Published March 2004 - Last updated October 2008
Pride, Poison and Prejudice around the Parthenon.

Part 3, page 2 - Backgrounds of Greece and other countries cited as cruel to animals

(For Part 1 of this 3 part report see here)

< continued from part 3 page one

Echoes of Arabia

A short boat trip across the Aegean Sea brings you to Turkey, which shares almost identical attitudes to Greece regarding street animals. In some ways the situation there could be considered worse, not due to more numbers of strays but because less rescue groups currently exist in the country. A few basic shelters can be found in the major cities, but in rural areas almost nothing. Street animals generally receive next to no affection or protection from the majority of Turks, and there appears to be very little constructive dialogue amongst Turkish authorities on how to deal humanely with the stray problem. The result is a periodic round-up and slaughter of thousands animals across the country.

But Turkey is a place of cultural and ethical significance. It acts as a metaphorical gateway between two of the world's most dramatically different cultural faiths - the "West" and Islam, and from this point, the further you travel east, religion takes the leading role in all aspects of society. With complex beliefs and diverse customs within Muslim / Islamic based society, it's important to approach the subject of animal welfare - along with any social issue - with respect, patience and overall consideration of the culture.
The Qur'an in fact states that all creatures on earth are sentient beings. Even so, there is concern within Islam about the excessive mistreatment of animals in the name of religion. Dogs are traditionally seen as impure, and Muslims are misleadingly warned to avoid contact with them, which has led to many being abused and neglected. Misinformed Muslims have been taking their pets to clinics during Ramadan to have them put down. This is because they think that Islam forbids them to keep or even touch a dog, but on the contrary, the Qur'an highly encourages the blessing and care for all animals.
Each year, millions of Muslims worldwide celebrate Eid al-Adha, the festival of sacrifice. This comes at the end of the "once in a lifetime" Islamic pilgrimage to Mecca for the Hajj. The Eid al-Adha celebrations require the ritual killing of an animal and Muslims are supposed to personally slaughter the animal. But an "out of sight out of mind" method (borrowed from the west) is normal practice these days, by getting a butcher to do the actual killing instead. For these Islamic celebrations the throats of literally millions of live animals are cut. They bleed to death, slowly and agonisingly.

As with more remote parts of Asia and its sub-continents, far-flung African cultures usually have more direct and what they might consider "spiritual" contact with their animals for the purpose of food. All members of families may be personally responsible for killing the animal that he or she will eat themselves. However cruel this may seem to the animal-loving west - who have their meat slaughtered and pre-packed for them - could this be considered more barbaric - or less hypocritical?

Too Starved to Samba

But there are some countries where not even religion or superstition can provide a cultural pretext for cruelty to animals.
Latin America is broadly made up of Portuguese and Spanish settlers from the 16th century who conquered / integrated with Central and South American natives.
The Americas are such a melting pot of cultures, that historical tradition carried over from their former backgrounds across the Atlantic isn't so inherently imprinted. Therefore, folklore and customary superstition is regarded more celebratory rather than religiously followed. But even so, bullfighting is highly active in Mexico, Peru, Panama Venezuela, Guatemala and Columbia - but banned in Uruguay, Chile, Argentina and Cuba.
So, does historical custom have less relevance as to why Latin American street animals are treated so badly?
For example, Brazil has developed into a somewhat prosperous democracy, albeit through a history of past military government rule, unconstitutional behaviour and environmental destruction that continues to draw condemnation from international ecologists and human rights groups.
What is visibly clear on the streets of a Brazilian city like Sao Paulo is the general, sickening mistreatment of domestic animals, which makes Athens look like a veritable paradise for cats and dogs. From its original foundation as a hybrid culture into a modern society, there is no traditional "excuse" as to why Brazil treats its cats and dogs with such disregard … much of its population simply feel little or no empathy towards these creatures. Street animals are considered no more than vermin or else as a chained deterrent to guard properties - so it's easy for the international community to generalise much of South America as ignorant and grossly uneducated about animal care. With very few animal welfare groups in Latin America to help change attitudes and educate the public, the future of their cats and dogs continues to look bleak.

photo: Greek Animal Rescue UK

Left: Starved dogs chained to posts are considered by their owners as no more than a barking "alarm" in many South American and Mediterranean countries.

