Bull fighting is like dog fighting, it seems to me. It is cruelty for sport. True, there is also the spectacle and the tradition, etc. But it is the last remaining vestige of the Roman games in which humans and animals were set upon each other to satisfy the blood lust of the crowd.
Now Catalonia,may have had enough. From the story:
Bullfighting in Spain could suffer its biggest setback to date on Wednesday when the local parliament in Catalonia votes on whether to ban the practice in the separatist-minded northeastern region. The assembly is scheduled to vote on the issue on Wednesday morning after animal rights activists campaigning under the platform “Prou!” or “Enough!” in the Catalan language, collected 180,000 signatures in Catalonia on a petition calling for the motion to be debated and voted on by the assembly. The most recent indications are that a majority of the 135 lawmakers in the regional assembly are in favour of the motion to tighten Catalonia’s animal protection law to remove an exception for bullfights from a ban on the killing or mistreating animals in shows. If approved Catalonia, home to Barcelona, Spain’s second-largest city, would become the first region in the country outside of the Canary Islands to ban the practice and it could inspire other regions to follow its example.
Not animal rights: Animal welfare. This measure doesn’t elevate the bulls to moral equivalence with people. It is people exercising human exceptionalism by recognizing their duty not to treat animals cruelly. I hope it passes.
July 27th, 2010 | 10:05 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, Stand In The Gap. Stand In The Gap said: BIOETHICS WATCH => Catalonia to Eliminate Bullfighting–Good! http://dlvr.it/34qZg #912 #ocra #ucot #rs #tcot #tlot #sgp [...]
July 27th, 2010 | 1:21 pm
Yes. No bullfight in Catalonia, but state-paid abortion allowed for sixteen agers girls without their parents consent or even knowledge. Hipocrisy.
July 27th, 2010 | 2:37 pm
One being wrong doesn’t make the other one right, Orlando.
July 27th, 2010 | 6:17 pm
Ferdinand the Bull will be pleased.
July 27th, 2010 | 7:32 pm
“But it is the last remaining vestige of the Roman games…”
No, I think prizefighting might be the last vestige. Kind of the old one-on-one gladiatorial stuff, without the weapons. I’ve often wondered what’s so intriguing about two grown men standing on a canvas square beating each others brains out.
July 27th, 2010 | 8:06 pm
Thanks, Wesley, for informing us of this. Clearly, all decent people, regardless of whether they accept animal welfare, or animal rights, can support this ban. I commend you for supporting this ban!
July 27th, 2010 | 8:35 pm
HW, most of the interest in boxing, greyhound racing, and horse racing comes not so much from which animal wins, but from the amount of money one may garner by selecting the winner correctly in advance.
I know a lot of money changes hands at dogfights, too. I don’t think it’s true in bullfighting (which means that’s about the only vice it DOESN’T exploit). The matadors get touchy when they see a lot of bets going down on the bull… ;)
July 28th, 2010 | 12:56 am
I have a hard time condemning bull fighting when I eat meat that most likely comes from cows on factory farms. I doubt they have a better life than a bull bred for fighting, and the animal is butchered at the end of the fight so the meat isn’t wasted.
I don’t think prolonging an animal’s death is that much worse than skimping on its care its whole life to increase profit margins. To be honest, if I had to be a cow, I’d rather be a bull bred for fighting than a cow bred for meat. At least they get to roam outside and graze on grass up until their death.
July 28th, 2010 | 3:23 am
I don’t quite grasp the difference between the anti-human Sea Shepherds you disdain, and the anti-bullfighting activists you approve of. The whale has much less chance to defend itself than the bull and there is evidence that whales are declining in numbers; whereas fighting bulls are not in danger of extinction. Perhaps we could remove the horse lancers and the picadores from the bull ring thus letting more Matadors end up on the horns of the bull and similarly confine the whale hunters to using hand thrown harpoons only?
JD
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
July 28th, 2010 at 3:36 am
JD Bell: I am not in favor of whaling. I support a ban for the reasons you mention. I don’t like the Sea Shepherds because of the anti human beliefs and their sometimes dangerous tactics. Paul Shepherd, for example, called humans the AIDS of the earth.
