|
|
Romania
on the greatest animal genocide in European history,
government initiated anarchy, violations of human rights and children rights
September 26, 2013 - On 10th September the Lower House of the Romanian Parliament voted GEO 155/2001 to legitimise a 'catch and kill' policy for all homeless animals. The terminology used during the debate at the parliament was 'eradication'. Since this date media frenzy has been created because of the death of a young boy under what remains dubious circumstances. However the stray animals were blamed and as a result of the media frenzy and the vote, a state of abuse of animals exists now in Romania. Animals and their owners and protectors were immediately, and still are, at serious risk. It must be remembered that many millions of Romanians are animal owners or protectors of the animals. This law has polarized Romania's society and made it dangerously divisive.
There was already danger to people and property in addition to the threat to the animals... It had to be expected that millions of animal lovers would seek to protect their own animals or the animals they 'protect' on the streets. Millions! Half a country would seek to defend and protect and the other half would seek to aggress.
How strongly this will be enacted, will determine Romania's future. Violence against persons is already prevalent and now that licence is given by the Constitutional Court there will be neighbor against neighbor... and history has taught the lesson of violence and destruction in a country divided!
Not only would this policy, bring infamy to Romanian authorities and by association, with Romania, apparently ill considered is the fact that an 'eradication' strategy simply will not be successful. Owned dogs will continue to breed and thereby ensuring a plentiful and constant supply of animals on the streets. Occupy for Animals, along with many others, suggested and still maintains, that keeping dogs on the streets seems to be a desirable condition in Romania. Resolving the stray animals issue would leave all those who make big money from it (including mayors and other politicians who accept bribes) without their huge profits and that is why a massive, country-wide sterilization campaign that would include ALL owned dogs, has never even been suggest. Without the sterilization of ALL owned dogs, Romania's 'eradication program' - just like all other previous 'catch & kill', or 'catch & incarcerate & starve to death' policies - will be a futile, very expensive but totally ineffective policy, given that it addresses the effect but NOT the cause.
The 'Making The Link' Study and Project Group - a major collaboration of international organisations, academics and world leading experts in THE LINK between exposure to animal abuse and the resulting effect on children's psychological health and development, had warned the Romanian Constitutional Court that the implementation of GEO 155/2001 - their 'eradication' strategy, which can best be described as potentially 'the greatest animal genocidal impact on human health in European history' - would have a deleterious impact of the health of the children of Romania.
'Making The Link' - initiator Malcolm Plant (BSc, BA (Hons), MSc, Dipl Psych., Fellow of the Institute for Human-Animal Connection, University of Denver) wrote (among other):
"We would urge you to re-enforce your decision last year on precisely the same issue and with no additional changes to circumstances. Our concern is primarily for the health of the children which we will be measuring over the next few years. Academically we are anticipating hitherto profound impact on the children's health unseen in any previous study if you were to ratify the proposed amendments. As human beings, as parents, we are frightened about the effects if the new generation of Romanians are exposed to street horrors on a previously unprecedented scale."
On 25th September, 2013 Constitutional Court judge Petre Lăzăroiu, suggested that "the mass killing of stray dogs in Romania could traumatize the population"... then the entire place ruled to cull all dogs... and that the eradication of Romania's homeless animals - although it had been ruled unconstitutional in January 2012 - was now "constitutional"! Go figure!
On 25th of September, the Romanian Constitutional Court had an opportunity to define whether Romania is a country worthy of being called civilized or whether it should be consigned to popular perception of a country unworthy of being considered anything other than barbaric, mismanaged, corrupt and dangerous. They chose the latter.
Their approval of, and the implementation of GEO 155/2001 has produced worldwide condemnation and a perception that Romania is a country which introduces medieval practices and governs in a draconian mode. Most of the 'civilized' countries have introduced a 'Catch, Neuter, Vaccinate and Return' policy and now have very few homeless animals on the streets. This is a 21st century methodology.
Not only have the Romanian Government dismissed the warnings expressed by the experts, and failed to acknowledge this as a strategy but are assuredly aware of the costs and profits to be made from implementing the proposed 'eradication' strategy knowing that although there will be significant profits to be made, the net result will be abject failure and the number of animals will not decrease, all the while the to be expected exposure to endemic animal abuse on Romania's streets will have serious ramifications for the health of Romania's children.
"As human beings, as parents, we are frightened about the effects if the new generation of Romanians are exposed to street horrors
on a previously unprecedented scale."
- Malcolm Plant -
This footage was recorded by the abusers themselves on 3rd of October, 2013 in Bucharest, Gorjului and then
uploaded onto FB. Vier Pfoten later located the place and went to the rescue of the little dog.
uploaded onto FB. Vier Pfoten later located the place and went to the rescue of the little dog.
The 'Making The Link' Study and Project Group offers support
October 21, 2013 - by The 'Making The Link' Study and Project Group - The situation has become more grave with a number of municipalities taking licence from the newly amended law allowing euthanasia after 14 days. As you know 'euthanasia' in Romania is euphemistic for death by poisoning, battering, starvation, and other cruel and cheap methods. Although all of these 'methods' are not allowed, numerous reports received in the past confirm that such 'methods' are being used.
Reports are now being received of a mass cull of typically 4-600 dogs in many cities.
Unfortunately there is abject confusion about which laws is current, the 9/2008 which is animal friendly and compliant with the Council of Europe's Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals, or the newly adapted 155/2001 law.
What is evidenced is a polarized society where some defend the street animals and others aggress. As far as we know, there have been already 6 human deaths to date because of this. Of perhaps deeper concern is the impact on the numbers of animals abused and killed in the streets. This was significant before the new law and has dramatically increased as a result of media frenzy created around the death of a young boy supposedly attacked by stray dogs. The cause of death of this youngster is highly contentious with a strong likelihood that the animals were not the cause of death.
Although Romanian Law does not comply with either European or International animal welfare protection agreements which Romania were signatories, in reality the European Union have no legal competence to intervene in a member country's stray dog control strategies. Intergroup have written 3 letters to the Romanian President but no response has been received.
Although competence is not afforded to the EU to address stray animal issues, under the Treaty of Lisbon, Art 13, they do have competence when human health issues are identified. The 'Making the Link' program introduces this concept by identifying the factors affecting children's psycho-social heath caused by exposure and perpetration of animal abuse. The 'Making the Link' study and project group are awaiting a decision from the Municipal Committee in the City of Bistrita, Romania, where on 28/29th October they will discuss the stray animal situation and decide which strategy to adopt. Their options are to either cull all the stray dogs or to accept our proposal to conduct the 'Making the Link' program there. This would necessitate municipal support for a 2 year intervention program and a declaration of Bistrita being a 'no kill' zone.
It is envisaged that with the publicity this will generate, other cities will consider this a viable option as opposed to implementing Law 155/2001.
Reports are now being received of a mass cull of typically 4-600 dogs in many cities.
Unfortunately there is abject confusion about which laws is current, the 9/2008 which is animal friendly and compliant with the Council of Europe's Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals, or the newly adapted 155/2001 law.
What is evidenced is a polarized society where some defend the street animals and others aggress. As far as we know, there have been already 6 human deaths to date because of this. Of perhaps deeper concern is the impact on the numbers of animals abused and killed in the streets. This was significant before the new law and has dramatically increased as a result of media frenzy created around the death of a young boy supposedly attacked by stray dogs. The cause of death of this youngster is highly contentious with a strong likelihood that the animals were not the cause of death.
Although Romanian Law does not comply with either European or International animal welfare protection agreements which Romania were signatories, in reality the European Union have no legal competence to intervene in a member country's stray dog control strategies. Intergroup have written 3 letters to the Romanian President but no response has been received.
Although competence is not afforded to the EU to address stray animal issues, under the Treaty of Lisbon, Art 13, they do have competence when human health issues are identified. The 'Making the Link' program introduces this concept by identifying the factors affecting children's psycho-social heath caused by exposure and perpetration of animal abuse. The 'Making the Link' study and project group are awaiting a decision from the Municipal Committee in the City of Bistrita, Romania, where on 28/29th October they will discuss the stray animal situation and decide which strategy to adopt. Their options are to either cull all the stray dogs or to accept our proposal to conduct the 'Making the Link' program there. This would necessitate municipal support for a 2 year intervention program and a declaration of Bistrita being a 'no kill' zone.
It is envisaged that with the publicity this will generate, other cities will consider this a viable option as opposed to implementing Law 155/2001.
About the current stray animal situation in Bistrita:
In an interview published 26th of September, 2013 in the local newspaper 'City News' the mayor of Bistrita, Ovidiu Cretu, stated that the stray dog situation in Bistrita has improved significantly in recent years.
While a few years ago he was a defender of the euthanasia of dogs, the mayor now became more relented and said that the problem is under control, especially due to the support of the local animal protection associations.
Please click here to read the entire report.
In an interview published 26th of September, 2013 in the local newspaper 'City News' the mayor of Bistrita, Ovidiu Cretu, stated that the stray dog situation in Bistrita has improved significantly in recent years.
While a few years ago he was a defender of the euthanasia of dogs, the mayor now became more relented and said that the problem is under control, especially due to the support of the local animal protection associations.
Please click here to read the entire report.
The new 'legislation'
LAW NO. 9/2008 (Law MARINESCU 1) remains in force and euthanasia is prohibited,
says former senator Marius Marinescu
legea-258-2013-privind-modificarea-si-completarea-oug155-2001.pdf | |
File Size: | 104 kb |
File Type: |
On 26th of September, 2013, FPAM - whose president is former senator Marius Marinescu - has release the following official statement:
LAW NO. 9/2008 (Law MARINESCU 1) remains in force. Euthanasia is prohibited.
The initiator of the law 9/2008, Mr Marius Marinescu, officially draws attention to the observance of the Law no. 9/2008 Animal Protection Law (Law Marinescu 1), the law which reflects the provisions of the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals, signed by Romania in Strasbourg and which are in force.
Article 7 index 1 of the Act provides:
"It is forbidden to euthanize dogs, cats and other animals, except animals with incurable diseases identified by the veterinarian."
GEO (Government Emergency Ordinance) 155/2001 concerning euthanasia, approved on 10 September, 2013 by the Parliament, does not repeal the law 'Marinescu 1'.
Acknowledges this way, that we will fill criminal complaints against mayors and veterinarians who euthanize healthy dogs, because it violates the law and is liable under Article 23 of "imprisonment up to 3 years" for "animal cruelty".
The euthanasia of healthy dogs which was held in 2001 under Ordinance 155/2001, approved by Law 227/2002 and consolidated by Law no. 391/2006, was canceled in 2008 in the country, with the entry into force of Law no. 9/2008.
In conclusion, healthy canine specimen's euthanasia remains illegal.
Released: September 26, 2013 by FPAM - Source: http://fpam.ro/
LAW NO. 9/2008 (Law MARINESCU 1) remains in force. Euthanasia is prohibited.
The initiator of the law 9/2008, Mr Marius Marinescu, officially draws attention to the observance of the Law no. 9/2008 Animal Protection Law (Law Marinescu 1), the law which reflects the provisions of the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals, signed by Romania in Strasbourg and which are in force.
Article 7 index 1 of the Act provides:
"It is forbidden to euthanize dogs, cats and other animals, except animals with incurable diseases identified by the veterinarian."
GEO (Government Emergency Ordinance) 155/2001 concerning euthanasia, approved on 10 September, 2013 by the Parliament, does not repeal the law 'Marinescu 1'.
Acknowledges this way, that we will fill criminal complaints against mayors and veterinarians who euthanize healthy dogs, because it violates the law and is liable under Article 23 of "imprisonment up to 3 years" for "animal cruelty".
The euthanasia of healthy dogs which was held in 2001 under Ordinance 155/2001, approved by Law 227/2002 and consolidated by Law no. 391/2006, was canceled in 2008 in the country, with the entry into force of Law no. 9/2008.
In conclusion, healthy canine specimen's euthanasia remains illegal.
Released: September 26, 2013 by FPAM - Source: http://fpam.ro/
Evolution of Romanian Animal Protection Laws from 2001-2008
'Euthanasia' does not mean 'euthanasia'
By ruling that 'euthanasia is constitutional' the Constitutional Court has contradicted its own previous decision from January 2012 (whereby it regulated that euthanasia may be applied only as a last method, only after the authorities have applied all solutions, correspondingly, and such solutions had failed to reduce the number of the strays on the streets or to eradicate the strays situation).
By this decision the Constitutional Court has proved (together with the Parliament, Government and President) to lack integrity in favor of the abuse of power. On the same day, the President has promulgated the law by 'Decree 778/2013' which then became 'Law 258/2013'.
The dogs may now be "put to stop" (meaning: killed) and the representatives of the NGOs are not even allowed to be present!
The Sanitary Veterinary National Authority and the Veterinary College – institutions which in any other country other than Romania fight and defend the welfare and life of the animals (in Romania these authorities act against the interests of the animals) – are not strangers to this situation.
The Veterinary College has introduced in the law, the fact that 'euthanasia' must be done in compliance with the 'Euthanasia Code' which was drafted and issued by the Veterinary College! Thus dogs may be “euthanized” now also using carbon dioxide, carbon oxide, potassium chloride, nitrogen, electric shocks, penetrating captive gun – which are all cruel methods non-acceptable in the EU!
The Sanitary Veterinary National Authority has excluded from the law, the right of the NGOs to assist at the 'euthanasia' of the dogs in the shelters!
By this decision the Constitutional Court has proved (together with the Parliament, Government and President) to lack integrity in favor of the abuse of power. On the same day, the President has promulgated the law by 'Decree 778/2013' which then became 'Law 258/2013'.
The dogs may now be "put to stop" (meaning: killed) and the representatives of the NGOs are not even allowed to be present!
The Sanitary Veterinary National Authority and the Veterinary College – institutions which in any other country other than Romania fight and defend the welfare and life of the animals (in Romania these authorities act against the interests of the animals) – are not strangers to this situation.
The Veterinary College has introduced in the law, the fact that 'euthanasia' must be done in compliance with the 'Euthanasia Code' which was drafted and issued by the Veterinary College! Thus dogs may be “euthanized” now also using carbon dioxide, carbon oxide, potassium chloride, nitrogen, electric shocks, penetrating captive gun – which are all cruel methods non-acceptable in the EU!
The Sanitary Veterinary National Authority has excluded from the law, the right of the NGOs to assist at the 'euthanasia' of the dogs in the shelters!
Many hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions of
'Man's Best Friends' now face a horrible death!
