Thursday, 27 April 2017

Review of Kent Voice (Issue 1)

ISSUE 1 of Kent Voice (KV) came out in February of last year and looked at the issue of animal cruelty. KV1 – the ‘Voice of the National Liberal Party in Kent’ – examined the barbaric nature of testing on animals, ritual slaughter, factory farming and exporting live animals. These practices demonstrate that there “doesn’t seem to be any concern for the suffering of the animals here. They’re just abused for their monetary value.” Thus Kent Voice called for opposition to all forms of animal cruelty.

This review of Kent Voice has been written by Liam Clarke. As with his other reviews, this is full of passion, sincerity and is highly personal.

To read Liam’s review of Caledonian Voice (the Voice of the National Liberal Party in Scotland) click here: http://nationalliberal.org/review-of-caledonian-voice

To read his review of English Voice (the Voice of the National Liberal Party in England) click here: http://nationalliberal.org/review-of-english-voice

To read his review of the Isle of Wight Voice (the Voice of the National Liberal Party on the Isle of Wight) click here: http://nationalliberal.org/review-of-isle-of-wight-voice-issue-1

-

AS SOMEONE who cares very deeply for the rights of animals, I believe that it’s essential that we in the National Liberal Party make clear our beliefs regarding this issue. We shouldn’t throw it on the ‘back burner’ going into May’s European elections, as many of the main parties will do. (I saw Nigel Farage recently being interviewed by Andrew Neil on BBC2s Daily Politics show. I Neil read some of UKIP’s policies from its 2010 manifesto – and Nigel ‘Mein Führer’ Farage looked stunned at some of the things that were coming from it. We must make sure that we do not fall to the same kind of idiocy that Nigel did.)

Personally speaking, I believe that charities such as the RSPCA should be given wider reaching powers – similar to that of the police – in cases of animal abuse or neglect. When people are accused of abusing children (and this is a subject that has been very much in the news recently) there is a general outcry by the public. People accused of such disgusting acts are to be deplored.

But shouldn’t this also be true of those who abuse animals? Sure you can read about it in your local newspaper and think “Why would a human being do such a thing?” and you may even have a discussion with your family about it. So why are people not given the same treatment for abusing animals as they do young children? We are all living breathing living organisms, living on a floating rock in space so surely we are all entitled to a standard of living where we are not abused by our fellow animals?

One thing that I cannot comprehend is the testing of make up on animals. To me those who are willing to see this happen have selfish and depraved minds. How they can countenance a defenceless animal being abused – and enduring absolute agony – is beyond me. This is especially so when we think that if we were to put a human in their place the question of morality would shoot from zero up to the high heavens! (You often see the messages of hate towards paedophiles and murders saying they should be tested on or hung in public and so on – yet it is perfectly acceptable for the same torture being dished out to an innocent animal as it is a guilty human being!)

A further point on this issue is the simplicity that vets seem to have in saying that a pet can be put down. I recall reading (in the The Sun) about a lady who refused to have her dog put down three times after it attacked her. She said “You wouldn’t put down a child for lashing out.” It’s a point which I think needs to be explored more.

However, there is one area in Kent Voice where we may need to ‘edge on the side of caution.’ And that’s in terms of religious practice and freedoms. This is a question to which we must apply considerable care and neutrality. I am sure there are many atheists and indeed people of faith who will be reading this review, and to you all I say is nothing. For you are all entitled to beliefs of a varying kind, just because one is religious does not mean that they would allow an animal to be sacrificed as part of some ‘wacky’ ritual just as an atheist is not automatically able to condemn it. As part of the NLP strategy we should indeed promote the idea that a ritual killing is not to be accepted. However, we must not adopt an ‘imperialist’ tone here. Indeed, I think that we must always ask ourselves the question: who are we, as democrats and believers in freedom, to question the rights and beliefs of those not bound by our law?

• To get hold of issue 1 of Kent Voice, simply e-mail natliberal@aol.com and ask for your FREE pdf copy! We hope to have issue 2 of KV out later this year.

Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • PDF
  • email
  • Live
  • MSN Reporter
  • MyShare
  • MySpace
  • Technorati
  • Webnews.de

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

Close