July 28th, 2010 | 6:51 am
I am in Spain, unfortunately. I wish some day I’ll be able to write I’m not in Spain because Catalonia has become a State in its own. Today I am happy because one more trademark of spanishness (and the fascist tradition it carries along its name) walks away from my homeland. I don’t like animals being killed with great cruelty either, so I am double-happy.
Too bad catalan politics are not afraid to fight for bull’s rights, but seem to be so when catalan people’s rights are the issue. This same Parliament (the oldest in Europe, btw) is full of cowards without the guts to take a step forward and declare independence unilaterally, like Kosove did. They fail to see that we are in a key moment for the future of Catalonia and the Catalans. I really hope they open their eyes to reality, as seen in July 10th, when 1.500.000 claimed for independence (not for more autonomy inside Spain, as many international newspapers reported wrongly).
Independencia i llibertat!
July 28th, 2010 | 10:35 am
In whaling (which I would also like to see go away) and beef farming, the animal is killed as quickly as possible. In bull fighting the emphasis is on drama and spectacle, not a quick and humane kill.
Like dogfighting, the primary purpose of bullfighting is entertainment. And that, in my view, is insufficient justification to kill or injure a healthy animal.
Also, the anti-bullfighting activists worked within the law. Sea Shepherd does not. I’ll grudgingly admit that the publicity may prompt more effective anti-whaling laws, but (again in my view) that does not justify piracy and vandalism. In fact, the last attempt to pass a measure to reduce the number of whales being killed each year was defeated because of an unwillingness to compromise on the part of the anti-whaling contingent.
Sea Shepherd may well inspire a backlash, although whaling is so unpopular it’s hard to see anyone coming out in favor of it.
July 28th, 2010 | 10:47 am
I, too, think boxing is a barbaric sport, but the difference there is that the participants engage in it by their own choosing.
July 28th, 2010 | 6:24 pm
A happy day for all animal rights, To bad for all the bulls that would have loved to smell the flowers together with Ferdinand but can not do so.
http://finnhjalmar.wordpress.com/2010/07/28/a-l...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7kVgDHkISo&feat...
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
July 28th, 2010 at 7:10 pm
Not for animal rights, Finn. Animal welfare.
July 28th, 2010 | 7:39 pm
“There are lies, damn lies and statistics.”
This is a tale of two recent events: the number of people attending the demonstration on July 10 in Barcelona and the Catalan number willing to vote for the independence of Catalonia.
Indeed, in the event, organizers said 1.5 million people attended, according to city police 1.2, according to private estimates of the daily El Pais 445 000 and a company that specializes in measuring such concentrations 56,000. Gentlemen, this is not serious, is not information, this is a cachondeo! Figures may vary with even wider margins, say around 100,000 people, which is already much to put. But someone should check with a minimum fit rigor few more or less tight-on the way: just measure the width and the length of the streets that runs the event. Something very simple. And who is worse is the local police station, a public body to give out tickets so jealous if we spent a few extra minutes in the blue zone. There they are accurate.
The same has happened with the percentage of Catalan nationalists. A month ago the company Gesop, newspaper, estimated that 48.1% of Catalans would vote for independence if a referendum is held. The same company published yesterday in the same newspaper that supporters of independence were 16.2%. Well, boys Gesop, people are fickle, their opinion is changing, we know. But not so! Perhaps what happens is that something you or you are incompetent or let yourself be carried away by political interests, do mere propaganda.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
July 28th, 2010 at 7:49 pm
Okay, we can’t argue Catalan independence here. Thanks.
July 28th, 2010 | 7:44 pm
A Catalan nationalist believes that a nation should be based on:
His story
Their language
Their culture
And he believes that while adhering to Catalonia, Spain did not regain its cultural and historical identity or achieve social and economic fulfillment.
