No apologies: Why ARA writers should not fear accusations of “Anthropomorphism!” “Sentimentality!”

An Animal Rights Article from All-Creatures.org

FROM

Heidi Stephenson
June 2016

Man is not the pedestalled individual pictured by his imagination – a being glittering with prerogatives, and towering apart from and above all other beings. He is a pain-shunning, pleasure-seeking, death-dreading organism, differing in particulars, but not in kind, from the pain-shunning, pleasure-seeking, death-dreading organisms below and around him.
– (J. Howard Moore, The Universal Kinship)

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
– (Mahatma Gandhi)

Animals have no voice in our wilfully deaf and conveniently anthropocentric, speciesist culture. Despite their clearly having consciousness (for those with eyes to see and ears to hear) and high levels of sapiency as well as sentiency, (which any of us who have had any sort of genuine relationship with a non-human being cannot fail to recognize,) their many languages are not understood by the majority of our fellow humans.

The failure is not on the animals’ part; it is on ours. Not even familiar canine, feline and equine languages, or methods of communication, are comprehended by the vast majority, after all these many aeons of loyal, devoted companionship, friendship and service. And this despite the fact that our fellow beings, (and especially those who are in close relationship with us) have more than managed to learn our own languages. They understand and interpret not only our many, different verbal requests, whether in French, Russian, Japanese, Arabic or Spanish, (all too frequently delivered as arrogant, dominionist commands, unfortunately) but also our physical body languages and our energetic, non-verbal (if you like, telepathic) communications. They read our emotions.

But, tragically, our determined, utilitarianist habits of exploitative thinking and living, deny them any right of response or recognition. We have reduced our highly evolved, non-human kin to mere “things,” to “livestock”, to “experimental subjects,” to “specimens,” – to commodities, to so many “its.” Our blatantly self-serving reductionism has deliberately negated their individuality, their conscious existence and experience, their personalities and their souls. We have disingenuously dismissed all their emotional, psychological and spiritual complexities (which we have barely even begun to fathom, having not wanted to look for so long,) to a simplistic, mechanized “instinct.”

Ours is the herd mentality.

How guilty and remorseful we would all feel if they spoke back to us in a language we couldn’t fail to understand, and we were actually forced to listen! (The Bible’s story about Balaam’s ass makes just this point. And the Divine is clearly on the poor ass’s side.)

It is here that the enlightened writer needs to come in. Our moral and our creative duty is to convey their point of view; to translate it for those who seem unable (or unwilling) to comprehend it otherwise.

The writer is by nature and disposition an empath. The writer is sensitive, observant and importantly able to engage with the experience of another. The writer’s heart is mostly wide open. (Very few respond to the writings of a closed heart. Clever, clever, mind-only writings simply don’t touch us. They pass through our own minds as just another load of ego-centric baloney; ‘intelligent’ perhaps, but abstract, cold. The world is not transformed by them in any way at all.) A good writer feels, sees fully, hears everything, actually dares to bear witness to what is, on all levels – and thus, thankfully, has a different, more developed lens of perception to share.

Writers who write about animals, about their fellow beings, care. We care very deeply. Our compassion and understanding, our capacity to connect, are highly developed. That is why we write. Because we cannot just remain silent. Having uncovered, having discovered, having born witness to the living hell that is most animals’ experience at our hands, we have to make use of so often inadequate, man-made words to pierce through the cold walls of human indifference.

We have to touch. We have to bring viscerally to life. We have to use the power of truthfully observed detail, noticing everything (inside and out) feeling everything, to rekindle the embers of better being in us all, to remind us of our tragically long-forgotten inter-species unity, of our sameness, (and not our petty differences). We have to break down centuries of hardened, calloused indifference.

Abstractions and vast statistics simply don’t touch the majority. If they cannot, as readers, imagine themselves inside the experience of the suffering other, if they cannot identify, they will not be motivated to make personal changes, and to fight for change. Reading is a co-creative process – and it requires the writer to have gone there fully first; to powerfully evoke.