The CCR ruling from 25th of September, 2013 (GEO 155/2001) provides for the killing of all homeless dogs in Romania after 14 days spent in their death camps, if not adopted or perished before.
Without any discrimination ALL who can be caught - including the gentle ones, the pregnant bitches, the puppies, the sterilized ones, the social ones, the community dogs who have never hurt anyone - will have to die. Many hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions of "potential members of the (human) family" (as they are being considered in Western Europe, in the arguably more 'civilized' societies) now face the most horrible deaths - provided they survive 14 days spent in Romania's death camps.
Although Romania's GEO 155/2001 and their other 'animal protection laws' use the term 'euthanasia', we would do humanity a great disservice by using the term 'euthanasia' associated with Romania. 'Eradication' is the term that they, themselves, used during the debate in the Parliament, and 'obscene mass slaughter' is perhaps a more appropriate descriptive.
'Euthanasia Romanian style' (whether you like the expression or not) has nothing in common with the merciful and painless ending of an animal's life as practiced in western societies.
In the past, "euthanasia" in fact meant: poisoning, strangulation, being burnt alive, beaten to death or injected with magnesium sulphate, water, vinegar, paint thinner and other chemical substances...
Today, "euthanasia" means starving to death, freezing to death, or being left to die of the consequences of diseases and/or of injuries inflicted during the catching, or of unprofessional sterilizations left without veterinary care.
... or ending the animals' life with the cheapest methods "available".
In the past we have seen dogs being clubbed to death with shovels, with axes, puppies and small dogs being thrown against the wall, dogs being put in the crematoriums while still alive.
The next video (graphic) will give you an idea about "euthanasia Romanian style"... In this video Traian Basescu, at that time mayor of Bucharest, said about the stray dogs: "We will take care of them like if they were our children."
Who is going to die first?
Without any discrimination ALL who can be caught - the gentle ones, the pregnant bitches, the puppies, the sterilized ones, the social ones, the community dogs who have never hurt anyone - will have to die.
The dog catchers will pick up the quiet, old, sad and castrated dogs – the ones that can’t breed - but they will rarely get hold of the aggressive ones because they are often not socialized and avoid humans.
Below a mother with her puppies in the public shelter of Tecuci. Thankfully the mayor of Tecuci has declared that he will NOT apply the 'Slaughter Law' ... otherwise she and her puppies would have to die like so many others IF they survive the '14-days-pre-slaughter-period'.
This picture taken by Mihaela Oprea in the public shelter in Tecuci, October 16, 2013. Please note also the very young puppy lying on the cold concrete floor...
The dog catchers will pick up the quiet, old, sad and castrated dogs – the ones that can’t breed - but they will rarely get hold of the aggressive ones because they are often not socialized and avoid humans.
Below a mother with her puppies in the public shelter of Tecuci. Thankfully the mayor of Tecuci has declared that he will NOT apply the 'Slaughter Law' ... otherwise she and her puppies would have to die like so many others IF they survive the '14-days-pre-slaughter-period'.
This picture taken by Mihaela Oprea in the public shelter in Tecuci, October 16, 2013. Please note also the very young puppy lying on the cold concrete floor...
Two days after this picture was taken, the puppies were dead. Killed... the person who wanted to adopt them, who wanted to take the mother and her puppies out of there had no chance to arrange things...
Killing is NO solution!
Picture taken at the local shelter of Botosani on 11th of May, 2011. The volunteers who until then had fed the dogs daily, found all 230 (healthy) dogs dead, with blood everywhere, when they arrived at the shelter in the morning. During the night, the vet Cristian Petru Pencu, assisted by his drunken helpers, "managed" to kill these 230 dogs in 2 hours time. The vet was later accused of intentional murder and another 15 people had been surveyed. The police doubted that he managed to make lethal injections to 230 dogs in two hours. "10 minutes are needed for an injection. The doctor therefore needed 2300 minutes ..." or a bit more than 38 hours!
Catch-Neuter-Return is the only proven humane and effective method to reduce stray animal populations. Statistical studies indicate that in order to fully control a stray population, you need to achieve a 70 percent sterilization rate of the animals within a particular community. Once you reach the 70 percent threshold, the probability that an unsterilized female comes into contact with an unsterilized male is sufficiently small, and the population stops growing.
Killing stray animals, however, does not stop the problem and only offers a temporary “solution”. The World Health Organization’s “Guidelines for Dog Population Management” (Geneva 1990) and various other academic studies show that killing dogs is ineffective. Despite mass extermination campaigns by misguided municipalities the street dog population grows, and the best examples of both good and bad stray animal population control policies come from their own country:
In 2001, Traian Basescu, the then-mayor of Bucharest launched a campaign that led to the extermination of about 144,000 stray dogs in the capital alone, spending almost 9,000,000 Euros (62 Euros per dog) during the period from 2001-2007. Between 2008-2010, 20,000 dogs have been killed in Constanta spending 1,500,000 Euros (75 Euros per dog).
The only towns in Romania that used catch/neuter/release programs were Oradea and Lugoj, and the results are showing:
ORADEA
2006 – stray dog population: 4,000
2011 – stray dog population: 270
Costs incurred to spay/neuter a dog: 14 euro – program run and funded by Robert Smith - FPCC/Dog - Project Oradea, UK, in collaboration with city hall Oradea
LUGOJ
2008: 2,500 stray dogs
2011: 235 stray dogs
Costs to spay/neuter a dog: 12 euro – program run and funded by city hall Lugoj in collaboration with local animal welfare organization, Free Amely.
According to Princess Maja von Hohenzollern, Romania has killed an incredible 10 million stray dogs during the period from 2004 to 2009. That IS a 'genocide of dogs' that has never happened in Europe - and the entire world - before. Romania has killed almost half as many dogs as the entire population of Romania with the only "result" that the streets of Romania are again (still) littered with live and dead dogs.
Overall it is estimated that Romania has spend between 25 and 40 million euros between 2001 and 2008 for the 'management' of the stray animals, while their numbers only grew larger!
Contrary to the popular belief that fuels the anti-stray protests, the money spent on food for the strays was just a infinitesimal part of the budget, as the dogs were being fed “subliminal” quantities, to quote the so called specialists from DSVA Brasov. Out of a total budget of 1,500,000 lei for 2008, the dog catchers in Brasov allocated only 5,000 lei for the dog food, less than 3%.
The stray dog business as a very lucrative business and by intentionally NOT taking the right decisions to solve the problem, the Romanian government supports the prosperity of a dirty industry in which many people (including mayors and other politicians who accept bribes) profit from:
... with the top of this pyramid being PROTAN, a controversial company responsible for the incineration of the deceased dogs.
And "interestingly", even culling dogs can be very profitable. The President is therefore asking the tax payer to fund an expensive, non-evidence based, ineffective practice! We are now facing a slaughter without precedent! An animal holocaust! Many hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of potential victims across a country. Where the cold mist of death will drift through every highway, every alleyway and carry away to destruction, all innocence consigned by ineptitude and corruption to live on the streets, in a country in anarchic conditions...
The next video ‘Man’s Best Friend’ - a documentary filmed between 2011 and 2012 in Romania - outlines how this battle has played out before, and reveals all the options for dealing with this complex and emotional zoological disaster.
The producer of this film is Michael Bird, a UK journalist in Romania, who wrote quite a few interesting articles about the current stray animals situation in Romania, and his last piece being "Ten reasons why Romania’s proposed mass-kill of millions of stray dogs won’t work and two reasons why it might" which you can read below.
Killing stray animals, however, does not stop the problem and only offers a temporary “solution”. The World Health Organization’s “Guidelines for Dog Population Management” (Geneva 1990) and various other academic studies show that killing dogs is ineffective. Despite mass extermination campaigns by misguided municipalities the street dog population grows, and the best examples of both good and bad stray animal population control policies come from their own country:
In 2001, Traian Basescu, the then-mayor of Bucharest launched a campaign that led to the extermination of about 144,000 stray dogs in the capital alone, spending almost 9,000,000 Euros (62 Euros per dog) during the period from 2001-2007. Between 2008-2010, 20,000 dogs have been killed in Constanta spending 1,500,000 Euros (75 Euros per dog).
The only towns in Romania that used catch/neuter/release programs were Oradea and Lugoj, and the results are showing:
ORADEA
2006 – stray dog population: 4,000
2011 – stray dog population: 270
Costs incurred to spay/neuter a dog: 14 euro – program run and funded by Robert Smith - FPCC/Dog - Project Oradea, UK, in collaboration with city hall Oradea
LUGOJ
2008: 2,500 stray dogs
2011: 235 stray dogs
Costs to spay/neuter a dog: 12 euro – program run and funded by city hall Lugoj in collaboration with local animal welfare organization, Free Amely.
According to Princess Maja von Hohenzollern, Romania has killed an incredible 10 million stray dogs during the period from 2004 to 2009. That IS a 'genocide of dogs' that has never happened in Europe - and the entire world - before. Romania has killed almost half as many dogs as the entire population of Romania with the only "result" that the streets of Romania are again (still) littered with live and dead dogs.
Overall it is estimated that Romania has spend between 25 and 40 million euros between 2001 and 2008 for the 'management' of the stray animals, while their numbers only grew larger!
Contrary to the popular belief that fuels the anti-stray protests, the money spent on food for the strays was just a infinitesimal part of the budget, as the dogs were being fed “subliminal” quantities, to quote the so called specialists from DSVA Brasov. Out of a total budget of 1,500,000 lei for 2008, the dog catchers in Brasov allocated only 5,000 lei for the dog food, less than 3%.
The stray dog business as a very lucrative business and by intentionally NOT taking the right decisions to solve the problem, the Romanian government supports the prosperity of a dirty industry in which many people (including mayors and other politicians who accept bribes) profit from:
- the collecting of dogs
- the construction of unnecessary shelters (including research and design)
- the housing of animals, including supposedly feeding and caring of the animals
... with the top of this pyramid being PROTAN, a controversial company responsible for the incineration of the deceased dogs.
And "interestingly", even culling dogs can be very profitable. The President is therefore asking the tax payer to fund an expensive, non-evidence based, ineffective practice! We are now facing a slaughter without precedent! An animal holocaust! Many hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of potential victims across a country. Where the cold mist of death will drift through every highway, every alleyway and carry away to destruction, all innocence consigned by ineptitude and corruption to live on the streets, in a country in anarchic conditions...
The next video ‘Man’s Best Friend’ - a documentary filmed between 2011 and 2012 in Romania - outlines how this battle has played out before, and reveals all the options for dealing with this complex and emotional zoological disaster.
The producer of this film is Michael Bird, a UK journalist in Romania, who wrote quite a few interesting articles about the current stray animals situation in Romania, and his last piece being "Ten reasons why Romania’s proposed mass-kill of millions of stray dogs won’t work and two reasons why it might" which you can read below.
Ten reasons why Romania’s proposed mass-kill of millions of stray dogs
won’t work and two reasons why it might
The following text is copied from an article written by Michael Bird, a UK journalist in Romania, who has produced the documentary "Man's Best Friend":
Here are ten reasons why this new law may not solve the problem of dogs on the streets – and two reasons why it might.
1. In a massive city, with a mass of dogs, mass-killing is rarely effective. The more dogs you kill, the more space and food there is for new dogs. The World Health Organisation backs this up. As long as people dump dogs on the street and let dogs loose on the street to breed, there will be more dogs. When dogs disappear, other dogs appear.
2. To kill the animals, cities need vets. Vets must want to kill the animals. But many vets don’t want to murder. People did not study for six years to swap the surgery for the slaughterhouse. Last month in southwest city of Timisoara the vets voted not to collaborate with City Hall to kill the dogs. More could follow.
3. All dogs must die – except mine. When Romanians are surveyed, they say they want to kill strays. But if you ask the same Romanians, if they want to see the charming, big brown-eyed mutt which greets them every day with a cocked head and a wagging tail, killed by lethal injection, they will refuse. Because this dog is kind to children, friendly to strangers and he never bites – and, when he does bite, it’s because he’s scared. It is always other people’s dogs who are dangerous. The dogs in the other block. In the other yard. In the other city.
4. Bucharest tried mass-murder. As Mayor of Bucharest, Traian Basescu ordered the killing of around 100,000 dogs between 2001 and 2003. It failed.
5. The wrong dogs will die. The dog catchers will pick up the quiet, old, sad and castrated dogs – the ones that can’t breed. The problem is not just stray dogs. The problem is loose dogs. I’ve followed dog catching around the housing areas of the Bucharest suburbs. When the residents leave for work in the morning, they let their dogs out on the street. If they are caught by dog catchers, the owners pick them up from the shelter and pay a fine. These are virile dogs. They breed with strays. They create new puppies. The problem persists.
6. People will hide the dogs. There are a lot of old, single and idle people in Bucharest. Often they love dogs. They will be watching for the dog catchers and, if they come for their strays, they will conceal them in their flat, basement, garage or yard.
7. No-kill could become a black market. In the past, dog catchers in Bucharest took money from residents in blocks to leave their stray dogs alone. This could happen again.
8. It is hard to catch a dog. There are around 15 trained dog catchers for three million people of Bucharest and its suburbs. They catch dogs by shooting them with a tranquilizer gun loaded with sedatives such as ketamine. The city will need a batallion of trained marskmen who can be trusted with a gun and a litre of a party drug with a high street value.
9. Bucharest is a metropolis run by a village council. It can’t cope with grand projects and grand challenges. Or even small ones. I live on Piata Unirii – a square at the centre of the city. An international showpiece. In one year, they have not finished re-surfacing the pavement. It is a building site of dust, mud, rocks and holes. If Bucharest cannot lay a few paving stones in its city centre, it cannot manage the mass-murder of over 50,000 lives.
10. The capital never gave other solutions a chance. Councillors will argue back that the NGOs’ favoured idea of the sterilisation and the return of dogs to the streets does not work, because stray dog attacks on people keep rising. But the City never tried a mass-scale programme to see whether the dog numbers would fall. If, over a five year period, many NGOs could co-ordinate professional sterilisation in conjunction with all seven City Halls of Bucharest and the surrounding county of Ilfov, alongside comprehensive adoption and education about responsible ownership, while giving the authorities the right to euthanize sick, old and aggressive dogs, the problem could stop.
And two reasons why it might work…
1. Under the new law, in a small city in Romania, it will probably be possible to round and kill up to 1,000 stray dogs. But in Bucharest, this needs an unprecedented effort. The city needs to declare war on dogs. It needs a militia to go block by block, possibly forcing residents to leave their homes, while police carry out searches, removing every dog they suspect of being a stray. There must be no exceptions. They must enforce the 14-day rule before murdering the dogs. Killing 60,000 dogs means a massacre – and a massacre can only be effective if is ruthless and mechanical.