But the reality is:
According to Catalan nationalism, “the centralism and the colonizing spirit Castilla Catalonia was stepping into until 1714, during the War of Succession, Castile and France allied vencierona Catalonia, England and Austria.” But the reality is that the same year on September 11, thousands of Catalans (ones that are members of the Bourbon army and besieged in Barcelona) who believed they fought for the Spanish dynasty as legitimate and “freedom from Spain.”
They say that historically opposed Catalonia Spain, but the reality is that in the Napoleonic invasion of 1808, the Catalans revolted against the French and fought to free themselves from the yoke of French and Spanish and establish freedom.
Having their own language, not a sign of necessarily having to be established as an independent nation. It’s just a cultural complement, but in no case should prevail over the Castilian. Still less should be used as a political tool to promote separatism.
Based on what was said about the events of 11 September has established a big lie, “The National Day of Catalonia” or “National Day.”
The anthem of Catalonia celebrates the killing of citizens of Barcelona, made in 1899 commemorates the massacre of royal officials and citizens Barcelona succeeded the June 7, 1640, which began a civil war between Catalans. So far this hymn to combine thoughts, hateful.
The flag cuatribarrada sharing Aragon, Valencia, Balearic Islands and Catalonia is Catalan as they claim, stems from the Aragonese King Alfonso II. It is recalled that there has never been a king or a State Catalan Catalan.
The dream Catalan fuss is producing, not the demands of the masses, but the whim of a few who seem to be an air of superiority by the mere fact of being Catalans. This superiority complex has been that they appear Catalanised right to education and business, to discriminate Castilian in the administration, none to the Castilian in Catalonia … etc.
July 28th, 2010 | 7:58 pm
The first bullfight is hosted for the first time in Catalonia, dating from 1387, during the reign of John I, and it was in Barcelona, as listed officially in the Historical Archives of the Crown of Aragon, which is in Barcelona.
July 28th, 2010 | 8:07 pm
allow me an anecdote, 70 years ago an alien visited Spain in October 1940, took the occasion to see first and last time in his life a bullfight, I am terribly shocked and moved by the cruelty of the spectacle: the name of this sensible defender of animal rights was Heinrich Luitpold Himmler.La confirmed anecdote I have read several fuentes.Aparte recommend Luc Ferry and his studies on animal rights in Nazi Germany.
July 28th, 2010 | 8:11 pm
Indeed, the bullfight was in Barcelona 1940 at the invitation of the city council.For HIMMLER the bullfight was barbarous and cruel.
July 28th, 2010 | 8:17 pm
But undoubtedly the warmest welcome came at Barcelona. The city is completely decked numerous sporting swastikas and hundreds of people cheered Himmler in the Plaza de San Jaime. Before leaving Barcelona, Himmler visited a “Czech” Republican.
The minister and his entourage moved to the Plaza de Toros de las Ventas to attend a bullfight held in his honor.
A Himmler did not like the bulls: “A despicable and extremely bloody spectacle.”
July 29th, 2010 | 1:13 am
What’s the point of your post, Alfonso? Are you attempting to make a fallacious connection between nazism and animal rights?
July 29th, 2010 | 2:35 am
Just to emphasize the point, Alfonzo, if you’re attempting to “argue” that animal rights is illegitimate, because some nazis believed in them, consider smoking. Nazis belived that smoking was bad. By what I’m seeing of your logic, we must be FOR smoking, least we be stigmitized with believing the same as nazis, on this issue!
Any issue, animal rights included, must be judged on the basis of its intrinsic merits, or lack thereof, not on extraneous, nonrelevant factors, such as who supports them.
July 29th, 2010 | 1:23 pm
Ferry sees deep ecology (or what Americans would call deep ecology) as fundamentally at odds with democracy. Essentially, we may read his critique as claiming that, while democracy incorporates an open-ended dialogue over the good, deep ecology promotes a singular vision of what is good. Deep ecology is biocentric, placing humankind squarely in the midst of nature; democracy, in contrast, is humanistic. Deep ecology promotes a dissolution of the subject; democracy places the subject at its core.