Writers who have the conscience, kindness and commitment to actually write about animals, who have the courage to look their suffering directly in the eye (a tough, torturous path, though very necessary) who have the devotion to their animal brothers and sisters to dedicate themselves to ending all the terrible oppression, all the atrocity, abuse and pain – must never be held back by that old, bitter and selfishly motivated accusation of “anthropomorphism!”

To empathise is not to fantasize or to project at all – but rather to recognise fellow suffering when we see, hear, smell, know and touch it. To empathise is to connect to the vivid reality of another. It is to make real, to embody the cosmic Golden Rule to “Do as you would be done by” and the Silver Rule to “Not do as you would not be done by.” It is love in action.

There is nothing sentimental whatsoever about this compulsion at all. It is, in fact, our highest calling. And there should be no apologies for it either.

Where would we be if we had failed to empathize with the many victims of the slave-trade, of vicious, racist and sexist attacks, of war, terrorism and famine? Where would all the children be, all the people with learning difficulties and mental health problems, all the political prisoners who suffered so long at human hands, if we had failed to finally empathize with their plight, to bring it to light so that others could feel it for themselves – and thus demand change?

By contrast, sentimentality is to imagine what is not there. It is to dump idealized longings onto others for our own selfish sakes. It is to bypass reality.

That is not what writers who empathize with their fellow beings do at all. Writers who empathize connect again, (where most have disconnected,) and report back. We do this in order to wake ourselves and others up, to shake us all out of our self-centred reveries, to pour a cold bucket of water over our conveniently slumbering consciences. We cry out with everything we have in us: “Have you seen what’s going on here? Will you please look! How can you bear it? Do something! We each have a moral responsibility! They are just like us – how can you not care?”

Writers who empathize force us all to look at what we each are doing, what we are colluding in, what weare contributing to. We are forced to take responsibility for our negative day-to-day choices that directly correlate, incrementally, to immense, unimaginable, abominable animal suffering. Empathic writing cuts through all those guilt-filled attempts at avoidance and dismissal, the desperate pleas of “don’t tell me, don’t tell me – I don’t want to know!”

I say it again, there must be no apologies. It is our violent culture that is so wrong, not the courageous writers who dare to expose this violence. It is not the writer who should modify his or her approach for fear of upsetting the oppressors, the animal abusers, the exploiters and the colluders, for fear of public ridicule – but rather the oppressors, the animal abusers, the exploiters and the colluders who should hang their heads in shame.

The time will come when we will look back on this longest of struggles, this most devilish of slaveries – the enslavement of our vulnerable, innocent, animal kin, (who should have had our protection,) as we now do on human slavers, on human murderers, on rapists and paedophiles. (Let’s not forget all the ‘licensed’ animal brothels currently open across the world, and the crush video sadists who are making a fortune in this twenty-first century.) It is the unenlightened who need to apologize and repent for their cruel abominations – not the empathic writers who seek to understand and communicate the hidden truth.

I would rather be accused of “anthropomorphism!” and “sentimentality!” any day, than of animal rape or animal murder. I would rather care too deeply (is there such a thing?) than not enough. I would rather be accused of being over-soft, than over-hard. I would rather love, than hate. And I would far rather be defined as a bunny-hugger than a bunny vivisector, a bunny killer, a bunny torturer, an angora wool-puller, a blood-covered, live animal skinner.

Let us never be ashamed. Let us write passionately and movingly on behalf of our suffering, animal kin, in order to shine the most powerful light we possibly can, the Divine light of creativity, on the world’s man-made darkness. Let us break open hearts in the process, so that healing can begin. As Francis of Assisi said, “A single sunbeam is enough to drive away many shadows.”

Let us write without any fear of retribution or of societal reprimand. Let us remember the billions of animal victims instead, and forget our human accusers.

