DA abandons animals and it’s constituency
(There are some tough women working in animal welfare in South Africa, and they don’t come any tougher than Nikki Botha. Here is a copy of her recent response to some of the weakest justifications I have ever seen from a political party. If you want to see the letter from Geordin Hill-Lewis that prompted this, please go to The Hopeful Forum where you can see another response from Wendy Burrows, another tough cookie… animalman)
Democratic Alliance,
HOW DO MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFY AND EXCUSE THIS???
PLEASE EXPLAIN!
And just to ensure that all DA voters know how certain of the representatives of the DA feel about their stance on animal rights and animal welfare supporters, read below on what the DA thinks of you….
Dear Geordin
I am not about to enter in to a debate with someone who has a skewed and twisted sense of morality. I would however like to point out some facts to you and take this opportunity to ask some questions which as of yet have remained unanswered.
In terms of the DA and animal welfare, the facts are:
1. On page 31 of “In Trust For The Nation” issued by the DA, it states and I quote: “The DA believes that each living creature has intrinsic value and is a sentient being”
2. The DA has signed the Universal Declaration of Animal Welfare
3. In the Western Cape, which is a DA lead province, the city has allowed various species to be killed. These include rats, cats, rabbits, fish, guinea fowl, deer, baboons, tahrs, ducks and there was even talk of the crows. They have done nothing to try and stop any of the killing (that I know of). Please do not even think about trying to put any of this on Cape Nature Conservation. CNC, the way I see it, serves as your conservation wing.
4. Recently, the City of Cape Town issued a tender which calls baboon management, which includes the shooting of 4 male baboons a month. The issue of baboon management is outline in the attached – that whole saga also points conclusively to the fact that the DA does not value animal life. I have addressed the issue over and over with Mr. Bredell and the leader of the DA, asking on various occasions to meet, only to be ignored. In this particular case, the DA also blatantly ignored the constitutional rights of South Africans to the public participation process.
5. In a meeting with animal rights activist to discuss various animal welfare issues, the mayor of Cape Town (Dan Plato) nodded off while one of the activists was talking to him. Petty to bring this up I know, but apparently the issues around animals are so unimportant and so boring that a member of your party nods off while these important issues are being discussed with him. Needless to say, nothing came of the meeting.
6. A councilor of the DA violated the Animal Protection Act and gets a slap on the writst. Breaking a law is a criminal offense, yet a councilor facing criminal charges is viewed as a good councilor. In future, I would caution the DA to point fingers at ANC for employing people who blatantly ignores South African law.
7. I have sat in meetings where a councilor made a snide and derogatory comment about activists who handed over a memorandum to oppose the killing of animals on Robben Island. The comment was “Sorry I am late, I had to receive a memorandum from those bloody bunnyhuggers”. In yet another meeting, when I mentioned that the animal welfare community is unhappy about the time frame on the second round of public participation on an animal by-law and the way a particular councilor dealt with their queries, I was told that “he has received a lot of abuse from the animal welfare people and is ready to quit. We would rather lose the vote of the animal community than lose one of our councilors” (a sentiment you seem to echo by keeping on Wood and losing the vote of animal lovers!). Another person in that same meeting proceeded to say “if only those animal people cared as much for the two legged animals as they do for the four legged animals”. This after the mentioned the conditions in the poorer communities in the townships. One thing the DA doesn’t seem to grasp is that animal rights and human rights are not mutually exclusive. Animal rights benefit human rights. Sadly, human rights don’t seem to benefit animal rights.
Further to these facts, I would like to ask you the following which I sincerely hope you have the decency to answer in non-polito speak:
1. In the recent KZN bull killing ritual, where was the DA’s official statement condemning this act of torture?
2. What has the DA done to try and end the suffering animals endure in battery farming?
3. What has the DA done to try and end lethal predator control such as gin-traps, poison etc?
4. What has the DA done to try and end the way in which calves are treated on dairy farms?
5. What has the DA done to try and end the sales of animals in pet shops?
6. What has the DA done to implement law which makes it compulsory to have all animals sterilized (except for the “effort” made in the City of Cape Town animal by-law)?
7. What has the DA done to promote the sterilization of domestic animals in poorer communities where overpopulation of domestic animals is the breeding ground for crime and zoonotic diseases?
8. What has the DA done to ban the use of animals for research in cosmetic industries and household products?
9. What has the DA done to ban recreational hunting?
10. What has the DA done to ban all fireworks? (Here I would like to point out the fact that when one activist tried to prevent a fireworks display from happening in an ecologically sensitive area, she was sent from pillar to post only to be accused in so many words that it was her fault that the display couldn’t be stopped!)
11. What has the DA done to ban the use of animals in circuses?
If the DA is so committed to animal welfare, then surely you have addressed at least some of the above? Thus far I have not heard or seen anything the DA have done to alleviate the suffering of any animals in South Africa. Instead, you either gave the silent go ahead to have them killed off, or you stand by and look the other way when crimes against animals are committed. Does this sound like a party which believe that each living creature has intrinsic value and is a sentient being?
Let’s look at the facts of the Wood case:
1. Whether the dog belonged to Caroline Wood or her husband is completely inconsequential. The dog was on a property which Caroline Wood lived on. The dog was in the backyard. There is no way that she did not carry any knowledge of this animals and this there is no way that she did not carry any knowledge that the dog was being starved and neglected. Hence, at the very least Caroline Wood was aware of the condition of the dog.
2. The starvation and neglect of a dog is prohibited by the Animal Protection Act which is a law governing domestic animals in South Africa. The violation of the APA is the act of breaking the law. Breaking the law is a criminal act. If Caroline Wood was, at the very least, aware of the condition of the dog, then she knew of a crime being committed and did nothing about it. It is our duty as South African citizens to prevent crime. Even more so, as a councilor, Caroline Wood should have done everything in her power to prevent a law from being broken. Her poor excuse that the dog didn’t want to eat is tragically ludicrous. Experts in animal welfare all conclude that the condition Lady was found in was due to long term systematic neglect and abuse. And regardless of how often Caroline Wood might have found herself at home or not (she’s a busy councilor), it is her duty to make sure that any animal in her household is looked after when she is away. If I go away on holiday, I make the necessary arrangements to ensure the safety and well being of any animal in my household. What would your reaction have been if this was a child on the Wood property that endured this kind of neglect? I would LOVE to know the answer to that question!
3. Caroline Wood has criminal charges against her and is due in court. The DA, regardless of what the FLC found, is still employing someone with criminal charges pending.
4. You mention mitigating evidence. Since this is information held by the government and is in public interest, I urge you to make your investigation, evidence and findings public.
5. The DA charge Wood with bringing the party’s name in to ill repute – yet she still retains a position in this party. From where I am sitting, that makes precious little sense.
As the DA and the FLC made their decisions, so have the good citizens of South Africa. The party’s arrogance prevented them from facing one niggling little fact – we voted you in to power, and we can just as easily take it away from you. In Afrikaans they have a beautiful saying which goes “as jy nie wil hoor nie moet jy voel” (if you don’t want to listen, then you must feel).
You ask us to please reconsider withdrawing our vote and support from the DA. You have continued to ignore the voice of compassionate South African citizens. We will merely return the favour.
No regards whatsoever,
Nikki Botha
Comments