In exploring the tension between deep ecology and democracy (but not, it should be noted, between environmentalism as such), Ferry draws on a few well-illustrated examples, including case studies of Medieval trials of animals, developments in German Romanticism, and Nazi ideology. The chapters on Nazism are especially interesting – although it is made clear that deep ecology is not a form of fascism; only that there are certain paralles in how each addresses the question of democracy and modernity.
July 29th, 2010 | 1:25 pm
“fallacious connection between nazism and animal rights?”Yes.
Ferry sees deep ecology (or what Americans would call deep ecology) as fundamentally at odds with democracy. Essentially, we may read his critique as claiming that, while democracy incorporates an open-ended dialogue over the good, deep ecology promotes a singular vision of what is good. Deep ecology is biocentric, placing humankind squarely in the midst of nature; democracy, in contrast, is humanistic. Deep ecology promotes a dissolution of the subject; democracy places the subject at its core.
In exploring the tension between deep ecology and democracy (but not, it should be noted, between environmentalism as such), Ferry draws on a few well-illustrated examples, including case studies of Medieval trials of animals, developments in German Romanticism, and Nazi ideology. The chapters on Nazism are especially interesting – although it is made clear that deep ecology is not a form of fascism; only that there are certain paralles in how each addresses the question of democracy and modernity.
July 29th, 2010 | 1:33 pm
THE BOOK of Ferry’s ongoing project to expose the illiberal consequences of what is regularly called post-modernity. (See his book on the Sixties as an essay on anti-humanism, and his statement on why he is not a Nietzschean). Some of the practical issues discussed are the crucial distinctions between conservation and radical environmentalism; between anti-cruelty and animal rights. The link between fascism in its most anti-humanist incarnation (Nazism) and “animal rights” should be studied – once animals have the rights of man, man is placed on par with animals. It is no coincidence those carted off to Auschwitz and the eastern camps were sent in cattle cars. These chapters on Nazi animal rights legislation, and the other progressive initiatives of that regime, is fascinating and important especially in light of contemporary European tendencies like the great ape project, support for euthanasia and other progressive ideas – like smoking bans. T
July 30th, 2010 | 5:02 am
I do not want to put words in your mouth, Alfonso, but am I right to assume that you are against this ban of bullfighting? And if so, why, exactly?
August 2nd, 2010 | 4:13 am
The ban would not have been passed without the Catalan secessionist parties (which should be banned themselves!) It’s basically an anti-Spain statement by the Catalonian Tea Party. This is not about animal cruelty, since the Catalan “bous embolats” have not been banned, curiously. Bullfighting is not a sport nor has anything to do with dog fighting. At its root, it is a religious ceremony involving a numinous animal. As with other religious ceremonies, its popularity was already declining in some parts of Spain. For this reason, the ban only creates unnecessary tension.
August 2nd, 2010 | 4:49 am
During the 20th century, “Culture” became enshrined as a secularized version of Divine Grace. It seems to me that those who celebrate the bullfighting ban are doing so under the influence of this Myth of Culture. In the past, when Pope Pius V, for example, asked the Spanish monarch to ban bullfights, it was human, not animal welfare, that he had in mind. Wesley J. Smith says “it is the last remaining vestige of the Roman games in which humans and animals were set upon each other to satisfy the blood lust of the crowd”. But has anyone seriously traced the genealogy of bullfighting to Rome? If so, isn’t it much more correct to say it’s the last vestige of the taurobolium instead? Are the religious aspects of bullfighting totally lost on Wesley J. Smith?
August 2nd, 2010 | 12:47 pm
[...] Wesley J. Smith said this past Thursday in a post on Secondhand Smoke, the fact that the government of Catalonia has voted to ban [...]
August 5th, 2010 | 7:21 am
The notion, Jose, that bullfighting has any legitimate connection to religious belief, is, frankly, profoundly offensive. there’s no religion, that I’m aware of, that supports abusing animals. But if one does exist, the right of the animal to be free of pain and mistreatment clearly supercedes the right to express one’s “beliefs”, in the form of cruelty to animals. Do you honestly think that God supports this reprehensible treatment, of one of his creatures?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact