Are some animals more equal than others?

The other day, I saw an article on the International Herald Tribune that talked about an EU law to ban the trade in dog and cat fur. I welcome any law that protects the right of animals to live. But it did seem strange that the law picked out just fur from dogs and cats. How about crocodile hides or calf leather (suede) or fox furs or seal skin or mink pelts? To quote the pigs' commandments in Orwell's Animal Farm, are "All animals ... equal, but some animals ... more equal than others"? Are we practicing species discrimination?

Fur trade has a grisly history in the conquest of America with thousands of native Americans killed in the internecine beaver wars, in one the early instances of capitalist greed. Regardless of the animal, the cruelty meted out to them in trapping and killing them for their skin is inhuman. Especially when much better man-made and natural alternatives exist. So why this perverse pleasure in wearing the skin of a dead animal in the name of fashion?

I looked up the related US Customs law on the trade in dog and cat fur and some of the statements in its congressional findings is interesting. The law is motivated by the concern with improper labeling of fur products that may encourage unregulated trade in dog/cat fur. Fine so far - the right of the people to know what they use and free market regulations. But the findings go on to state that the trade in dog/cat fur is "gruesome" and that their fur is "ethically and aesthetically abhorrent to United States citizens". This sense of selective righteousness galls me. Are the beastly killing of seals in Canada or the fox hunting in the UK not gruesome? Is the shacking of calves in minuscule cages to completely restrict their movement for a "delicacy" called veal not gruesome? Is feeding of their fellow animals to cattle, engendering mad cow disease, not barbaric? Are people in the US have such a limited sense of righteousness that they find dogs/cats dearer than other animals?

Are dogs and cats more "personal" because they are common pets? I don't buy that. I have grown up with dogs all my life. I've had a lab, 2 dobermans, and 4 dachshunds, and for several years, a dozen stray cats had called our place home. While I can definitely say I'm more attached to "my" pet than other animals, I would not say that I prefer killing a rabbit or a seal instead of a dog. Killing without a over-powering need is just not right!

I was a vegetarian by religion and evolved into a vegetarian by choice. It was driven by a belief in the philosophy of ahimsa, literally, to "not hurt" in sanskrit. What loosely translates to being vegetarian in the practiced Hindu religion has more stronger meanings philosophically. It even includes non-violence as practiced by mahatma Gandhi; ergo his choice of civil disobedience. There are several studies that show a vegetarian diet to be healthier than one that includes meat and the energy transfer in the food chain makes consuming plants the most efficient. These lead to my abhorrence for leather, silk, meat, eggs, among others. Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore's Dilemma, wrote an eye-opening piece in NYT titled, An Animal's Place.

But two things have troubled me. Isn't milk against the tenets of ahimsa as is having pets? In the former case, dont' I deny the calf what is rightfully its mother's milk? How well are the milch cows treated in the process of milk "production"? It seems hippocratical that I am derisive of those who cannot give up meat but I myself continue to drink "animal" milk because I have been drinking it all my life. Indeed, milk products are my primary source of protein, in the raw form, as yogurt, buttermilk, and cheese, but alternatives exist for at least one of them - soy milk. Is it not easy for me to be vegetarian since I grew up one but find it hard to be vegan since I grew up drinking milk? Is this not the case with an average, meat-eating American too when it comes to being vegetarian? As to pets, is it fair to breed animals just for the pleasure having them as pets, cooped up in out homes, away from their natural environments? There is the easy excuse that the pets are treated humanely, frequently as part of the family or better. But is that right? Do we give them a choice? Would this question even arise if they had not been bred for sale? Is it fair to effectively make a domesticated specie such as dogs or cattle extinct in the name of ahimsa, for if dogs were not pets and cattle not for their milk or meat, they would not exist in the wild. Who rolls the dice on this?

To end on a light note, I'm a big fan on southpark and this discussion takes me to the "Fun with Veal" episode. As always, Stone and Parker play both sides of the story by showing the horrors of veal and comparing vegetarians to you-know-what in their colorful style.

In People I Trust!

To be more precise, I bank my trust on the power of people's protest. Yesterday, I was part of a group that was protesting Dow's presence at at a career fair at our school. Dow Chemical owns Union Carbide, that was responsible for the worst industrial disaster ever, 22 years back in Bhopal, India. After 25,000 deaths, 100's of thousands continue to suffer due to polluted ground water and lack of medical attention. Both Dow and the Indian government are to blame. To ascertain moral and ethical responsibility is easy. But the road to get the perpetrators to act is fraught with hardship. Here is where the power of protest is effective. However, a large dose of patience is recommended.
Growing up in India where strikes and hartals are common, I was taught to associate protests with lazy bums unwilling to do their job and always wanting more. This attitude was engendered from a comfortable and carefree life. This was the very same attitude that many Indians had to Gandhiji's freedom movement where he put civil disobedience to use, and the same people who welcomed Indira's emergency rule—India's brief affair as a dictatorship. In spite of this indifference, protests have worked and continue to do so. I see two things that can remedy this and get more people actively involved: awareness and the comfort zone.
While one of the ideals of any protest is to raise awareness on the issue, it is hard to gather the masses unless they know about the issue and care enough—an obvious boot-strapping problem. Once a degree of awareness has been raised and apathy overcome among a critical mass, the protest can begin.
Rabble rouser or the svelte diplomat? This was a debate we had at the 11th hour of our protest. Each person has a comfort zone for protesting and pushing them beyond this gives diminishing returns. A protester lacking conviction to their form of protest is like a deflated balloon. A friendly accosting of a stranger to talk about the issue can be as effective as a heated debate or wild shouting or something more adventurous. Such options make the protest more broad-based and credible.
In all, we had a satisfying time being out in the cold, talking to our peers about the "reckless negligence" and "diabolic disregard" that Dow continues to have towards human life and safety, and getting over 100 pledges from students not to work for dirty Dow. Getting under the skin of the Dow reps was the cherry on the cake! IDS and Herald-Times had good coverage of the event and the sunny day helped with nice visuals.
In closing, Carl Sandburg's poem, I am the People, the Mob, which I read at school, never ceases to inspire me. "When I, the People, learn to remember ... use the lessons of yesterday and no longer forget who robbed me last year ... then there will be no speaker in all the world say the name: 'The People,' with any fleck of a sneer in his voice or any far-off smile of derision." The mob—the crowd—the mass—has arrived!