One day they will thank us for it. One day they will try and claim they too were part of the resistance.

http://www.all-creatures.org/articles/ar-no-apologies.html

Claws for concern: Hillary Clinton is conveniently vague when it comes to animal rights

Claws for concern: Hillary Clinton is conveniently vague when it comes to animal rightsDemocratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton waits to speak at a get out the vote event at La Gala in Bowling Green, Ky., Monday, May 16, 2016. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)(Credit: AP/Andrew Harnik/photo_master2000 viaShutterstock/Photo montage by Salon)

Americans more than ever are concerned about animal welfare, but it’s hard to suss how much Hillary cares about it

Hillary Clinton’s campaign has wisely caught on to an evolving voter dynamic by crafting a position paper outlining her support for protecting animals. But is she for animal rights or for animal welfare?

In addition to being good policy, courting the animal protection vote is good politics. Americans’ concerns about humane treatment of animals is stronger than ever before.

If this trend continues – and there is no reason to expect that it will not – the issue will likely play an even larger role in future elections.

Evidence of society’s rapidly evolving focus on animal protection abounds. In March,SeaWorld announced that it will stop breeding orcas and will phase out its orca shows, which are its signature attraction. Last month Ringling Brothers put on what it called its last elephant show ever. Last year McDonald’s joined Burger King, General Mills, Sara Lee and several other corporations that have announced they will only use cage-free eggs in their food products. In 2014 South Dakota became the 50th state to upgrade animal cruelty to a potential felony. Only 20 years earlier, all but a few stateshad only misdemeanor penalties for animal cruelty.

A 2015 Gallup poll addressing animal rights may be even more compelling. According to the poll, almost one in three Americans – 32 percent – now believe that “animals deserve the exact same rights as humans to be free from harm and exploitation.” In an identical poll Gallup conducted in 2008 only 25 percent of respondents expressed this view.

Clinton’s position paper does not go this far. It provides a vaguely worded list of mainstream animal welfare concerns such as “strengthening regulation of ‘puppy mills’” and “encouraging farms to raise animals humanely.”

More: http://www.salon.com/2016/06/26/claws_for_concern_hillary_clinton_is_conveniently_vague_when_it_comes_to_animal_rights/

The most interesting aspect of  Clinton’s position paper is its description of the candidate as having “a strong record of standing up for animal rights.” “Animal rights” is a loaded term, and even animal rights supporters cannot agree as to what it means. Some animal rights advocates interpret the term loosely, and view animals as already having some rights because laws exist to protect them.

But other animal rights supporters assert that animals presently do not have rights, because our legal system views animals as property and does not allow them to be represented in judicial proceedings. Highly publicized lawsuits are underway in New York seeking to change this for chimpanzees by demanding that they be considered “legal persons” for purposes of protecting their “bodily liberty” and their “bodily integrity.”

How Dare They Bite Back! Humanity’s Illogical Rage When the Beast Bites Back

Commentary by Captain Paul Watson

A two-year old boy is grabbed by an alligator and dragged into a Floridian swamp and killed.

The response is murderous retribution towards every alligator found in the vicinity. So far five alligators have been killed despite failing to identify the alligator involved.

A nine-year old boy falls into a gorilla enclosure at a zoo. The gorilla does not injure the boy yet is killed nonetheless as a precaution.

A grizzly bear kills a hunter and is in turn hunted down and slain for its “crime.”

A spearfishing woman is killed by a shark and the Western Australian government immediately initiates a policy of extermination of an endangered shark species.

In a world dominated by humanity, animals are enslaved, slaughtered, tortured, abused and treated like expendable material property without consideration that they are living self aware sentient beings.

Their lives have no intrinsic value outside of the value we decide to place on them.

Humans refuse to acknowledge intelligence or emotions in animals yet we perveresly hold animals directly responsible for their actions.

The killing of a two-year old boy is a sad tragedy in human eyes of course,10917819_10205697179298480_7313359493599094694_n but what does a vendetta against alligators accomplish? The child is sadly dead. The alligator simply did what alligators do. Killing five alligators or more in retaliation is an illogical and murderous expression of outrage at the fact that a non-human did not acknowledge the “superiority” of humanity.

We humans have fashioned ourselves as special and extraordinary, better than all other animals, endowed with unlimited privilege and entitlement.

As humans we have defined ourselves as the “master species” and to most animals, all humans are Nazis.

We slaughter 65 billion domestic animals each year and many more billions of fish, we massacre tens of millions of wild animals, torture millions of animals in labs, enslave millions more in cages and tanks, lay waste to thousands of square miles of life supporting habitats, yet when one of us is killed, and usually because of our own stupidity, we become irrationally and violently outraged.

In the minds of the majority of human beings, animals have no rights that any human being is obligated to respect. We own them, we dominate them and we hold total, ruthless and lethal dominion over them and as such we are under no obligation to acknowledge that they feel pain, that they suffer, that they have emotions, that they can think and reason, dream and are self aware sentient beings. We simply deny all these things to justify our anthropocentric dominance.

Being killed by an alligator, a shark or a bear is no different than being struck by lightning, drowning in the surf or having a coconut fall fatally upon your head. These tragic things happen but for some irrational reason when the cause of the incident is a sentient being, we are enraged and we demand retribution. We don’t chop down the coconut tree, but we do slay the shark.

We have made the rules that the animals must abide by even if they are unable to understand the rules.

What we are saying is that animals have no rights that we need to respect but animals are obligated to respect human lives and property even as we acknowledge they possess absolutely no moral or ethical basis for such an acknowledgement.

How many babies are snatched by alligators, how many people are killed by sharks how many people are slain by bears? Not many, and in the case of gorillas, not even a single human has died.

Humans on the other hand slay millions of other humans. Millions more die in accidents involving cars, planes, boats and other human made objects. More hunters are killed by other hunters than by wild animals.

Yes some innocent people are indeed killed by animals, it happens, but tens of millions of innocent animals are slaughtered by humans.

Sharks kill an average of seven people every year despite the fact that some two hundred million people enter the sea each and every day. If sharks were intentionally killing humans, the numbers would be in the thousands. Shark kills are rare and accidental yet humans kill over seventy million sharks every year. That’s the equivalent of exterminating the entire population of France in one year.

And many human victims of attacks by animals are also not always innocent. A hunter killed by an elephant or a lion, a bear or a wild boar cannot be described as an innocent. Nor can a matador, a spear fisherman or even an Orca trainer.

Despite this, the human response is an indictment of the animal in virtually every case, be it a matador or a child, and that indicates a special kind of illogical rage. The response is always equal no matter if the victim is innocent or guilty, if the attack was provoked or unprovoked. The human is always in the right, the animal is always in the wrong and that is because in every case the animal is considered an inferior to any human for any reason no matter the circumstances.

At the same time humans do grant special dispensation to some animals. People have an aversion to seeing a dog being killed in a movie but there is very little effective protests to stop the hundreds of dogs being boiled and spit roasted alive at the Yulan dog meat festival this month. We love our horses until they break a leg, after which we put a bullet in their head. We pet our cats and dogs as we eat cows and pigs and get arrogantly defensive if anyone points out the contradiction.

When humans are killed by humans we make the distinction between those we consider to be “bad” humans being killed and the “good” humans doing the killing. One side simply dehumanizes the other side to justify the killing.

This is made all the more easier with animals who are dehumanized by reason that they are not human already.

All of this is irrational behavior that defies logic.

How many more alligators must we kill in Florida before we feel justifiably revenged?

How many more sharks must be massacred until we achieve retribution?

How long will it be before we can replace primitive, vengeful retribution with a logical, rational and compassionate understanding of the relationship between humans and other species.

How long will it take before we can honestly describe ourselves as “mankind?”

