are totally and utterly controlled by us throughout their entire lives. Whenever you look a rabbit in a rabbit hutch, keep a hamster or guinea pig or rat or other rodent in a cage, etc you are controlling their lives. When it eats, what it eats, where it lives, where is does it's business, whether it gets to mate, if it lives with any other animals of it's own species, if it lives with any other animal of another species full stop. It's always going to be this way if we treat animals as property, and that's what pets are, property.

In conclusion: don't buy, adopt!
Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: , ,

Sunday, 6 October 2013

Animal rights & veganism is crucial to left-wing & environmental politics

Disclaimer: While I am a member of the Green Party, this blog post is not about changing Green Party policy, or the message of the party. This blog post is just about why environmentalists and people on the left should take animal rights and veganism seriously.

Recently I've been thinking about how a lot of my left-wing and socialist circles are almost entirely human-centric and discuss animal issues very little at all. As an animal rights activist this upsets me. Likewise a lot of animal rights activists don't consider human struggle any worth either. The environmentalist movement doesn't take veganism as seriously as it should considering animal produce is the leading industry for greenhouse gasses. I believe animal rights and veganism needs to be a big part of the left-wing and environmental movements, and I'd like to explain why.

First of all I think we need to understand animal rights before we can understand why it needs to be a part of left-wing movements. When I say animal rights, I mean abolitionist animal rights as opposed to animal welfare which is not the same thing. Abolitionism within animal rights means abolishing all forms of animal use, because there will always be animal exploitation otherwise. This means we all have to go vegan, zoos and animal circuses will be banned, animal testing to be abolished, and we stop all breeding of animals. This includes pets, which for some people I can understand is a difficult concept to get their head around. It certainly took me years of being vegan before I figured out why we shouldn't have pets. I will say this about pets though - looking after an animal from a rescue centre or animal sanctuary is giving that animal a better quality of life so most abolitionists don't have an issue with having rescued pets/companion animals. The basic idea is that if humans use animals then it is for their own gain and not for the animal's gain, and the animal doesn't have complete freedom. In other words, it's animal slavery. Animal welfare still supports animal slavery, just a "kinder" form of animal slavery. There isn't a single form of animal use which is necessary to human existence. We don't need to eat, hunt, be entertained by, play with, watch or do any of the other things we do with animals. I see no moral justification for not caring about animals this way. Furthermore, I see an important part of being left-wing is opposing all forms of discrimination, and that must also include speciesism. Speciesism is discriminating a being based on it's species, which it cannot help, the view that your own species is superior to other species.

I guess I could describe myself broadly as a green veganarchist. This means I favour a form of anarchism which looks after the interests of the environment and doesn't involve any animal exploitation. Veganism without anarchism is just another consumer lifestyle, anarchism without veganism is just another oppressive regime. I could also describe myself as an eco-socialist. Basically whatever you label give to my politics, I believe that there are several ways we could run society that I would be happy with as long as a few things are taken into consideration. I will not be happy with society until we have egalitarianism (an equal share of wealth and resources), a fully democratic society, an ecologically sound society and the abolition of all animal exploitation. If we are to create a society where all people are to be considered equal, and to be given equal rights and equal share of resources, then I find it hypocritical and wrong if we don't have a relationship with animals where they are also our equals. Humans and non-human animals are all sentient beings. We all share the ability to suffer. On this basis all animals should be given equal moral value. If it's morally wrong to exploit humans, why is it not also morally wrong to exploit other sentient beings? In my view, you can't have a truly left-wing society until all sentient beings have freedom and are not being exploited, and that must include all non-human animals.

 When it comes to the environment there is no excuse to ignore veganism and animal produce. The industries that produce animal products are the single largest contributing industry to greenhouse gasses contributing over 18% of greenhouse gasses (some people report the figure to be as high as 51%, but I'm unconvinced) which is higher than the entire transport industries, including aviation which in total produce around 13.5% of global greenhouse gasses[1]. I say the word greenhouse gasses because carbon dioxide is not the worst gas for climate change by a long way. Methane is at least 20 times worse than carbon dioxide and nitrus oxide is over 300 times more damaging than carbon dioxide. Cows, pigs, sheep and chicken all produce both methane and nitrus oxide. When you take into account that for 1 pound of meat it can take up to 1,000 times more water and 10 times more land than producing 1 pound of plant based food it really doesn't make any environmental sense not to be pursuing a plant based diet. Getting our food sources from animals is so much more inefficient than plant based food because through an animal's life they use up energy in moving, growing, digesting food, excreting, etc. This means that you have to feed an animal far more pounds of food than you get out of it. It is far more efficient and environmentally friendly to feed plant based food directly to humans. If animal product industries are causing nearly one fifth of all greenhouse gasses, more than any other industry, why isn't the environmental movement focused on veganism? Why does the environmental movement focus far more on aviation when the aviation industry causes a lot fewer greenhouse gasses? I've never been able to understand this. I'm not at all saying we shouldn't challenge the aviation industry, I'm just saying there's little point if we're not also challenging the bigger causes of climate change at the same time.

This also has a huge knock on effect around the world. In 3rd world countries around the world more and more land is being stolen for food production, without the the locals getting any of the food or being able to afford any. A transition to a vegan diet will mean that we require a lot less land to produce the same amount of food. This would mean more land in places like Africa and South America could be kept under local control rather than under control of massive multi-national food corporations. It could also prevent wars as there have been wars over land scarcity in places like Darfur.