2. Politicians enlist citizens to be vigilantes. Using the media, politicians demonize all dogs as violent. The Government passes a new law allowing dogs to be killed. This sends a signal to citizens that they have the liberty to beat, poison, run over or lynch any loose dog. Anecdotally, friends are telling me of how bodies of dogs are appearing more often on the outskirts of Bucharest. If the nation’s leaders keep up the rhetoric, this may continue. The streets will be running with blood and poison and the blocks will be echoing with the sound of bats against brains until the last stray in Bucharest is dead – while the authorities bear no responsibility.
Source
Here are ten reasons why this new law may not solve the problem of dogs on the streets – and two reasons why it might.
1. In a massive city, with a mass of dogs, mass-killing is rarely effective. The more dogs you kill, the more space and food there is for new dogs. The World Health Organisation backs this up. As long as people dump dogs on the street and let dogs loose on the street to breed, there will be more dogs. When dogs disappear, other dogs appear.
2. To kill the animals, cities need vets. Vets must want to kill the animals. But many vets don’t want to murder. People did not study for six years to swap the surgery for the slaughterhouse. Last month in southwest city of Timisoara the vets voted not to collaborate with City Hall to kill the dogs. More could follow.
3. All dogs must die – except mine. When Romanians are surveyed, they say they want to kill strays. But if you ask the same Romanians, if they want to see the charming, big brown-eyed mutt which greets them every day with a cocked head and a wagging tail, killed by lethal injection, they will refuse. Because this dog is kind to children, friendly to strangers and he never bites – and, when he does bite, it’s because he’s scared. It is always other people’s dogs who are dangerous. The dogs in the other block. In the other yard. In the other city.
4. Bucharest tried mass-murder. As Mayor of Bucharest, Traian Basescu ordered the killing of around 100,000 dogs between 2001 and 2003. It failed.
5. The wrong dogs will die. The dog catchers will pick up the quiet, old, sad and castrated dogs – the ones that can’t breed. The problem is not just stray dogs. The problem is loose dogs. I’ve followed dog catching around the housing areas of the Bucharest suburbs. When the residents leave for work in the morning, they let their dogs out on the street. If they are caught by dog catchers, the owners pick them up from the shelter and pay a fine. These are virile dogs. They breed with strays. They create new puppies. The problem persists.
6. People will hide the dogs. There are a lot of old, single and idle people in Bucharest. Often they love dogs. They will be watching for the dog catchers and, if they come for their strays, they will conceal them in their flat, basement, garage or yard.
7. No-kill could become a black market. In the past, dog catchers in Bucharest took money from residents in blocks to leave their stray dogs alone. This could happen again.
8. It is hard to catch a dog. There are around 15 trained dog catchers for three million people of Bucharest and its suburbs. They catch dogs by shooting them with a tranquilizer gun loaded with sedatives such as ketamine. The city will need a batallion of trained marskmen who can be trusted with a gun and a litre of a party drug with a high street value.
9. Bucharest is a metropolis run by a village council. It can’t cope with grand projects and grand challenges. Or even small ones. I live on Piata Unirii – a square at the centre of the city. An international showpiece. In one year, they have not finished re-surfacing the pavement. It is a building site of dust, mud, rocks and holes. If Bucharest cannot lay a few paving stones in its city centre, it cannot manage the mass-murder of over 50,000 lives.
10. The capital never gave other solutions a chance. Councillors will argue back that the NGOs’ favoured idea of the sterilisation and the return of dogs to the streets does not work, because stray dog attacks on people keep rising. But the City never tried a mass-scale programme to see whether the dog numbers would fall. If, over a five year period, many NGOs could co-ordinate professional sterilisation in conjunction with all seven City Halls of Bucharest and the surrounding county of Ilfov, alongside comprehensive adoption and education about responsible ownership, while giving the authorities the right to euthanize sick, old and aggressive dogs, the problem could stop.
And two reasons why it might work…
1. Under the new law, in a small city in Romania, it will probably be possible to round and kill up to 1,000 stray dogs. But in Bucharest, this needs an unprecedented effort. The city needs to declare war on dogs. It needs a militia to go block by block, possibly forcing residents to leave their homes, while police carry out searches, removing every dog they suspect of being a stray. There must be no exceptions. They must enforce the 14-day rule before murdering the dogs. Killing 60,000 dogs means a massacre – and a massacre can only be effective if is ruthless and mechanical.
2. Politicians enlist citizens to be vigilantes. Using the media, politicians demonize all dogs as violent. The Government passes a new law allowing dogs to be killed. This sends a signal to citizens that they have the liberty to beat, poison, run over or lynch any loose dog. Anecdotally, friends are telling me of how bodies of dogs are appearing more often on the outskirts of Bucharest. If the nation’s leaders keep up the rhetoric, this may continue. The streets will be running with blood and poison and the blocks will be echoing with the sound of bats against brains until the last stray in Bucharest is dead – while the authorities bear no responsibility.
Source
The mighty dog catchers
and where the money goes
On 12th of September, 2013, while the new law was not yet been promulgated by Romania's president, the deals concluded with dog catching companies already suggest corrupted interests.... ASPA pays 219 LEI for the catching of ONE dog! But according to annexe 2 of the Decision of the General Council of Bucharest, these fees should NOT exceed 70 LEI !!!
According to an article published in the Romania media on 12th of September, 2013 the Authority for the Supervision and Protection of Animals (ASPA) signed 9 contracts with three of the seven companies that participated in the tender.
For each catched dog the municipality will pay 219 LEI, but FOUR PAWS representatives say that the municipality should not pay more than 10 LEI for each dog, including tranquilizer, catching and transport.
219 LEI for the catching of ONE dog is mega huge. The tranquilizer cost maximum 5 LEI per dog, add 5 LEI for gasoline, makes it 10 LEI. Of course, if they are going to send ONE car to catch ONE dog, it would be 10 LEI per car/dog, but given that they put like 10 dogs in one car, one "car load" would equal to 100 LEI.
Kuki Barbuceanu, FOUR PAWS project coordinator, does not understand where the difference between the 10 LEI per dog (the real price) and the agreed 219 LEI per dog comes from. He has no explanation...
In fact, the amount paid by the municipality for one dog (219 LEI) equals to the price that the municipality would need to pay if the dogs would come by taxi from about 157 km away from the "shelter", given that the taxi price is 1,39 LEI/km. 157 km is about the distance from Bucharest to Focsani. However, the two shelters of the city hall are located on Boulevard Pallady, Sector 3, and in the town Mihăileşti Giurgiu county, 25 km from the capital.
The companies that have signed the framework agreement with ASPA for the catching of the stray dogs on the streets of the capital are:
S.C. ELEN BASIC BUSINESS SRL - founded in 2012 and, according to information published on the website of the Ministry of Finance, has as main activity "Business and management consultancy activities"
SC BEST MARKETING SRL - founded in 2004 and, according to the Ministry of Finance, has "dental care activities." as its main activity. At the end of 2012 the company had five employees and a loss of 53,400 lei.
SC Terra Marique Ltd - registered in 2005, and according to Ministry of Finance, their main activity according to CAEN classification, is the "intermediation in the sale of furniture, household goods, hardware and iron mongery"
Moreover, the agreed amount exceeds the provisions of the ASPA General Council Decision governing this issue:
The ASPA giving 219 LEI to capture ONE stray is already ILLEGAL, because according to Annexe 2 of the Decision of the General Council of Bucharest, the amount of such fees should NOTexceed 70 LEI.
According to an article published in the Romania media on 12th of September, 2013 the Authority for the Supervision and Protection of Animals (ASPA) signed 9 contracts with three of the seven companies that participated in the tender.
For each catched dog the municipality will pay 219 LEI, but FOUR PAWS representatives say that the municipality should not pay more than 10 LEI for each dog, including tranquilizer, catching and transport.
219 LEI for the catching of ONE dog is mega huge. The tranquilizer cost maximum 5 LEI per dog, add 5 LEI for gasoline, makes it 10 LEI. Of course, if they are going to send ONE car to catch ONE dog, it would be 10 LEI per car/dog, but given that they put like 10 dogs in one car, one "car load" would equal to 100 LEI.
Kuki Barbuceanu, FOUR PAWS project coordinator, does not understand where the difference between the 10 LEI per dog (the real price) and the agreed 219 LEI per dog comes from. He has no explanation...
In fact, the amount paid by the municipality for one dog (219 LEI) equals to the price that the municipality would need to pay if the dogs would come by taxi from about 157 km away from the "shelter", given that the taxi price is 1,39 LEI/km. 157 km is about the distance from Bucharest to Focsani. However, the two shelters of the city hall are located on Boulevard Pallady, Sector 3, and in the town Mihăileşti Giurgiu county, 25 km from the capital.
The companies that have signed the framework agreement with ASPA for the catching of the stray dogs on the streets of the capital are:
S.C. ELEN BASIC BUSINESS SRL - founded in 2012 and, according to information published on the website of the Ministry of Finance, has as main activity "Business and management consultancy activities"
SC BEST MARKETING SRL - founded in 2004 and, according to the Ministry of Finance, has "dental care activities." as its main activity. At the end of 2012 the company had five employees and a loss of 53,400 lei.
SC Terra Marique Ltd - registered in 2005, and according to Ministry of Finance, their main activity according to CAEN classification, is the "intermediation in the sale of furniture, household goods, hardware and iron mongery"
Moreover, the agreed amount exceeds the provisions of the ASPA General Council Decision governing this issue:
The ASPA giving 219 LEI to capture ONE stray is already ILLEGAL, because according to Annexe 2 of the Decision of the General Council of Bucharest, the amount of such fees should NOTexceed 70 LEI.
October 14, 2014
10 brand new vans at a cost of 15,000 euros upwards each
seen in Bucharest, district Brancusi
It would be interesting to know:
Maybe Mrs Sarbu can clarify?
- who supplied all these beautiful vans?
- are these vans equipped to transport animals who are being referred to, in the EU-jargon, as 'sentient beings? We can't see any windows nor any other sign of a ventilation on these cars... to us they look like windowless airless vehicles.
Maybe Mrs Sarbu can clarify?
... while the dogs are neglected and
left to starve at the Mihailesti shelter
September 30, 2013 - via Dana Puscoci: "These are the conditions in the public shelter Mihailesti, one of Bucharest's public shelters, managed by the City Hall.
The dogs were outside, with no protection from the rain other that a net with holes in it, usually used for shadow from teh sun, not for rain protection. It was pouring rain for 2 days and the dogs were vet to their skin, they were shivering and just begging for some help.
When I question the employees of the public shelter regarding this they simply said that they don't have time to take the dogs inside. the conditions inside are not much better, they are sleeping on wet concrete floors, but at least is warmer than out.
Only when we came with the television, they started to move the dogs inside. It was a 30 minutes job and they couldn't do it in 2 days, they just left them there in the rain and cold for 2 days."
The dogs were outside, with no protection from the rain other that a net with holes in it, usually used for shadow from teh sun, not for rain protection. It was pouring rain for 2 days and the dogs were vet to their skin, they were shivering and just begging for some help.
When I question the employees of the public shelter regarding this they simply said that they don't have time to take the dogs inside. the conditions inside are not much better, they are sleeping on wet concrete floors, but at least is warmer than out.
Only when we came with the television, they started to move the dogs inside. It was a 30 minutes job and they couldn't do it in 2 days, they just left them there in the rain and cold for 2 days."
The human cost
"One cannot conceive of a more counter productive, societally destructive direction taken by any European Union Member Government in recent times."
- Malcolm Plant -
- Malcolm Plant -
Not only have the Romanian Government dismissed the warnings expressed by the experts, and failed to acknowledge T-N-R as a strategy (ALL 'catch & kill' policies have historically proven unsuccessful) but being aware of the costs and profits to be made from implementing the proposed 'eradication' strategy, are aware that significant personal profits can be made through corrupt alliances.
The net result will be abject strategic failure and the number of animals will not decrease. Through corrupt alliances, personal profits from the animal corpse disposal will have been secured.
But the biggest cost is in the human domain. Children exposed to the capture and often immediate slaughter of the animals will seek to psychologically protect themselves from such trauma. They will desensitize. Reduce their sensitivity towards living creatures including fellow humans. Some will embrace the attributes of their violent society and finding legitimized sanction for the destruction of the animal sub-group, will also aggress against the animals.
There is then some inevitability that once such aggression is socially sanctioned, their journey will continue by aggressing against person, against property. They will see no distinction. Their journey can easily lead to the killing of another person. Significant research has identified this development and ending. This is the slow diminishment of a society's moral substance and gradual increase into a prevalence of violence but a more immediate but equally destructive effect can be seen.
In any society, irrespective of political dictats, there is no homogeneity of support. Emotive issues exacerbate differences. Any society will contain those who passionately support the rights of companion animals and also those who have no regard or who are motivated by political hysteria. At such levels of passion. in counterpoint to each other, this polarization can produce levels of acute violence. Neighbor against neighbor! Even before official recognition of the law in Romania, two neighbors have fought over this issue and one was killed. Even before! One can only stand and watch now and wait while the death count gets higher!
So we have a government introduced policy which at best is ill informed, historically proven to be unsuccessful with previously proven successful strategies dismissed. And on top of all, a strategy which will polarize society resulting in violence between citizens and almost as if to reinforce the evidence that the strategy is ill advised, ill considered and incompetent, the children will be psychologically damaged.
One cannot conceive of a more counter productive, societally destructive direction taken by any European Union Member Government in recent times.
The net result will be abject strategic failure and the number of animals will not decrease. Through corrupt alliances, personal profits from the animal corpse disposal will have been secured.
But the biggest cost is in the human domain. Children exposed to the capture and often immediate slaughter of the animals will seek to psychologically protect themselves from such trauma. They will desensitize. Reduce their sensitivity towards living creatures including fellow humans. Some will embrace the attributes of their violent society and finding legitimized sanction for the destruction of the animal sub-group, will also aggress against the animals.
There is then some inevitability that once such aggression is socially sanctioned, their journey will continue by aggressing against person, against property. They will see no distinction. Their journey can easily lead to the killing of another person. Significant research has identified this development and ending. This is the slow diminishment of a society's moral substance and gradual increase into a prevalence of violence but a more immediate but equally destructive effect can be seen.