 

 

Facebook:  Captain Paul Watson, SeaShepherd

<a href="https://www.facebook.com/captpaulwatson/photos/a.443115070931.234296.155430570931

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/paul-watson

Animal rights group call on China’s president to stop ‘shocking’ dog meat festival

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/06/13/animal-rights-group-call-chinas-president-stop-shocking-dog-meat-festival

By

Peter Theodosiou
14 Jun 2016
 

Humane Society International has condemned the Yulin Dog Meat festival, which is set to take place in China’s southern province of Guangxi on June 21.

During the 10-day event, dogs are paraded in cages on their way to be slaughtered and then cooked for eating by festival attendees and local residents.

Protesters presented a petition with 11 million signatures to the representative office of Yulin city on Friday.

&amp;amp;lt;img alt=”File image from the 2015 festival showing a butcher preparing cuts of dog meat for sale in Yulin (Getty)” title=”File image from the 2015 festival showing a butcher preparing cuts of dog meat for sale in Yulin (Getty)” class=”media-element file-full” src=”http://www.sbs.com.au/news/sites/sbs.com.au.news/files/styles/full/public/yulin4.jpg?itok=35f0zVWm&amp;amp;amp;amp;mtime=1465806756&#8243; itemprop=”image” /&amp;amp;gt;File image from the 2015 festival showing a butcher preparing cuts of dog meat for sale in Yulin (Getty)

File image from the 2015 festival showing a butcher preparing cuts of dog meat for sale in Yulin (Getty)

This picture taken on June 17, 2015 shows a butcher preparing cuts of dog meat for sale in Yulin, in southern China’s Guangxi province. (Getty)

The petition, which was created by Humane Society International and addressed to China’s president Xi Jinping, asks for the end of the festival where animals “suffer enormously”.

“With the dog meat festival in Yulin causing such severe animal suffering, risking human health, damaging China’s global reputation, and involving widespread illegal behaviour, as well as breaching China’s own food safety laws, it is time for the Chinese Government to take firm action to end this event for good,” the petition stated.

In 2014, the Yulin government distanced itself from the festival, saying it was staged by private business people and did not have official backing.

&amp;amp;lt;img alt=”File image of dogs in cages sold by vendors at the 2015 edition of the festival (AAP)” title=”File image of dogs in cages sold by vendors at the 2015 edition of the festival (AAP)” class=”media-element file-full” src=”http://www.sbs.com.au/news/sites/sbs.com.au.news/files/styles/full/public/yulin111.jpg?itok=3QHBf34y&amp;amp;amp;amp;mtime=1465876118&#8243; itemprop=”image” /&amp;amp;gt;File image of dogs in cages sold by vendors at the 2015 edition of the festival (AAP)

File image of dogs in cages sold by vendors at the 2015 edition of the festival (AAP)

File image of dogs in cages sold by vendors at the 2015 edition of the festival (AAP)

Humane Society International’s China policy specialist Peter J. Li told SBS the festival was a liability for the Asian country.

“Modern governments are fully aware that they cannot endorse social and morally questionable acts,” he said.

“Instead, the Yulin government has the responsibility to foster new culture and to build the city into a truly modern society.

“Endorsing mass dog slaughter and dog eating as a festival shows that the local officials are out of touch with the changes in China.”

Launched in 2009 to celebrate the summer solstice, the festival celebrates the consumption of dog meat, which reached its height in China during the Han Dynasty (202 – 220 AD).

Mr Li said dog eating had been rejected as an indecent habit during the Sui-Tang dynasties (581 -907 AD) and that subsequent dynasties valued canines as hunting buddies.

&amp;amp;lt;img alt=”endors tie a dog in preparation to butcher it at the Yulin Dog Meat Festival, in Yulin, in southern China&amp;amp;amp;amp;#039;s Guangxi province, 22 June 2015.” title=”File image from the 2015 festival of vendors restraining a dog (AAP)” class=”media-element file-full” src=”http://www.sbs.com.au/news/sites/sbs.com.au.news/files/styles/full/public/yulin444.jpg?itok=rSf4Z0hI&amp;amp;amp;amp;mtime=1465806964&#8243; itemprop=”image” /&amp;amp;gt;endors tie a dog in preparation to butcher it at the Yulin Dog Meat Festival, in Yulin, in southern China's Guangxi province, 22 June 2015.

File image from the 2015 festival of vendors restraining a dog (AAP)

endors tie a dog in preparation to butcher it at the Yulin Dog Meat Festival, in Yulin, in southern China’s Guangxi province, 22 June 2015. (AAP)

He noted that dog eaters represented a minority of China’s 1.3 billion population and the dog meat industry constituted “an insignificant part of the Chinese economy”.

“It is an eating habit limited to older males of lower social and economic status,” he said.

“It is a dying eating habit and a distasteful business.”

The campaign against the festival has received celebrity backing from British comedian Ricky Gervais and US actor Ian Somerhalder.

The hashtag #StopYulin2016 has been popular on social media.

Claire Fryer, from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Australia (PETA), told SBS any situation where animals were slaughtered was unacceptable.

“The thought of killing, cooking, dismembering and eating dogs is enough for most of us to lose our lunch, but there’s no rational reason why that same revulsion shouldn’t exist at the thought of eating a pig,” she said.

“All animals about to be slaughtered feel terrified, and none want to die.”

Ms Fryer said Australians needed to take note of all animals that are slaughtered.

“Right here in Australia, sensitive, scared lambs, chickens, cows and pigs are killed as we willfully turn a blind eye to the fact that they are no different from the dogs we cry for,” she said.

“It’s easy to point the finger at other cultures, but let’s be honest enough and decent enough to question our own cruel habits.

SBS has sought response from the Chinese Embassy in Australia.

Empathy and Anger

The following are quotes regarding animal rights advocates, from the late John A.Livingston’s 1994 book, Rogue Primate “…their motives are simple enough: empathy for living beings of sentience and sensibility, wrath at their maltreatment. There is nothing in the least puzzling about that; the activities of animal rights advocates are fueled in equal measure by two of the most powerful of human emotions–compassion and anger…
“The liberation of animals would be a conscious and unilateral act on the part of humans. It would not require the perception of ‘rights’ inhering in animals; it would arise from the evaluation of human behavior, wherever and however directed.”
In other words, do humans have the right to treat other animals like shit whenever, wherever and however they feel entitled?
Livingston goes on to talk about Peter Singer, author of Animal Liberation, who “…systematically disposes of traditional ‘deviousness’ in such egalitarian philosophic positions as the ‘intrinsic’ dignity and worth of the human individual, which, as every observer of our activity well knows, do not stand up even in intrahuman affairs. Conventional philosophy’s further use in maintaining the human/non-human moral separation he finds ‘outrageous,’ calling our attention to ‘the ease with which not only ordinary people, but also those most skilled in moral reasoning, can fall victim to a prevailing ideology’.”
Such is the case with the romance between today’s Humane Society of the United States and the paleo foodie movement.
1173835_594069293967592_2141908188_n
“…to discriminate against beings solely on account of their species is a form of prejudice, immoral and indefensible in the same way that discrimination on the basis of race is immoral and indefensible.” — Peter Singer

Swan killers attack animal rights activist

Photo   Jim Robertson

Photo Jim Robertson

http://www.nltimes.nl/2016/03/21/swan-killers-attack-animal-rights-activist/
“Swan protector Saskia van Rooy was attacked by hunters in Stolwijk on
Saturday, she said to Dutch newspaper AD.
“According to Van Rooy, she was filming dead geese when two men were
suddenly behind her. “Dressed in army suits and camouflage nets over
their heads, they yelled at me”, she said to the newspaper. One swung
the butt of a rifle towards here face, but she managed to duck in
time.”

Alaska Voters Oppose Cruel Methods of Killing Wildlife on Alaska’s National Wildlife Refuges

http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2016/03/alaska-nwr-cruel-practices-030116.html?referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

March 1, 2016

A new statewide poll by Remington Research Group shows that Alaska voters strongly support an end to cruel and unsporting practices used to kill bears, wolves and coyotes on the state’s National Wildlife Refuges.

On Jan. 8, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed changes to regulations governing non-subsistence hunting on Alaska National Wildlife Refuges. These changes are designed to uphold the purposes of the refuge system to conserve species and habitats in their natural diversity, and to ensure that the biological integrity, diversity and environmental health of the National Wildlife Refuge system benefits Americans now and into the future. Based upon this new poll, the majority of Alaska voters support such changes as it would end cruel methods of killing wildlife on Alaska’s National Wildlife Refuges.

The poll also shows that many oppose using bait, such as rotting meat and pet food, to lure bears to a hunting blind for a point blank kill and that, by a two to one margin, Alaska voters oppose the same-day aerial hunting of bears, or the shooting of bears from aircraft. Same-day hunting, in which aircraft are used to scout for animals, is already prohibited for wolves.

An overwhelming majority of Alaskans also oppose trapping of bears—a practice that involves steel-jawed, leg-hold traps or wire snares. The poll found voters, again by a margin of two to one, are firmly against killing black bears, wolves and coyotes, and oppose killing their cubs and pups, while in or near their dens.

“Alaska is home to some of our nation’s most iconic wildlife, and these animals deserve to be treasured and conserved for future generations, instead of subjected to cruel and unsporting trophy hunting and trapping methods,” said Nicole Paquette, vice president of wildlife for The Humane Society of the United States.

The telephone poll of 1,399 statewide Alaskan voters was conducted by Remington Research Group on behalf of The HSUS from Feb. 24 through Feb. 25, 2016. The margin of error is plus or minus three percent with a 95 percent level of confidence.

Oregon Rancher ‘Heroes’ Accused of Child Abuse

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/05/oregon-rancher-heroes-accused-of-child-abuse.html

Steven and Dwight Hammond, the inspiration for the ‘militia’ occupying an Oregon federal building, allegedly took sandpaper to their nephew’s chest.
A photo of a teenage boy with two bizarre wounds on his chest suggests that child abuser might be a better description than hero for the two ranchers in whose name so-called militia members have taken over a federal building in Oregon.

“Raising kids is like raising cows or dogs,” one of the ranchers is quoted as saying in a police report to which the photo is attached.

The photo is of Dusty Hammond, nephew of rancher Steve Hammond and grandson of rancher Dwight Hammond.

More: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/05/oregon-rancher-heroes-accused-of-child-abuse.html

Toyota pulls ad after it was slammed on social media for depicting animals glad to be killed

 http://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/75304848/toyota-pulls-ad-after-it-was-slammed-on-social-media-for-depicting-animals-glad-to-be-killed

A prose quoting fish features in the ad talking up the Hilux.

A prose quoting fish features in the ad talking up the Hilux.

A new Toyota Hilux commercial which attracted backlash on social media will no longer be screened, effective immediately.

Toyota New Zealand made the announcement on Sunday saying the decision reflected feedback from members of the public who had been offended.

In the ad, animals are shown to look forward to death at the hands of hunters if it means they get to ride on the back of a Hilux.

Toyota was at pains to point out all the animals were CGI.

Toyota was at pains to point out all the animals were CGI.

If you wish to see the offending advert, you can watch it here.

Managing director and chief executive officer Alistair Davis said the company apologised for the offence caused. “We’ve listened and we’ll stop screening the ad. The public and in particular Toyota’s customers are the cornerstone of our business and we’ve been closely monitoring the ad’s response and felt the groundswell of detractors was growing.”

Toyota said the animals portrayed in the latest Hilux advertisement were regularly and sustainably hunted and fished except for the possum, which was a familiar pest.

Whitebait that wriggle and talk in the Toyota ad.