Yin, Yan... and Lateral Leadership

What happens when entire subcontinents of cultures - along with their opportunist governments - lack a general interest or empathy towards animal rights? It clearly becomes difficult for outside countries to suggest humane solutions to a problem that the offending nation doesn't even recognise. Therefore, to appease such countries, subtle methods to initiate change need to be made, and in a way that's diplomatically appealing … i.e. profitable to them.
For example, many welfare groups focus on tourist destinations such as Greece to highlight mistreatment of a country's animals. Although great awareness providers, just telling people how bad it is doesn't give concerned tourists an active path to encourage the country's authorities to respond. But then again, such countries are unlikely to see diplomatic and economical sense in acting on small pockets of outside protest, which from their point might be viewed as low level agitation. In fact, it seems now that internet based protest letters have little impact on the offending governments; they simply close down the targeted e-mail address so to ignore the protest. However, a good animal welfare organisation might provide tourists with information to instigate change on more lateral levels; like a "what you can do to help" approach. For example, by informing the offending country's tourist board your clear intention not to travel there and spend your money, simply because of their bad animal welfare record. This is not good news for a country which might financially rely heavily on tourist spending.
But even more diplomatically, a well researched animal organisation might also provide details of a resort within an offending country that's in fact animal friendly, like Catalonia's Tossa de Mar on the Spanish Costa Brava for example. There they have banned bullfighting … a move which no doubt gives credibility and further food for thought for the Spanish government. It's positive publicity and everyone benefits.
In fact, while it can be all too easy to generalise about entire nations cited as cruel to street animals, some regions inside those countries do make some efforts to combat overpopulation in a more humane way. This can be seen in the Canary Islands - also part of Spain - who promote neutering programs to control its stray cat population. Although not the most attractive method of identification, cats have one ear clipped to show they are officially neutered and vaccinated. This means that a manageable population of cats are allowed to roam free around the tourist spots, and animal friendly holiday makers can feed them at designated feeding stations. Although controlling the cat population of the Canaries is a constant battle for its authorities, they appear to administer a more compassionate form of management to the problem. The result is that a lot of the cats seem to be in a healthy condition. This means a happier life for the animals and, on a shallower point, a less traumatic sight for visitors.
Any country's government could very well introduce transparent methods to encourage other nations cited for animal cruelty to clean up their act.
For example, holiday companies could be legally required to provide key information about the animal friendliness of specific resorts and destinations. The resorts in those countries might not feel so comfortable about such home truths at first, but soon they could realise the economical benefits of such partnerships; administrating certified humane care of their local animal population, overseen by their local animal welfare organisations.

**********

So many people throughout the world are so emotionally incensed by the mistreatment of animals, yet animal welfare is not a running daily subject on any government's domestic or international agenda. Although humanitarian questions are internationally debated, no government yet realises how much economical leverage the issue of animal welfare can have towards positive, cooperative agreements on a global scale. However, in June 2004 a Dutch animal welfare party missed being elected a seat in the European parliament by only a few votes short. Perhaps this heralds a beginning to proper animal welfare representation inside politics.

But while animal cruelty is clear to see on the surface in some countries, other cultures like the UK and America hide more sensitive animal welfare issues under a huge trade system, which goes hand in hand with consumer ignorance or apathy ... As mentioned earlier, "Out of sight, out of mind" seems to satisfy the conscience of the general British and US mindset. And again, twisted logic (this time, a displaced sense of self-righteousness) seems to suggest that countries like Britain and America may feel justified to point a finger at countries black-listed for clear, visible animal cruelty.
So how would any of those black listed countries react if - say a British official - walked into the Brazilian government and said, "The way your country treats its stray animal population is disgusting … sort it out!"? The Brazilians are unlikely to reply "Oh my goodness, you are so right; we'll deal with it immediately, in the most humane way possible!" Thoroughly insulted, they are more likely to respond with, "Get lost you interfering Brit; we've got far more important things to deal with than our cats and dogs … go sort your own animal welfare hypocrisy out before telling us what to do!"
This kind of example could cross-apply to any country.
It indicates that culturally spawned jingoism and self-protection is rife across the entire world, but at the same time shows how important it can be to think laterally. In other words, apply internationally linked legislations in your own country, which can cause subliminal action in others, and be economically beneficial to all at the same time. Continued >

Continued ... click here for next page>

Pride, Poison and Prejudice around the Parthenon MENU

Part 1 - Main Story
Part 2 - Analysis - Pre-Olympic Jitters
you are here> Page Two of Part 3 - Backgrounds of Greece and other countries cited as cruel to animals
Photo Page - caution contains upsetting images

Looking-Glass and VeggieGlobal News Copyright.
All rights reserved. www.veggieglobal.com and www.looking-glass.co.uk.
Any unauthorized redistribution or reproduction of part or all of the contents of these websites in any form is prohibited.
For permissions please use the contact form