In any society, irrespective of political dictats, there is no homogeneity of support. Emotive issues exacerbate differences. Any society will contain those who passionately support the rights of companion animals and also those who have no regard or who are motivated by political hysteria. At such levels of passion. in counterpoint to each other, this polarization can produce levels of acute violence. Neighbor against neighbor! Even before official recognition of the law in Romania, two neighbors have fought over this issue and one was killed. Even before! One can only stand and watch now and wait while the death count gets higher!
So we have a government introduced policy which at best is ill informed, historically proven to be unsuccessful with previously proven successful strategies dismissed. And on top of all, a strategy which will polarize society resulting in violence between citizens and almost as if to reinforce the evidence that the strategy is ill advised, ill considered and incompetent, the children will be psychologically damaged.
One cannot conceive of a more counter productive, societally destructive direction taken by any European Union Member Government in recent times.
The Romanian legitimized companion animal eradication
is symptomatic of a darker societal malaise
There is a corollary. And a powerful one!
Over many thousands of years, the human animal bond has evolved, resulting in the close relationship between humans and companion animals. As with a new born child, a companion animal is from birth naturally inclined towards a reciprocally positive relationship with humans.
Western societies exhibit this relationship, with this natural process being exhibited in a recent presentation which Professor Philip Tedeshi made, identifying that of companion animal owners. 87% regarded their pet as members of their family. Contrast if you will the results of the 'Making the Link' study where in Romania, 86% of the children had seen violence and abuse of animals in public.
From a natural process of seeking human companionship, animals are shown by their human assailants that they must reappraise and that aggression is the most appropriate emotion. Aggression training. And many adopt this successfully promoting outrage from the human population - the trainers!
Aggression FROM the animals is therefore a symptomatic manifestation of a violent society.
One can only watch in profound amazement as a government exacerbates this socially erosive process by legitimizing an eradication process inviting an increase in the already excessive levels of social aggression and with astounding misdirection... against the innocent victims - the street animals.
Misdirection? Let us explore this!
The Romanian Government have legitimized mass slaughter of between 2 and 3 million animals who live on the streets. Mass-killing has never been successful as a strategy, owned dogs breed and offspring are placed on the streets and simply occupy the vacated food habitats. Existing aggression levels ensure continuance and expansion of severe and sometimes grotesque slaughter in the streets. Significant evidence supports the fact that children watching such events desensitize with compassion and empathy reduction. Aggression is acquired. An aggressive society is therefore assured and propagated by an irresponsible government with no cognisance or apparent desire to adopt any strategy which will ensure consideration of societal violence, children's emotional health, intra-societal aggression against property and person and with ill-directed attacks on the innocents... the symptoms of their societal malaise.
And if this profound and obscene mismanagement could possibly be exacerbated, the knowledge that such a society will be given EU export licence should make every civilized citizen of the continent of Europe shake in their beds with both fear and outrage!
October 11, 2013
Malcolm Plant - BSc, BA (Hons), MSc, Dipl. Psych.
Initiator of the 'Making the Link' Study and Intervention Project
Fellow of the Institute for Human-Animal Connection, University of Denver
Our degenerate democracy and the biology of dying
The Romanian Animal and Human Rights Crisis
written by Andrzej Szczepanek - The latest developments in Romania in regard to animal and human rights abuses are but one example of the degenerate character of our sociopolitical system. It is the system which is powered and sustained by large financial, governmental and bureaucratic corporations exploiting every possible means of speculation and manipulation to satisfy their desire for unceasing financial gain and unquestionable power. Only the chosen few benefit from the system in terms of wealth and sociopolitical status and they are those who force their policies and hollow philosophies of obsessive consumption on others who often face social marginalization and socioeconomic misery. Marginalization means the restriction of human rights and personal freedoms. Unprecedented globalization and integration only serve the purpose of creating new global financial markets for the financial, bureaucratic and political elite to profit from. The uncontrollable expansion and liberalization of the markets brought on the financial crisis of 2008-2009 which consequently drained public funds and precipitated lasting economic recession with all its symptoms of unemployment, social marginalization, disintegrating families, social divide, hatred, intolerance and the rise of neonazi ideologies.
No wonder then that in the atmosphere of uncertainty, fear, anxiety and hatred, the decisions such as those taken by the Romanian officials in regard to the fate of the Romanian stray dogs are much easier to put into effect. The social divide resulting from the socioeconomic crisis breeds hatred and prejudice and it is likely that the aggression will be vented on defenseless animals and their protectors. In this global socioeconomic context, the Romanian authorities actively encourage and foster the policy of hatred and evil showing total ignorance of and contempt for the volatile and deteriorating psychosocial situation. Massive unemployment, socioeconomic hardship synonymous with the crisis of identity will breed violence, intolerance and indifference.
Governmental officials are expected to have all-embracing penetrating insight into those dangerous processes that threaten the society with disintegration and decay. It turns out that the Romanian authorities do not meet the standard of governance and do not care about the welfare of the society. The use of violence has been officially sanctioned by the Romanian authorities and it will encourage vengeful and frustrated individuals to commit acts of violence against animals and animal rights activists.
Globalization makes global extermination possible. As the Nazi bureaucratic machine was used to kill humans, another equally efficient, state-run and bureaucratic machine is to become a medium to carry out an orderly, well-organized and “legal” extermination project to slaughter stray dogs on a massive scale. The striking similarity between the Nazi extermination program and the animal slaughter being carried out currently in Romania is the guise of legality and legitimacy along with the engagement of vast state extermination resources in the process as well as the bureaucratization of the killings. This association is irresistible and it does not matter much whether the extermination venture is aimed at humans or animals because when it comes down to the ultimate suffering of dying a violent death, the quality of both human and animal suffering is the same. We are simply blind and self-conceited if we fail to accept this plain truth. The Romanian scenario put forward and approved by the Romanian parliament is evil, ugly, destructive and corroding the moral and social fabric of the society.
No wonder then that in the atmosphere of uncertainty, fear, anxiety and hatred, the decisions such as those taken by the Romanian officials in regard to the fate of the Romanian stray dogs are much easier to put into effect. The social divide resulting from the socioeconomic crisis breeds hatred and prejudice and it is likely that the aggression will be vented on defenseless animals and their protectors. In this global socioeconomic context, the Romanian authorities actively encourage and foster the policy of hatred and evil showing total ignorance of and contempt for the volatile and deteriorating psychosocial situation. Massive unemployment, socioeconomic hardship synonymous with the crisis of identity will breed violence, intolerance and indifference.
Governmental officials are expected to have all-embracing penetrating insight into those dangerous processes that threaten the society with disintegration and decay. It turns out that the Romanian authorities do not meet the standard of governance and do not care about the welfare of the society. The use of violence has been officially sanctioned by the Romanian authorities and it will encourage vengeful and frustrated individuals to commit acts of violence against animals and animal rights activists.
Globalization makes global extermination possible. As the Nazi bureaucratic machine was used to kill humans, another equally efficient, state-run and bureaucratic machine is to become a medium to carry out an orderly, well-organized and “legal” extermination project to slaughter stray dogs on a massive scale. The striking similarity between the Nazi extermination program and the animal slaughter being carried out currently in Romania is the guise of legality and legitimacy along with the engagement of vast state extermination resources in the process as well as the bureaucratization of the killings. This association is irresistible and it does not matter much whether the extermination venture is aimed at humans or animals because when it comes down to the ultimate suffering of dying a violent death, the quality of both human and animal suffering is the same. We are simply blind and self-conceited if we fail to accept this plain truth. The Romanian scenario put forward and approved by the Romanian parliament is evil, ugly, destructive and corroding the moral and social fabric of the society.
The Romanian authorities assume the guise of the law to force their decisions upon the public evidently making mockery of the law itself. The disguise of legality and legitimacy, the bureaucratic arrogance and contempt for the public outcry indicate the degree of the system’s corruption. Sure enough, there is profit to be made too. The Romanian extermination enterprise stands for good money to be made by various companies involved in rounding up, killing and disposal of dead animals because it is a vast governmental project. Dealing in death and suffering can become a commodity in our diseased sociopolitical system where global profit is given the status of the most important priority. .
One might say: What of it? Dogs are not humans. Besides, there were concentration camps and the world is still going on and, behold, we are making progress. We are flying into space, we have computers, all-out cures for every disease, we are driving luxurious cars.
To this, I will say: Indeed, dogs are not humans but at the very basic emotive level, dogs with other affectively perceptive animals have human-like emotive reception of and emotive response to stimuli. In other words, the emotive content of animal perception , that is the way they experience fear, anxiety, psychological pain, the sense of security and pleasure is very much like ours because the subcortical structures of our brains are anatomically and functionally nearly identical with theirs. It is the subcortical nuclei of the brain which govern the character of our and animals’ emotions and their intensity. True, the human cerebral cortex is superior to animals’, which makes us capable of using language and abstract thought but the essence of life resides in the feeling of security and being free from the oppressive sensation of fear, anxiety and pain. The fact that we think does not make us happy but our freedom from fear and anxiety does and these emotive states are the product of the subcortical structures to be found below the neocortex. The animals do not think the way we do but they feel the way we do and, in this respect, on the affective level, their emotive perception of life and sensitivity is like ours and it is the emotive perception of life that determines its quality from an individual’s point of view. A depressive patient’s quality of life as perceived by the patience is worse than that of a happy dog but they both deserve respect and attention. In terms of emotive content, a sensitive animal’s life is as much worth as any human life, though on the intellectual level humans are far more advanced and superior.
The animal slaughter policy currently implemented in Romania is especially damaging and harmful to those individuals who are oversensitized by their own chronic serious illness and the resulting burden of suffering and psychological pain they have to cope with. For those individuals, an emotive, intimate relation with a responsive animal often helps them in their struggle against the anguish of psychological pain of social exclusion. The mutual, lasting affection between an animal pet and a human sufferer is of healing importance to the latter. Any cold-blooded, bureaucratic disregard of the fundamental and vital needs of others, especially those who are disadvantaged, is a violation of human rights and personal freedoms. It is even more detrimental because it is promoted by the state under cover of legality and legitimacy.
Human and animal rights, as interpreted against the background of the right to be free from suffering, should be equated. Intentional subjection of sensitive creatures to the ultimate terror of loss of life and its consequences in terms of poignant anxiety, alarm and panic parallel the same dramatic sensations of alarm, panic and anxiety in humans faced with the prospect of violent, sudden and ugly death. It is yet another plain truth blind bureaucrats fail to comprehend. The exposure of feeling and sensitive beings, humans included, to premeditated horror of sudden and ugly dying that implies the use of brutal force is a crime. Those who refuse to see that and who support extermination methods and the ugliness of dying, even by their indifference, question the purpose of life and its meaning. Are we capable of carrying on knowing that life is deprived of any meaning? Yes, we are. We are able to go on despite the ugliness and evil of gas chambers but ours is life of spiritual misery, creeping anxiety and existential void which renders us helpless and fearing in the face of the inevitable death and eternal non-existence because we have failed to create morally sound and healthy social order. Therefore, we are completely helpless in the face of the totality of death.
One might say: What of it? Dogs are not humans. Besides, there were concentration camps and the world is still going on and, behold, we are making progress. We are flying into space, we have computers, all-out cures for every disease, we are driving luxurious cars.
To this, I will say: Indeed, dogs are not humans but at the very basic emotive level, dogs with other affectively perceptive animals have human-like emotive reception of and emotive response to stimuli. In other words, the emotive content of animal perception , that is the way they experience fear, anxiety, psychological pain, the sense of security and pleasure is very much like ours because the subcortical structures of our brains are anatomically and functionally nearly identical with theirs. It is the subcortical nuclei of the brain which govern the character of our and animals’ emotions and their intensity. True, the human cerebral cortex is superior to animals’, which makes us capable of using language and abstract thought but the essence of life resides in the feeling of security and being free from the oppressive sensation of fear, anxiety and pain. The fact that we think does not make us happy but our freedom from fear and anxiety does and these emotive states are the product of the subcortical structures to be found below the neocortex. The animals do not think the way we do but they feel the way we do and, in this respect, on the affective level, their emotive perception of life and sensitivity is like ours and it is the emotive perception of life that determines its quality from an individual’s point of view. A depressive patient’s quality of life as perceived by the patience is worse than that of a happy dog but they both deserve respect and attention. In terms of emotive content, a sensitive animal’s life is as much worth as any human life, though on the intellectual level humans are far more advanced and superior.
The animal slaughter policy currently implemented in Romania is especially damaging and harmful to those individuals who are oversensitized by their own chronic serious illness and the resulting burden of suffering and psychological pain they have to cope with. For those individuals, an emotive, intimate relation with a responsive animal often helps them in their struggle against the anguish of psychological pain of social exclusion. The mutual, lasting affection between an animal pet and a human sufferer is of healing importance to the latter. Any cold-blooded, bureaucratic disregard of the fundamental and vital needs of others, especially those who are disadvantaged, is a violation of human rights and personal freedoms. It is even more detrimental because it is promoted by the state under cover of legality and legitimacy.
Human and animal rights, as interpreted against the background of the right to be free from suffering, should be equated. Intentional subjection of sensitive creatures to the ultimate terror of loss of life and its consequences in terms of poignant anxiety, alarm and panic parallel the same dramatic sensations of alarm, panic and anxiety in humans faced with the prospect of violent, sudden and ugly death. It is yet another plain truth blind bureaucrats fail to comprehend. The exposure of feeling and sensitive beings, humans included, to premeditated horror of sudden and ugly dying that implies the use of brutal force is a crime. Those who refuse to see that and who support extermination methods and the ugliness of dying, even by their indifference, question the purpose of life and its meaning. Are we capable of carrying on knowing that life is deprived of any meaning? Yes, we are. We are able to go on despite the ugliness and evil of gas chambers but ours is life of spiritual misery, creeping anxiety and existential void which renders us helpless and fearing in the face of the inevitable death and eternal non-existence because we have failed to create morally sound and healthy social order. Therefore, we are completely helpless in the face of the totality of death.
The mass extermination ideology of death and ugliness is the total opposite of all spiritual values man has created in his existential struggle against death-related futility, suffering, void and decay. Such an ideology corrupts the very essence of the Christian faith whose message is that through sacrifice the meaninglessness of death can be tamed. Christianity and other religions demonstrate that suffering is given meaning through sacrifice of crucified Christ to cushion the traumatic impact of death. Death, suffering, our terror of dying and decomposition must carry a meaning if we are to remain sane and spiritually sound enough to go on living. Yet any premeditated, seemingly legal, ideology of mass extermination executed by bureaucratic agencies violates man’s most basic right – the right to make death, suffering, the anxiety of dying and non-being meaningful. Any mass extermination venture is an ultimate mockery of the right and man’s existential struggle to come to terms with the meaninglessness and emptiness of death. The consequences of the psychological trauma relative to mass extermination ideologies are enormous. Any state-supported mass slaughter program under the guise of legality is a mockery of the Christian faith and weakens the social status of the Church and as such, by devaluing the substance of faith, threatens the sense of identity of sensitive and devout Christians. It was mostly the unprecedented and all-out trauma of the death camps and gas chambers that finally and irreversibly destroyed the spiritual foundation of the church leading to the emergence of the present-day society obsessed with consumption, material status and the media babble. The decline of the church would not have been possible without the operation of death camps and crematoria. During the last war humanity was in hell but no saviour came to give a helping hand.
It is all indicative of the enormously destructive and traumatizing power of the evil of a state-promoted, mass slaughter ideology that inflicts lasting scars in the social awareness. Any mass slaughter policy, be it the extermination of humans or sensitive animals with which humans develop emotive relations of mutual affection, inevitably brings associations with the ultimate evil and its ugliness. What the Romanian authorities are feeding the Romanian society and the world’s public opinion with is the corrupt policy of ugliness and decay which causes profound public outcry and anxiety because it threatens the pattern of social values, the public’s sense of security and identity.
Those who have been witness to the physiology of human and animal dying and suffering are struck by the similarity of the process. Those who commune with death and are witness to the agonies of dying know that there is one biology of dying. The shut-down of the oxygen supply to the brain and the build-up of toxic substances due to the progressive organ failure changes dramatically the physiology of the dying brain. Dying can be characterized by symptoms of neurological disturbances, growing anxiety, restlessness, panic, delusional perception of reality, morbid excitement and alternating periods of coma and wakefulness. It is the brain cortex that dies first leaving one with an eerie impression that here is a breathing dead body whose heart is still beating. Indeed, the impression is overwhelming because the breathing body with a beating heart is dead and totally unresponsive, and this is the dramatic contrast between the symptoms of life and death which is so uncanny. The dead body is breathing and its heart is beating because its brain stem in which the breathing and vasomotor centers reside is still operating but the brain cortex where our conscious and feeling self is to be found is already dead and the contrast is hard to come to terms with. We are dead but our body is still living. As the brain stem dies, the body stops breathing but the heart usually keeps on beating for a couple of minutes. Here is another puzzling riddle of a non-breathing body whose heart is beating on for a short time. This is a simple natural truth, a mystery of dying, and it is as simple as the fact that both humans and animals whose brain is made of the cerebral cortex, subcortical nuclei and brain stem die in exactly the same manner and experience the same dread and pain of dying. The same plain truth says that on this basic biological level, sensitive animals do not differ from humans and that psychological and biological stress of dying is qualitatively the same. Therefore, we should show respect for the dying body, be it a human or an animal body experiencing the distress and pain of dying. Any sort of suffering has the right to be respected. The dying being follows the same psychological and biological pattern of dying, and the pattern is neither human nor animal, it is just a restless, fearing and suffering creature facing the unknown of anxiety and extinction and it deserves respect regardless of the fact whether the dying body is an animal or a human.
It is all indicative of the enormously destructive and traumatizing power of the evil of a state-promoted, mass slaughter ideology that inflicts lasting scars in the social awareness. Any mass slaughter policy, be it the extermination of humans or sensitive animals with which humans develop emotive relations of mutual affection, inevitably brings associations with the ultimate evil and its ugliness. What the Romanian authorities are feeding the Romanian society and the world’s public opinion with is the corrupt policy of ugliness and decay which causes profound public outcry and anxiety because it threatens the pattern of social values, the public’s sense of security and identity.
Those who have been witness to the physiology of human and animal dying and suffering are struck by the similarity of the process. Those who commune with death and are witness to the agonies of dying know that there is one biology of dying. The shut-down of the oxygen supply to the brain and the build-up of toxic substances due to the progressive organ failure changes dramatically the physiology of the dying brain. Dying can be characterized by symptoms of neurological disturbances, growing anxiety, restlessness, panic, delusional perception of reality, morbid excitement and alternating periods of coma and wakefulness. It is the brain cortex that dies first leaving one with an eerie impression that here is a breathing dead body whose heart is still beating. Indeed, the impression is overwhelming because the breathing body with a beating heart is dead and totally unresponsive, and this is the dramatic contrast between the symptoms of life and death which is so uncanny. The dead body is breathing and its heart is beating because its brain stem in which the breathing and vasomotor centers reside is still operating but the brain cortex where our conscious and feeling self is to be found is already dead and the contrast is hard to come to terms with. We are dead but our body is still living. As the brain stem dies, the body stops breathing but the heart usually keeps on beating for a couple of minutes. Here is another puzzling riddle of a non-breathing body whose heart is beating on for a short time. This is a simple natural truth, a mystery of dying, and it is as simple as the fact that both humans and animals whose brain is made of the cerebral cortex, subcortical nuclei and brain stem die in exactly the same manner and experience the same dread and pain of dying. The same plain truth says that on this basic biological level, sensitive animals do not differ from humans and that psychological and biological stress of dying is qualitatively the same. Therefore, we should show respect for the dying body, be it a human or an animal body experiencing the distress and pain of dying. Any sort of suffering has the right to be respected. The dying being follows the same psychological and biological pattern of dying, and the pattern is neither human nor animal, it is just a restless, fearing and suffering creature facing the unknown of anxiety and extinction and it deserves respect regardless of the fact whether the dying body is an animal or a human.
This reflection on the ordeal and anguish of dying demonstrates that up to a certain psycho-biological level of evolution humans and emotively conscious animals are alike in their sensitivity and emotive receptivity. The sameness manifests itself in their affective response to the traumatic process of dying and as soon as we begin to question the universal truth of psycho-biological reality, we begin to relativize the value of life and the integrity of our legal, social, religious and moral standards by which we are capable of discriminating between good and evil. If we do not base our moral and legal standards on solid, unshakable foundations of the universal truths, we will create a society of evil, ugliness, confusion, hatred and existential anxiety. This will be the society in which the universal truths can be relativized, thus causing spiritual and intellectual misery. If we allow ourselves to remain drugged by the present-day false philosophies and policies of the ruling bureaucrats who refuse to accept natural truths, we will find it impossible to face up to the ultimate challenge of death and dying because of our anxiety and existential confusion. Our existence is challenged by death, dying and suffering, and the only way to face up to the challenge is by discovering the natural truths to reduce the pain of our death-related existential anxiety. We simply have to be able to distinguish between right and wrong to make our existence bearable and confront the final challenge of dying. It is clear that any mass extermination concept takes this basic human right away from man and is fundamentally and profoundly damaging and destructive to his sense of security he is doomed to be lost in life. . Despite the apparent violations of human rights in the sense of war, famine or unemployment, the psychological damage relative to the destructive state-backed policies of evil is also central to the issue. The concept of human rights and personal freedoms carries meaning and substance as long as it is respected and publicly debated. Only then is it perceived as the universal truth and moral standard. When this concept is made degenerate and devoid of meaning as a result of deliberate and corrupt policies of evil advocated by state bureaucracies showing contempt for universal truths and hiding behind the cover of legitimacy, then it is used instrumentally as a propaganda tool to confuse and mislead the public. The grisly and evil policies forced upon the public under the guise of legitimacy and law are corruptive and contaminate the moral fabric of the society as they dismiss the anguish and trauma of dying as unworthy of respect and attention. The Romanian mass slaughter relativizes suffering and pain of dying thus undermining the credibility of the social law and order, which results in enormous psychological social trauma. Certainly, humans are not monsters, but they, in the process of globalization and integration, create insensitive bureaucratic structures and organizations where collective corruptive policies are decided upon under the guise of legitimacy and legality and nobody is held accountable for the evil and harm done to the society. The public is not being governed by responsible statesmen aware of a variety of social dangers resulting from ill-devised policies, but by narrow-minded bureaucrats interested exclusively in achieving their particular, individual goals at the expense of social welfare. Those individuals hide behind the façade and slogans of democracy, free market economy, free elections, human rights, tolerance and equality to legitimize their action and they decline accountability. The parliament which approves of socially detrimental policies and laws losses its legitimacy. The inevitable social divide permanently separates privileged, bureaucratic, global, state structures from the rest of the confused and disorganized society. It follows that the organization of the global society may serve the purpose of the promotion of evil with its obsessive consumption and the media babble which distracts the public’s attention from the critical issue of natural and universal truths. The current system of values is flawed and it ill defines progress. It degenerates our common sense and our perceptiveness of and sensitivity to natural truths. One of those natural truth says that suffering is one and not gradable. In the sense of the perception of and emotive response to pain, anxiety, fear or terror, animal and human suffering is not to be graded nor categorized because human and animal primal affective make-up is just the same and there are no physiological, structural neither functional differences between man and sensitive animals. It is depressing to realize that there is no accountability for the corrupt practices promoted by corporate, bureaucratic organizations. Those who through their flawed policies of ugliness and evil damage the legal and moral fabric of the society should be held responsible for the moral decay, the social divide, hatred and violence, the waning social confidence, and the sense of security. The burden of responsibility is enormous and it should be subject to public discussion and dialogue. Those who do not stand by natural truths do immense harm to the society corrupting its very foundations.
The public has the right to know the extent of brutality and violence resulting from the extermination program being presently implemented in Romania. The public has the right to see the corpses of dead animals. The public has the right to hear the agonizing cries of dying animals. The public has the right to look behind the scenes of the slaughter because a public debate on the issue must be started. Let the representatives of the veterinary and legal profession speak out. Let the psychologists, church, and moral authorities have their say. Let the human and personal rights experts express their views. Let the politicians join the debate because it is not only dogs’ fate at stake. What is also at stake is the credibility and integrity of our social order and the reliability of the authorities who claim to be governing on the public’s behalf. What is also at stake is our will and determination to seek out natural truths and say no to wrong doers who corrupt us with their devious philosophies and make us helpless, impotent and confused. Let the media take up the issue and demonstrate its credibility as the responsible agency for the public dialogue on a critical question of good and evil, legality and legitimacy, human and animal rights, personal freedoms and the moral condition of the society. Keeping silent on the issue will spell our consent to the evil and ugliness of the extermination ideology and bureaucratization of our social and moral order.
Let us launch a no-vote campaign to voice our protest against global bureaucracy resorting to the ideology of mass slaughter as an instrument of policy - making.
Andrzej Szczepanek, 'Animal Helpline Poland' NGO
The public has the right to know the extent of brutality and violence resulting from the extermination program being presently implemented in Romania. The public has the right to see the corpses of dead animals. The public has the right to hear the agonizing cries of dying animals. The public has the right to look behind the scenes of the slaughter because a public debate on the issue must be started. Let the representatives of the veterinary and legal profession speak out. Let the psychologists, church, and moral authorities have their say. Let the human and personal rights experts express their views. Let the politicians join the debate because it is not only dogs’ fate at stake. What is also at stake is the credibility and integrity of our social order and the reliability of the authorities who claim to be governing on the public’s behalf. What is also at stake is our will and determination to seek out natural truths and say no to wrong doers who corrupt us with their devious philosophies and make us helpless, impotent and confused. Let the media take up the issue and demonstrate its credibility as the responsible agency for the public dialogue on a critical question of good and evil, legality and legitimacy, human and animal rights, personal freedoms and the moral condition of the society. Keeping silent on the issue will spell our consent to the evil and ugliness of the extermination ideology and bureaucratization of our social and moral order.
Let us launch a no-vote campaign to voice our protest against global bureaucracy resorting to the ideology of mass slaughter as an instrument of policy - making.
Andrzej Szczepanek, 'Animal Helpline Poland' NGO
Legal and constitutional aspect
of the Romanian animal and human rights crisis
written by Andrzej Szczepanek - It is extremely important to consider the legal and constitutional implications resulting from any extermination practices approved and executed by the authorities in Romania in regard to animal rights abuses. The question of animal rights and welfare is an integral part of the whole legal system encompassing such issues as human, constitutional and children’s rights. If we allow any aspect of the legal system to be violated, we violate the system as a whole undermining its credibility in the eyes of the public. In this way, we send a message to the public that the law itself can be breached and defied all the more because such a message is being sent by the authorities supposed to be the guardians of law and legal order. This is the case in Romania. Therefore, such authorities deserve to be accused of corruption, abuse of power, and unforgivable irresponsibility because they show contempt for such universal values as social stability and the consistency of legal and social order without which no society can operate properly.
The violation of animal rights inevitably means the violation of constitutional rights necessary for the whole non-governmental movement to act and operate in the public’s interest and on the society’s behalf. Any autonomous association’s legal and social position, the statute of which is the result of the constitutional right to associate freely and pursue its statutory objectives in terms of human, children’s and animal rights, is automatically and irreversibly downgraded and its statute invalidated by the introduction of any state-backed extermination policy. Under these circumstances, such an independent organization can not follow its statutory and constitutional goals within the field of human, animal and children’s rights. From the legal perspective, the imposition of the animal extermination legislation accepted by the Romanian parliament contradicts the constitutional concept of the right to associate freely for the welfare of the society and it undermines the legal and social position of the whole non-governmental and autonomous movement which best voices the public opinion’s expectations and aspirations. What sense does it make for a non-governmental organization to implement its goals within the domains of human, animal, constitutional and children’s rights once the organization’s constitutional rights have been denied by the animal extermination practices sponsored by the state? The Romanian policy cancels the very concept of the whole non-governmental movement operating within the constitutional framework. By implication, it undermines the coherence of the constitution itself thus creating a legal and social vacuum for lawless, criminal acts of violence. Not only are the animal and human rights violated in this instance. The whole constitutional order is threatened and made relative by the state bureaucracies. Once the cruelty against animals has been sanctioned by the state, the whole concept of the non-governmental movement has been marginalized and practically various NGOs have been denied the right to operate. What if an animal rights activist or an ordinary individual confronts a criminal maiming a defenseless animal. They can not have the benefit of legal protection because the official law passed by the Romanian parliament incites and endorses cruelty against animals. In this instance, in practice, the law is on the criminal’s side.