To be an animal rights abolitionist, all you have to do is be vegan. I'm not saying that we have to go any further out of our way to help animals, all we have to do it just leave them alone. If you're committed to veganism, it will come easily to you. It's not as difficult as you might think and there's plenty of help out there. Once you're vegan it's up to you if you want to do more for animal rights and there are plenty of local groups all around the country. You can focus on human issues or environmental issues if you'd prefer to do that. Veganism can be a healthier diet as meat and dairy are generally not healthy for you. Either way, we can't continue to ignore veganism and animal rights if we call ourselves left-wing or environmentalists.

Further information on veganism and animal rights:



Posted by at 13 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, 12 September 2013

Why the badger cull should not go ahead

Did you know that the UK government wants to kill the majority of wild badgers in England? This vicious act is known as the badger cull and the excuse given is to combat bovine TB. Over the last couple of weeks they started 2 trial zones for culling badgers - Somerset and Gloucestershire. If the trials are successful, then the cull will be taken to the majority of the country. The plan is to murder over 70% of our wild badgers across the country.

Let's look at why this is happening shall we? England has high levels of bovine TB in cattle that has been on the increase since the 1980s. It is true that wild badgers can carry bovine TB and can pass it onto cattle. DEFRA (Department for Environmental and Rural Affairs) is suggesting that culling badgers will lead to a 16% reduction in bovine TB cases[1]. DEFRA and the government is using that as the reason, or the excuse for the badger cull. Bare in mind that this is a Tory-led coalition government and the Tories are well known for being in favour of killing wildlife for fun. They were fierce opponents to the ban on fox hunting and have threatened to repel the ban. David Cameron enjoys shooting deer and only last month was moaning about a bad back which prevented him from going deer stalking[2]. I contacted the MP for Wyre and Preston North where I am registered to vote, Tory MP Ben Wallace and I received a lengthy reply stating that while he doesn't like to see wildlife culled, we must protect British farmers from the dangers of bovine TB carrying badgers as the economic consequences of doing otherwise are unaffordable. I also spoke to the MP for Preston where I was living at the time, Labour MP Mark Hendrick. He told me that he had worked on a report in the 90s with Margaret Becket (or Harriet Harman, I can't quite remember) which showed that culling badgers does not solve the problem of bovine TB and in fact can increase cases of bovine TB. So there is scientific evidence to suggest that culling badgers does not get rid of bovine TB, and that such a cull could increase cases due to dispersing populations of badgers. Some badger activists have suggested that since it's supposed to be illegal to hunt foxes, the Tories want to provide a different animal which can be hunted for pleasure. Others have suggested that the government are using the badger cull as a scapegoat for the real cause of bovine TB - bad farming practices.

Lots of countries across Europe have high populations of the European badger, yet do not have high levels of bovine TB. Why is this? Well, frankly it's down to different farming methods. The UK is the 4th most densely populated country in Europe, after San Marino, Holland and Belgium. We are also one of the largest consumers and producers of meat in Europe. This leads to having intense farming practices where bovine TB can be spread much more easily. Following the foot and mouth crisis in 2001 farmers restocked their cattle without checking the new cattle for bovine TB and that has never really been dealt with properly since[3]. And if the government's own report suggests a badger cull will reduce bovine TB cases by around 16% then surely badgers must not be the main cause of bovine TB. In fact, the majority of badgers are healthy and not infected with bovine TB, and it is very difficult to distinguish between healthy and infected badgers. How else are we going to deal with the other 84% of bovine TB cases? Here's one suggestion - vaccinations. David Cameron has stated that vaccinating badgers would cost more than a cull of badgers. But this is simply not true, the government have estimated a cost for vaccinating badgers £2,250/sq km/year but the combined estimate for the cull and cost to police the cull will reach a total of £2,429/sq km/year[4]. There currently isn't a vaccination for cattle that is safe and ready to use, but one is being tested and will be ready in around 5-10 years time.

 How will the cull take place? Farmers in the pilot areas are to go out at night and shoot badgers. Some badgers will be trapped before being shot. The farmers are not allowed to shoot in the day time for fear of being too close to members of the public. Farmers are going out in secret so it's difficult to find out where they will be.

 So what can you do to help badgers? Firstly and from my point of view most importantly you can turn vegan. Turning vegan is not only good for your health and the environment it can help save the badgers. Reduce the demand for beef and dairy and you reduce the demand for cattle to be bred. If we had no demand for cattle then there would be no excuse for the badger cull.

Now is the time to act as culling has started in the pilot zones. Contact your local hunt sabotage group (search through the list here: http://hsa.enviroweb.org/index.php/get-involved/localgroups) and see if they're going to visit the pilot areas. Farmers cannot shoot if members of the public are around so activists are going out at night wearing hi-vis clothes. There are camps in both areas where activists can stay if they want. You can join Brian May's Badger Team campaign: http://www.teambadger.org.uk/. You can get involved in your local Badger Trust group (find your local group here: http://www.badger.org.uk/content/groups.asp). On Sunday 29th of September at 11am in Manchester you can join us on the Tory conference march and tell the government to stop this brutal slaughter of our innocent wildlife. I will be there along with Greens for Animal Protection (GAP, Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/GreensForAnimalProtection Twitter: https://twitter.com/Greens4Animals) and other Green Party members opposed to the cull. For more information visit the Facebook event here: https://www.facebook.com/events/498833810194210/. I'll see you there, come and say hello!


Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)