A democratic state’s constitution gives its citizen’s the most basic of human rights to associate freely and pursue objectives vital for the community’s interest. This constitutional right has been violated in Romania revealing the true nature of the state bureaucracy insensitive to the misery of animals and humans alike and blind to the unconstitutional character of their policies. The Romanian parliament displays equal arrogance and contempt for the legal, constitutional, human rights, social, personal freedoms and psychological implications taking their origins from the extermination legislation. Let all the non-governmental and autonomous movements be aware that their constitutional rights and freedoms can be equally ruthlessly and brutally suppressed. Let them know that they can be marginalized and excluded because they count for nothing in the eyes of governmental bureaucrats.
The worst evil of the fake democracy is the fact that once a parliament passes a corrupt law, it assumes the guise of legitimacy and legality causing the marginalization and exclusion of the free and independent public opinion. Our sense of identity being a precondition for the pursuit of social and constitutional objectives to fight marginalization and social exclusion stems from our autonomy. This autonomy and our sense of identity are now being threatened by the policies of extermination, violence, bureaucritazation and institutionalization of our lives. By casting our votes we legitimize the system and make any public debate on sensitive and vitally important social issues impossible. We have been doing that for years allowing the socioeconomic crisis of 2008-2007 to hit us hard. There will not be a change unless sensitive public issues and interests are brought to the fore to confront the bureaucratic and official media claptrap.
Andrzej Szczepanek, 'Animal Helpline Poland' NGO
The violation of animal rights inevitably means the violation of constitutional rights necessary for the whole non-governmental movement to act and operate in the public’s interest and on the society’s behalf. Any autonomous association’s legal and social position, the statute of which is the result of the constitutional right to associate freely and pursue its statutory objectives in terms of human, children’s and animal rights, is automatically and irreversibly downgraded and its statute invalidated by the introduction of any state-backed extermination policy. Under these circumstances, such an independent organization can not follow its statutory and constitutional goals within the field of human, animal and children’s rights. From the legal perspective, the imposition of the animal extermination legislation accepted by the Romanian parliament contradicts the constitutional concept of the right to associate freely for the welfare of the society and it undermines the legal and social position of the whole non-governmental and autonomous movement which best voices the public opinion’s expectations and aspirations. What sense does it make for a non-governmental organization to implement its goals within the domains of human, animal, constitutional and children’s rights once the organization’s constitutional rights have been denied by the animal extermination practices sponsored by the state? The Romanian policy cancels the very concept of the whole non-governmental movement operating within the constitutional framework. By implication, it undermines the coherence of the constitution itself thus creating a legal and social vacuum for lawless, criminal acts of violence. Not only are the animal and human rights violated in this instance. The whole constitutional order is threatened and made relative by the state bureaucracies. Once the cruelty against animals has been sanctioned by the state, the whole concept of the non-governmental movement has been marginalized and practically various NGOs have been denied the right to operate. What if an animal rights activist or an ordinary individual confronts a criminal maiming a defenseless animal. They can not have the benefit of legal protection because the official law passed by the Romanian parliament incites and endorses cruelty against animals. In this instance, in practice, the law is on the criminal’s side.
A democratic state’s constitution gives its citizen’s the most basic of human rights to associate freely and pursue objectives vital for the community’s interest. This constitutional right has been violated in Romania revealing the true nature of the state bureaucracy insensitive to the misery of animals and humans alike and blind to the unconstitutional character of their policies. The Romanian parliament displays equal arrogance and contempt for the legal, constitutional, human rights, social, personal freedoms and psychological implications taking their origins from the extermination legislation. Let all the non-governmental and autonomous movements be aware that their constitutional rights and freedoms can be equally ruthlessly and brutally suppressed. Let them know that they can be marginalized and excluded because they count for nothing in the eyes of governmental bureaucrats.
The worst evil of the fake democracy is the fact that once a parliament passes a corrupt law, it assumes the guise of legitimacy and legality causing the marginalization and exclusion of the free and independent public opinion. Our sense of identity being a precondition for the pursuit of social and constitutional objectives to fight marginalization and social exclusion stems from our autonomy. This autonomy and our sense of identity are now being threatened by the policies of extermination, violence, bureaucritazation and institutionalization of our lives. By casting our votes we legitimize the system and make any public debate on sensitive and vitally important social issues impossible. We have been doing that for years allowing the socioeconomic crisis of 2008-2007 to hit us hard. There will not be a change unless sensitive public issues and interests are brought to the fore to confront the bureaucratic and official media claptrap.
Andrzej Szczepanek, 'Animal Helpline Poland' NGO
On the position of the European Union
Many people wonder why the EU does not intervene regarding the Romanian 'Slaughter Law". The answer is quite simple: the EU has no legal competence regarding the treatment of stray animals.
In fact the EU has only very little competence in this field (companion animals, stray animals included) given to them by the Treaty of Lisbon (art. 13) because there is currently no EU legislation for the protection of companion animals and stray animals, despite the fact that the EU’s companion animal population (not stray animal population) is estimated at over one hundred million, and this will also not change before 2015 because their latest animal welfare strategy has been adopted, and implemented, and goes till 2015 and it does NOT contain any mention regarding companion, nor stray animals.
BUT the EU has power to intervene in the Romanian-issue given to them by the Treaty of Lisbon - please see the petitions further down for more information and explanations.
Unfortunately, the EU is a big and slow machine and it takes already quite some time until the machine has even been started. In order to intervene, the EU must follow certain procedures, certain diplomatic rules, and until they will be able to really act in Romania, or to force Romania to stop their "eradication program" weeks, well... months, actually, will have passed.
Until now (October 11th, 2013) the European Parliament's Intergroup on the Welfare and Conservation of Animals has sent three letters to Basescu, which until today have remained without response. Mr Tonio Borg, the European Commissioner for Health has also sent a letter which you can read in the PDF files below.
In fact the EU has only very little competence in this field (companion animals, stray animals included) given to them by the Treaty of Lisbon (art. 13) because there is currently no EU legislation for the protection of companion animals and stray animals, despite the fact that the EU’s companion animal population (not stray animal population) is estimated at over one hundred million, and this will also not change before 2015 because their latest animal welfare strategy has been adopted, and implemented, and goes till 2015 and it does NOT contain any mention regarding companion, nor stray animals.
BUT the EU has power to intervene in the Romanian-issue given to them by the Treaty of Lisbon - please see the petitions further down for more information and explanations.
Unfortunately, the EU is a big and slow machine and it takes already quite some time until the machine has even been started. In order to intervene, the EU must follow certain procedures, certain diplomatic rules, and until they will be able to really act in Romania, or to force Romania to stop their "eradication program" weeks, well... months, actually, will have passed.
Until now (October 11th, 2013) the European Parliament's Intergroup on the Welfare and Conservation of Animals has sent three letters to Basescu, which until today have remained without response. Mr Tonio Borg, the European Commissioner for Health has also sent a letter which you can read in the PDF files below.
The first letter from the Intergroup
The second letter sent by the Intergroup
The 'Intergroup' acknowledges and respects the Romanian Parliament's adoption of the new law, and have expressed serious doubts that the law will be enforced in a civilized and non-cruel way.
11/09/2013
Dear President Basescu,
It is with great sadness and concern that Members of the European Parliament Intergroup on the Welfare and Conservation of Animals address their second letter to you after their first appeal of last week was ignored.
We acknowledge and respect the Romanian Parliament’s adoption of a law which will allow local authorities to apply euthanasia of dogs that have stayed more than 14 days in a shelter.
The Romanian authorities will have now the duty and responsibility to enforce the law in a civilised and non-cruel way but given the sheer number of stray dogs in Bucharest and the whole of the country we have serious doubts that it will be possible.
We are concerned that it will end in a brutal massacre of dogs and would therefore like inquire if there exists already a strategy on how to apply the euthanasia campaign. If yes, we would like to have the details. Will it include as well dogs that have already been neutered? When and how will it be enforced? We hope that you will be able to provide us this information.
The very large stray dog populations in Romania are the result of bad management practices. Since many years NGOs have called to invest in systematic neutering campaigns and in education programmes for responsible dog ownership. This has been generally ignored and has resulted in the current situation.
The Members of the European Parliament are flooded with messages from concerned people throughout the world who urge us for help in order to avoid a massacre of the Romanian stray dogs.
We call on you and all competent authorities to ensure that uncontrolled killings of stray dogs will be avoided. Even though the European Union has little to say when it comes to companion animals it would be a shame before the international community to admit that cruel mass slaughters of dogs can still happen in the European Union of the 21st century.
Please act now, so that worst can be avoided.
Sincerely,
Dan Jorgensen,
President of the Animal Welfare Intergroup
Source
Dear President Basescu,
It is with great sadness and concern that Members of the European Parliament Intergroup on the Welfare and Conservation of Animals address their second letter to you after their first appeal of last week was ignored.
We acknowledge and respect the Romanian Parliament’s adoption of a law which will allow local authorities to apply euthanasia of dogs that have stayed more than 14 days in a shelter.
The Romanian authorities will have now the duty and responsibility to enforce the law in a civilised and non-cruel way but given the sheer number of stray dogs in Bucharest and the whole of the country we have serious doubts that it will be possible.
We are concerned that it will end in a brutal massacre of dogs and would therefore like inquire if there exists already a strategy on how to apply the euthanasia campaign. If yes, we would like to have the details. Will it include as well dogs that have already been neutered? When and how will it be enforced? We hope that you will be able to provide us this information.
The very large stray dog populations in Romania are the result of bad management practices. Since many years NGOs have called to invest in systematic neutering campaigns and in education programmes for responsible dog ownership. This has been generally ignored and has resulted in the current situation.
The Members of the European Parliament are flooded with messages from concerned people throughout the world who urge us for help in order to avoid a massacre of the Romanian stray dogs.
We call on you and all competent authorities to ensure that uncontrolled killings of stray dogs will be avoided. Even though the European Union has little to say when it comes to companion animals it would be a shame before the international community to admit that cruel mass slaughters of dogs can still happen in the European Union of the 21st century.
Please act now, so that worst can be avoided.
Sincerely,
Dan Jorgensen,
President of the Animal Welfare Intergroup
Source
The third letter from the Intergroup
08/10/2013
Dear President Băsescu,
EP Animal Welfare Intergroup Members regret that no reply has been given so far to our correspondence of last month which would be very helpful for clarifications.
The recently adopted law amending and supplementing the Government Emergency Ordinance no. 155/2001 on the approval of a stray dogs management program stipulates a range of conditions and standards relating to the capture, transport, housing, identification, vaccination, sterilisation, registration, adoption and euthanasia of strays.
If the decision to euthanize a dog is taken, it must be carried out by veterinary personnel and in accordance with established and accepted practices. The law also specifies that the process of euthanasia must be quick and painless. It also confirms that shelters with the capacity and resources may continue to house strays for an indefinite period of time, and the animals may be returned to their owners (if they are identified) or adopted at any time.
These requirements don’t differ very much from what is practiced in other EU Member States but there remain concerns whether the law is enforceable as such under the given conditions.
- Will the municipalities have the sufficient means to respect all requirements of the law?
- Will it be possible to apply still neutering and release campaigns?
We assume that a lot will depend on the decisions taken by the municipalities. It seems that several mayors of Romanian cities have already stated publicly that they will avoid the euthanasia of strays, if at all possible. The Mayor of Bucharest expressed his commitment to urgently increase the capacity of dog shelters and to actively encourage adoption by promoting more education and a culture of adoption. We hope that these commitments will be held and that those authorities that will apply euthanasia campaigns will be obliged to operate within the strict confines of the law.
For the correct enforcement of the law it will be unavoidable to carry out inspections and to apply deterrent penalties for all those who infringe it. We hope that this will be foreseen to avoid cruelty to the dogs as much as possible.
We hope as well that the actions taken will be part of a comprehensive and humane, long-term population strategy.
As a member of the OIE, Romania is also responsible for implementing OIE recommendations. The OIE rules foresee that the killing of stray dogs should not be the only method of controlling the population and if killing is the last option, then it has to be done in a humane way along with other measures. This is also highlighted in Commissioner Tonio Borg’s letter to the Romanian Minister for Health.
We are aware that a lot of unsubstantiated ‘evidence’ of perpetrated cruelties has been circulating during the last weeks and that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between reliable information and invented horrors.
It remains though the fact that Romania, as several other EU Member States, has massive problems with stray dog populations and that everything has to be done to promote and implement humane management measures for strays as it was expressed in the European Parliament’s written declaration 26/2011 on dog population management in the European Union.
We urge you not to push for the euthanasia option, and to encourage the Mayors to choose the best solution for their municipality which avoids animal cruelty and takes dogs off the streets.
In your role as President you can act as mediator and work towards reducing the current polarization in Romanian society which exists around the issue of dogs, especially by promoting a responsible model of dog ownership in order to encourage a long-term solution to the issue of stray dogs in Romania.
Please rest assured of our solidarity for the handling of this difficult situation.
Sincerely,
Dan Jørgensen MEP
Cc: Gheorghe-Eugen Nicolăescu – Romanian Minister for Health
Source
Dear President Băsescu,
EP Animal Welfare Intergroup Members regret that no reply has been given so far to our correspondence of last month which would be very helpful for clarifications.
The recently adopted law amending and supplementing the Government Emergency Ordinance no. 155/2001 on the approval of a stray dogs management program stipulates a range of conditions and standards relating to the capture, transport, housing, identification, vaccination, sterilisation, registration, adoption and euthanasia of strays.
If the decision to euthanize a dog is taken, it must be carried out by veterinary personnel and in accordance with established and accepted practices. The law also specifies that the process of euthanasia must be quick and painless. It also confirms that shelters with the capacity and resources may continue to house strays for an indefinite period of time, and the animals may be returned to their owners (if they are identified) or adopted at any time.
These requirements don’t differ very much from what is practiced in other EU Member States but there remain concerns whether the law is enforceable as such under the given conditions.
- Will the municipalities have the sufficient means to respect all requirements of the law?
- Will it be possible to apply still neutering and release campaigns?
We assume that a lot will depend on the decisions taken by the municipalities. It seems that several mayors of Romanian cities have already stated publicly that they will avoid the euthanasia of strays, if at all possible. The Mayor of Bucharest expressed his commitment to urgently increase the capacity of dog shelters and to actively encourage adoption by promoting more education and a culture of adoption. We hope that these commitments will be held and that those authorities that will apply euthanasia campaigns will be obliged to operate within the strict confines of the law.
For the correct enforcement of the law it will be unavoidable to carry out inspections and to apply deterrent penalties for all those who infringe it. We hope that this will be foreseen to avoid cruelty to the dogs as much as possible.
We hope as well that the actions taken will be part of a comprehensive and humane, long-term population strategy.
As a member of the OIE, Romania is also responsible for implementing OIE recommendations. The OIE rules foresee that the killing of stray dogs should not be the only method of controlling the population and if killing is the last option, then it has to be done in a humane way along with other measures. This is also highlighted in Commissioner Tonio Borg’s letter to the Romanian Minister for Health.
We are aware that a lot of unsubstantiated ‘evidence’ of perpetrated cruelties has been circulating during the last weeks and that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between reliable information and invented horrors.
It remains though the fact that Romania, as several other EU Member States, has massive problems with stray dog populations and that everything has to be done to promote and implement humane management measures for strays as it was expressed in the European Parliament’s written declaration 26/2011 on dog population management in the European Union.
We urge you not to push for the euthanasia option, and to encourage the Mayors to choose the best solution for their municipality which avoids animal cruelty and takes dogs off the streets.
In your role as President you can act as mediator and work towards reducing the current polarization in Romanian society which exists around the issue of dogs, especially by promoting a responsible model of dog ownership in order to encourage a long-term solution to the issue of stray dogs in Romania.
Please rest assured of our solidarity for the handling of this difficult situation.
Sincerely,
Dan Jørgensen MEP
Cc: Gheorghe-Eugen Nicolăescu – Romanian Minister for Health
Source
The letter sent by Mr Tonio Borg
The OIE-recommendations
on dog population management
Abstract
At the 73rd General Session the OIE decided to develop guidance for Members on humane methods for the control of stray animal populations. In 2006, an ad hoc Group was convened under the leadership of the OIE Permanent Animal Welfare Working Group. With valuable assistance from the OIE Collaborating Centre on Animal Welfare, a Questionnaire was developed and sent to OIE Members, of which 81 countries submitted responses.
In light of this information, the ad hoc Group prepared a first draft report, which notes the importance of controlling stray dog populations to help prevent zoonotic diseases and non-disease related nuisances to society and the environment.
In choosing the preferred method of control, the risks to operators must be taken into account, as well as religious, cultural and economic contexts of the country concerned. Depending on the situation, methods requiring individual animal restraint or methods for use at a distance may be recommended.
While activities that aim to physically reduce the numbers of stray dogs are important, achievement of the long term goals of dog population control and avoidance of risks to human health depends on the education of dog owners and the general public as to their responsibilities.
The draft report notes that sub-national jurisdictions are often those responsible for the control of stray dog populations. The key role played by non-governmental organisations in stray dog management in many countries is acknowledged.
The draft report emphasises that the close involvement of veterinarians and of official Veterinary Services, working in collaboration with public health authorities, is necessary to realise long term goals.
MEP Carl Schlyter on the postition
of the Intergroup and the EU
October 9, 2013 - MEP Carl Schlyter , Honorary president of the Animal Welfare Intergoup (Greens, Sweden) on the third MEPs open letter to President Basescu and the impact of the animal cruelty in Romania on the image and status of country in the European Union
The EU-Commission replies to various complaints
What a shame for Europe...
With the introduction of Romania's "Slaughter Law", the Romanian government has dragged its entire country's reputation in the mud.
On 25th September, the Romanian Constitutional Court had an opportunity to define whether Romania is a country worthy of being called civilized or whether it should be consigned to popular perception of a country unworthy of being considered anything other than barbaric, mismanaged, corrupt and dangerous. They choose the latter.
And the entire world was both shocked and outraged.
On 25th of September, 2013 the future of an entire country; the fate of many hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions of innocent homeless dogs, was determined by the abuse of power of a handful of individuals.
The implementation of Romania's 'extermination program' ("extermination" was the word that they themselves had used during the debate in the parliament) has produced worldwide condemnation and a perception that Romania is a country which introduces medieval practices and governs in a draconian mode. The Romanian government has brought shame to Romania as a whole...
Their 'Slaughter Law' has very negatively affected Romania's image politically and on so many other levels, says Mr Carl Schlyter in the above interview. Perhaps Mr Schlyter is not aware of it, but the people of Europe (together with people from all around the world) are also shaking heir heads in amazement and with anger over the inaction of the EU and how brilliantly they understand to hide behind paragraphs and nebulous 'terms' such as 'proportionality' and 'subsidiarity'. The inaction of the EU, too, is a shame...
In their love-letters to Basescu, both the EU-Intergroup and EU-Commissioner Tonio Borg mentioned the OIE-Regulations on dog population management and that they must be respected. But we all - including the EU - know that they are not being respected... we know that, apart from the killing of the animals, IF they survive the '14-days-pre-slaughter-period', no other actions - such as sterilization campaigns that must include ALL owned dogs, rabies vaccination and registration of ALL dogs in a national register, education of the populace on responsible companion ownership - were included in their "eradication program". A mandatory sterilization of all owned dogs of Romania was mentioned for the first in their so-called "norms" which have been published on 23rd of December, 2013.
Not only did the two press releases from the Intergroup on the Romanian tragedy from September 2013 not impress or inspire anyone, but we listened in abject horror as a Vice-President of the European Parliament's Intergroup on the Welfare and Conservation of Animals, Daciana Sârbu, during an exchange during the Intergroup meeting from 12th of September, 2013, identified to the world that she is totally misinformed about policies and events over which her position demands knowledge.
The public now questions the expertise of those who represent them in the European Arena. Questions are now asked about what is 'suitability for purpose' of these representatives?
Madame Sarbu's delivery was profoundly unprofessionally uninformed. Her totally misinformed and erroneous statements self-declared her as being unfit for office as either a member of the Intergroup, let alone as a Vice President and we would like to know what qualifications does she have to command respect? In Romania there is an understanding that qualifications can be achieved by corrupt means and people are wondering if this was the foundation of her acquiring such an elevated position?
Romania does neither respect the OIE-regulations, nor the Written Declaration on Dog Population Management 0026/2011 of which Madame Daciana Sarbu, one of the Vice-Presidents of the Intergroup and wife of Romania's Prime Minister Victor Ponta, is a co-initiator, nor the European Parliament's Resolution from 4th of July, 2012... but who cares?
As we have learned from the same meeting the Intergroup will be travelling to Namibia end of October 2013. May we respectfully suggest that the Intergroup travels to Romania instead? ...and investigate the shelter conditions and the correct implementation of the OIE-regulations that they are referring to in their letters to Basescu? ...wouldn't that make sense?
It is true that the EU has no legal competence regarding the treatment of stray animals. BUT the EU has competence in other domains that are being affected with the Romania-issue and that is "Human health" and "Human rights violation", and has - of course - a certain, although very limited power given to them by the Treaty of Lisbon. The EU can also block all funding to Romania...
The EU is going to pay a heavy price from the animal welfare lobby for its sit back and do nothing approach; that is a guarantee. In May 2014, EU citizens will vote throughout Europe for new MEP’s to represent them in the European Arena, and MEP’s who did nothing about this issue will wish that they had...
The issues in Romania are of such magnitude that the EU can be assured this will become a central electoral issue in the 2014- MEP-election.
Ladies and Gentlemen in Brussels and Strasbourg... are you prepared?
On 25th September, the Romanian Constitutional Court had an opportunity to define whether Romania is a country worthy of being called civilized or whether it should be consigned to popular perception of a country unworthy of being considered anything other than barbaric, mismanaged, corrupt and dangerous. They choose the latter.
And the entire world was both shocked and outraged.
On 25th of September, 2013 the future of an entire country; the fate of many hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions of innocent homeless dogs, was determined by the abuse of power of a handful of individuals.
The implementation of Romania's 'extermination program' ("extermination" was the word that they themselves had used during the debate in the parliament) has produced worldwide condemnation and a perception that Romania is a country which introduces medieval practices and governs in a draconian mode. The Romanian government has brought shame to Romania as a whole...
Their 'Slaughter Law' has very negatively affected Romania's image politically and on so many other levels, says Mr Carl Schlyter in the above interview. Perhaps Mr Schlyter is not aware of it, but the people of Europe (together with people from all around the world) are also shaking heir heads in amazement and with anger over the inaction of the EU and how brilliantly they understand to hide behind paragraphs and nebulous 'terms' such as 'proportionality' and 'subsidiarity'. The inaction of the EU, too, is a shame...
In their love-letters to Basescu, both the EU-Intergroup and EU-Commissioner Tonio Borg mentioned the OIE-Regulations on dog population management and that they must be respected. But we all - including the EU - know that they are not being respected... we know that, apart from the killing of the animals, IF they survive the '14-days-pre-slaughter-period', no other actions - such as sterilization campaigns that must include ALL owned dogs, rabies vaccination and registration of ALL dogs in a national register, education of the populace on responsible companion ownership - were included in their "eradication program". A mandatory sterilization of all owned dogs of Romania was mentioned for the first in their so-called "norms" which have been published on 23rd of December, 2013.
Not only did the two press releases from the Intergroup on the Romanian tragedy from September 2013 not impress or inspire anyone, but we listened in abject horror as a Vice-President of the European Parliament's Intergroup on the Welfare and Conservation of Animals, Daciana Sârbu, during an exchange during the Intergroup meeting from 12th of September, 2013, identified to the world that she is totally misinformed about policies and events over which her position demands knowledge.
The public now questions the expertise of those who represent them in the European Arena. Questions are now asked about what is 'suitability for purpose' of these representatives?
Madame Sarbu's delivery was profoundly unprofessionally uninformed. Her totally misinformed and erroneous statements self-declared her as being unfit for office as either a member of the Intergroup, let alone as a Vice President and we would like to know what qualifications does she have to command respect? In Romania there is an understanding that qualifications can be achieved by corrupt means and people are wondering if this was the foundation of her acquiring such an elevated position?
Romania does neither respect the OIE-regulations, nor the Written Declaration on Dog Population Management 0026/2011 of which Madame Daciana Sarbu, one of the Vice-Presidents of the Intergroup and wife of Romania's Prime Minister Victor Ponta, is a co-initiator, nor the European Parliament's Resolution from 4th of July, 2012... but who cares?
As we have learned from the same meeting the Intergroup will be travelling to Namibia end of October 2013. May we respectfully suggest that the Intergroup travels to Romania instead? ...and investigate the shelter conditions and the correct implementation of the OIE-regulations that they are referring to in their letters to Basescu? ...wouldn't that make sense?
It is true that the EU has no legal competence regarding the treatment of stray animals. BUT the EU has competence in other domains that are being affected with the Romania-issue and that is "Human health" and "Human rights violation", and has - of course - a certain, although very limited power given to them by the Treaty of Lisbon. The EU can also block all funding to Romania...
The EU is going to pay a heavy price from the animal welfare lobby for its sit back and do nothing approach; that is a guarantee. In May 2014, EU citizens will vote throughout Europe for new MEP’s to represent them in the European Arena, and MEP’s who did nothing about this issue will wish that they had...
The issues in Romania are of such magnitude that the EU can be assured this will become a central electoral issue in the 2014- MEP-election.
Ladies and Gentlemen in Brussels and Strasbourg... are you prepared?
EU-Delegation met with Romanian authorities
in Bucharest on 4th of December, 2013
An Animal Welfare Intergroup delegation led by Januz Wojciechowski, MEP (ECR, PL) and Andrea Zanoni MEP, (ALDE, IT) went to Bucharest to meet with the authorities and NGO representatives concerning stray dogs in Romania.
In their article published on 9th of December, 2013, the European Parliament's Intergroup on the Welfare and Conservation of Animals stated that:
"Over the last three months MEPs have received thousands of emails from concerned citizens asking the European Parliament for help. This delegation trip had therefore the purpose to express the Intergroup’s solidarity and to get clarifications from the Romanian authorities and national NGOs on the current situation of stray dog population management in Romania.
The delegation had separate meetings with representatives from the National Federation of Animal Protection (FNPA), with Dr Maximilian Dragan, the Head of Unit for Identification, Registration and Animal Welfare at the National Sanitary Veterinary and Food Safety Authority of Romania- A.N.S.V.S.A. and his team as well as with Sorin Mircea Oprescu, General Mayor of Bucharest. The delegation trip has been followed closely by the Romanian press."
There has been some confusion as to if a representative of The 'Making The Link' Study and Project Group was at this meeting, which was followed by a clarifying statement from 'Making The Link' Director and sole author of the study, Malcolm Plant, stating that:
"Although otherwise claimed, NO representative of The 'Making The Link' Study Project Ltd was present at the meeting with Intergroup representatives in Bucharest on 4th of December, 2013
No invitation was extended. Had this been so, we would have required an answer to the following question:
According to calculations derived from government statistics, the implementation of Law 258/2013 will cost around 400,000,000 Euros. The WHO (World Health Organisation) does not advocate euthanasia as being a successful strategy. A national neutering program would cost almost half this amount ie 232,000,000 Euros. The WHO advocates that this is the only strategy which realises long-term positive results. Why has the Romanian Government chosen a strategy which is proven to be unsuccessful and will cost almost DOUBLE the cost of one which has been proven to be successful?"
Below, the official press release from the EU-Intergroup.
In their article published on 9th of December, 2013, the European Parliament's Intergroup on the Welfare and Conservation of Animals stated that:
"Over the last three months MEPs have received thousands of emails from concerned citizens asking the European Parliament for help. This delegation trip had therefore the purpose to express the Intergroup’s solidarity and to get clarifications from the Romanian authorities and national NGOs on the current situation of stray dog population management in Romania.
The delegation had separate meetings with representatives from the National Federation of Animal Protection (FNPA), with Dr Maximilian Dragan, the Head of Unit for Identification, Registration and Animal Welfare at the National Sanitary Veterinary and Food Safety Authority of Romania- A.N.S.V.S.A. and his team as well as with Sorin Mircea Oprescu, General Mayor of Bucharest. The delegation trip has been followed closely by the Romanian press."
There has been some confusion as to if a representative of The 'Making The Link' Study and Project Group was at this meeting, which was followed by a clarifying statement from 'Making The Link' Director and sole author of the study, Malcolm Plant, stating that:
"Although otherwise claimed, NO representative of The 'Making The Link' Study Project Ltd was present at the meeting with Intergroup representatives in Bucharest on 4th of December, 2013
No invitation was extended. Had this been so, we would have required an answer to the following question:
According to calculations derived from government statistics, the implementation of Law 258/2013 will cost around 400,000,000 Euros. The WHO (World Health Organisation) does not advocate euthanasia as being a successful strategy. A national neutering program would cost almost half this amount ie 232,000,000 Euros. The WHO advocates that this is the only strategy which realises long-term positive results. Why has the Romanian Government chosen a strategy which is proven to be unsuccessful and will cost almost DOUBLE the cost of one which has been proven to be successful?"
Below, the official press release from the EU-Intergroup.
On the second visit of the EU-delegation in Romania
At last... someone switched the lights on!
January 28 - Delegation of the European Parliament to Romania face-to-face with the reality of the dog shelters owned by city halls.
After thousands of petitions addressed to the European Parliament from across Europe, which included, in addition to protests against the new law on killing dogs, claims of incidents of abuse against stray dogs and dogs living in deplorable shelter conditions, a delegation of the European Parliament came to Romania to investigate this issue.
The first visit, paid on December 4, 2013, was aimed at finding out the opinions of authorities on the situation of the stray dogs in Romania. Thus, during the meetings with representatives ANSVSA (and also with the Mayor of Bucharest), the delegation members were assured, among others, that the law on dog management was a law on "adoption, not on "euthanasia" and the citizens had access to public shelters which were totally transparent and complying with the law!
On Tuesday, January 28, 2014, the delegation of the European Parliament consisting of Janusz Wojciechowski, MEP deputy and vice president of the AGRI Committee, Dr. Karolina Tomaszewski, veterinarian and animal welfare consultant, and Magdalena Majerczyk, ECR Political Consultant, returned to Romania in order to inform themselves on the situation directly on site and they also included in their agenda some visits to dog shelters.
Unfortunately the weather in Romania during the last few days, with heavy snowfall and blizzard, caused the cancellation of some flights, therefore the time available to the delegation was reduced by half a day and only part of their planned agenda was possible; however, their shortened visit did reveal some of the realities of the dog industry.
The Delegation of the European Parliament was faced with the reality of the dog shelters owned by City Halls.
At 10:00 a.m., in the public dog shelter located in the village of Saristea and owned by Slatina City Hall, on whose gate was abusively written "Private Property. Access denied", there was no caring staff but a gatekeeper who had received orders not to allow anyone to enter.
To hide what could still be hidden from the European officials, the representatives of the City Hall acted in a more aggravated manner, rather than revealing that the situation behind the locked gates was cruel and illegal. They were embarrassed about sending a representative to the shelter (without whom the entry to the shelter was not allowed). Furthermore, they were embarrassed when I asked if the shelter belonged to the City Hall or was a private shelter. Probably all the interlocutors from the City Hall and the State Patrimony Administration did not know what would be appropriate to answer, so they spoke confusingly and finished with the eternal "I don' know".
Finally, we found out from the vice mayor, who was not in a position to say "I don' know", that the shelter belonged to Slatina City Hall.
The dog shelter of Slatina City Hall is managed by the same company, Iberia Velvet SRL, the constant partner of the City Hall, charging excessive prices settled by Slatina City Hall from the public money.
However, the "Shelter" which does not meet the minimum legal requirements, where dogs die in starvation, holds a sanitary and veterinary certificate issued by DSVSA (Sanitary- Veterinary and Food Safety Department) of Olt county!
The lamentable condition of the dogs sheltered there could be deduced even from the gate. Around a special cage where they kept a "protected" purebred dog, the snow was 1 m high and intact, meaning that in the last few days nobody had gone to that dog to feed it.This is the usual situation if we recall the personal observations and also the statements of those who have visited this "shelter" so far, whereby they noted that, except for exhausted dogs lacking water and food, the cages had nothing, not even water bowls! This cruelty applied to animals, which is shown in statements and photographs, was the reason of the criminal complaint made by FNPA in 2013 against the City Hall and also against Iberia Velvet SRL.
Moreover, the adoption of a dog from the shelter of Slatina City Hall seems to involve winding steps, without any effective result. In theory, adopting a dog would have been possible if you had first addressed to the City Hall, then to the State Patrimony Administration, where they asked you to fill in a lot of papers, and then you had come to the shelter, accompanied by a representative of the City Hall, to choose a dog.
The Delegation found that there was a major discrepancy between what the authorities had told them during their first visit and what they found on site during their second visit. The shelters owned by the City Halls are tightly closed, the animals are in distress and adoptions are made difficult if not impossible.
The Delegation will prepare a full report on the things observed, which they will submit to the European Parliament and to the European Commission and will also make it public.
Below, the letter written by the two MEPs, Janusz Wojciechowski and Andrea Zanoni, containing the conclusions of their first visit paid on December 4 (please click on the pictures to enlarge)
Written by Dr Carmen Arsene (originally in Romanian)
After thousands of petitions addressed to the European Parliament from across Europe, which included, in addition to protests against the new law on killing dogs, claims of incidents of abuse against stray dogs and dogs living in deplorable shelter conditions, a delegation of the European Parliament came to Romania to investigate this issue.
The first visit, paid on December 4, 2013, was aimed at finding out the opinions of authorities on the situation of the stray dogs in Romania. Thus, during the meetings with representatives ANSVSA (and also with the Mayor of Bucharest), the delegation members were assured, among others, that the law on dog management was a law on "adoption, not on "euthanasia" and the citizens had access to public shelters which were totally transparent and complying with the law!
On Tuesday, January 28, 2014, the delegation of the European Parliament consisting of Janusz Wojciechowski, MEP deputy and vice president of the AGRI Committee, Dr. Karolina Tomaszewski, veterinarian and animal welfare consultant, and Magdalena Majerczyk, ECR Political Consultant, returned to Romania in order to inform themselves on the situation directly on site and they also included in their agenda some visits to dog shelters.
Unfortunately the weather in Romania during the last few days, with heavy snowfall and blizzard, caused the cancellation of some flights, therefore the time available to the delegation was reduced by half a day and only part of their planned agenda was possible; however, their shortened visit did reveal some of the realities of the dog industry.
The Delegation of the European Parliament was faced with the reality of the dog shelters owned by City Halls.
At 10:00 a.m., in the public dog shelter located in the village of Saristea and owned by Slatina City Hall, on whose gate was abusively written "Private Property. Access denied", there was no caring staff but a gatekeeper who had received orders not to allow anyone to enter.
To hide what could still be hidden from the European officials, the representatives of the City Hall acted in a more aggravated manner, rather than revealing that the situation behind the locked gates was cruel and illegal. They were embarrassed about sending a representative to the shelter (without whom the entry to the shelter was not allowed). Furthermore, they were embarrassed when I asked if the shelter belonged to the City Hall or was a private shelter. Probably all the interlocutors from the City Hall and the State Patrimony Administration did not know what would be appropriate to answer, so they spoke confusingly and finished with the eternal "I don' know".
Finally, we found out from the vice mayor, who was not in a position to say "I don' know", that the shelter belonged to Slatina City Hall.
The dog shelter of Slatina City Hall is managed by the same company, Iberia Velvet SRL, the constant partner of the City Hall, charging excessive prices settled by Slatina City Hall from the public money.
However, the "Shelter" which does not meet the minimum legal requirements, where dogs die in starvation, holds a sanitary and veterinary certificate issued by DSVSA (Sanitary- Veterinary and Food Safety Department) of Olt county!
The lamentable condition of the dogs sheltered there could be deduced even from the gate. Around a special cage where they kept a "protected" purebred dog, the snow was 1 m high and intact, meaning that in the last few days nobody had gone to that dog to feed it.This is the usual situation if we recall the personal observations and also the statements of those who have visited this "shelter" so far, whereby they noted that, except for exhausted dogs lacking water and food, the cages had nothing, not even water bowls! This cruelty applied to animals, which is shown in statements and photographs, was the reason of the criminal complaint made by FNPA in 2013 against the City Hall and also against Iberia Velvet SRL.
Moreover, the adoption of a dog from the shelter of Slatina City Hall seems to involve winding steps, without any effective result. In theory, adopting a dog would have been possible if you had first addressed to the City Hall, then to the State Patrimony Administration, where they asked you to fill in a lot of papers, and then you had come to the shelter, accompanied by a representative of the City Hall, to choose a dog.
The Delegation found that there was a major discrepancy between what the authorities had told them during their first visit and what they found on site during their second visit. The shelters owned by the City Halls are tightly closed, the animals are in distress and adoptions are made difficult if not impossible.
The Delegation will prepare a full report on the things observed, which they will submit to the European Parliament and to the European Commission and will also make it public.
Below, the letter written by the two MEPs, Janusz Wojciechowski and Andrea Zanoni, containing the conclusions of their first visit paid on December 4 (please click on the pictures to enlarge)
Written by Dr Carmen Arsene (originally in Romanian)
Our tacit approval of the evil will make us the evil’s accomplices
The legalization of the stray dogs' extermination in Romania is a heinous crime committed publicly in broad daylight by the Romanian authorities.
Any state institutions or groups of authorities behind the murderous decision lose their legitimacy and representative character in the public eye. They can no longer be considered representative of the moral values and moral, social order our societies are based on because they show contempt and no respect for the suffering of other sensitive and feeling living beings capable of experiencing the sensations of dread, love, friendship, affection, pain and abandonment.
Such authorities who advocate criminal methods erode the very foundation of the moral principles necessary for our culture to survive because the fundamental value of our culture is the respect for suffering and for life.
Therefore, the mass execution of sensitive and feeling beings approved of by the “legal” authorities of Romania becomes a much much wider issue threatening to destroy people’s confidence in the state institutions, the state itself and the officials who do not hesitate to implement criminal policies to deal with the question of dogs’ homelessness.
The situation in Romania demonstrates that it is possible to legitimize unlawful and criminal policies followed by the state by the mere fact that such policies are propounded and executed by state institutions and state authorities. Likewise, it follows that concentration camps and the policy of mass extermination were legal and lawful because they were accepted and executed by the Nazi authorities and the Nazi state.
In this way, the state bureaucracy uses its authority to cover up human and animal rights violations. This is the kind of logic that aims at making the criminal acts of violence look lawful and acceptable to the public. The legal aspect of the developments in Romania in regard to animal and human rights abuses should be carefully reviewed by the representatives of legal profession and religious communities.
Our tacit approval of the evil will make us the evil’s accomplices. We have to speak up because suffering and pain deserve respect, be it animal or human suffering.
Besides, millions of people capable of cherishing their relationship with animals and sensitive enough to cultivate their affection for them will be exposed to enormous psychological trauma resulting from the animal slaughter.
The people have the right to love and care but the official policy of animal mass slaughter negates the right and makes it invalid. In this respect, animal rights violations are at one with human rights abuses. The psychological trauma and damage done as a result of such cruel and arbitrary decisions by the Romanian officials will have its devastating moral, legal, social and political consequences leading to the weakening of the state institutions and social order.
The question is not a marginal one but it affects the opinions and attitudes of millions of sensitive and caring people across the world who can grasp the meaning of suffering and commiseration. They are those who suffer themselves or those who are ready to sacrifice themselves to make suffering meaningful through showing respect and attention because attention, respect and commiseration and sharing pain is sacrifice.
The Romanian official policy to deal with the question of stray dogs negates the concept of sacrifice, suffering and pain sharing, the very concept that has united people throughout history and allowed them to survive the horrors of wars and concentration camps. Therefore, such a policy of extermination takes away what is most precious to us: our ability for empathy and commiseration. The psychological trauma will be immense, so will the social, moral and political implications. In this context, the decision to exterminate stray dogs should be interpreted against the background of human rights violation and waning social confidence in the idea of a state. Indeed, the extermination project violates human rights and undermines moral and social order.
The Romanian authorities should be aware of political consequences resulting from antisocial policies.
Contempt and disdain for suffering and pain equals contempt and disdain for human rights because both humans and feeling animals have the right to be treated with respect. It is only extremely shocking and depressing that the state institutions and authorities do not realize that and, what is more socially and politically damaging, the very same institutions and officials implement criminal, anti-social policies which strike directly at the foundation of social order, collective sense of security and social confidence.
The official sanctioning of the wholesale extermination methods by the authorities will encourage individuals to slaughter and abuse stray animals creating a fertile ground for a lawless society. This is yet another responsibility of the decision makers who support the policy of slaughter. The social dimension of such a lawless action advocated by the Romanian state is extremely detrimental to the concept of just and unbiased society.
written by: Andrzej Szczepanek - Poland
Any state institutions or groups of authorities behind the murderous decision lose their legitimacy and representative character in the public eye. They can no longer be considered representative of the moral values and moral, social order our societies are based on because they show contempt and no respect for the suffering of other sensitive and feeling living beings capable of experiencing the sensations of dread, love, friendship, affection, pain and abandonment.
Such authorities who advocate criminal methods erode the very foundation of the moral principles necessary for our culture to survive because the fundamental value of our culture is the respect for suffering and for life.
Therefore, the mass execution of sensitive and feeling beings approved of by the “legal” authorities of Romania becomes a much much wider issue threatening to destroy people’s confidence in the state institutions, the state itself and the officials who do not hesitate to implement criminal policies to deal with the question of dogs’ homelessness.
The situation in Romania demonstrates that it is possible to legitimize unlawful and criminal policies followed by the state by the mere fact that such policies are propounded and executed by state institutions and state authorities. Likewise, it follows that concentration camps and the policy of mass extermination were legal and lawful because they were accepted and executed by the Nazi authorities and the Nazi state.
In this way, the state bureaucracy uses its authority to cover up human and animal rights violations. This is the kind of logic that aims at making the criminal acts of violence look lawful and acceptable to the public. The legal aspect of the developments in Romania in regard to animal and human rights abuses should be carefully reviewed by the representatives of legal profession and religious communities.
Our tacit approval of the evil will make us the evil’s accomplices. We have to speak up because suffering and pain deserve respect, be it animal or human suffering.
Besides, millions of people capable of cherishing their relationship with animals and sensitive enough to cultivate their affection for them will be exposed to enormous psychological trauma resulting from the animal slaughter.
The people have the right to love and care but the official policy of animal mass slaughter negates the right and makes it invalid. In this respect, animal rights violations are at one with human rights abuses. The psychological trauma and damage done as a result of such cruel and arbitrary decisions by the Romanian officials will have its devastating moral, legal, social and political consequences leading to the weakening of the state institutions and social order.
The question is not a marginal one but it affects the opinions and attitudes of millions of sensitive and caring people across the world who can grasp the meaning of suffering and commiseration. They are those who suffer themselves or those who are ready to sacrifice themselves to make suffering meaningful through showing respect and attention because attention, respect and commiseration and sharing pain is sacrifice.
The Romanian official policy to deal with the question of stray dogs negates the concept of sacrifice, suffering and pain sharing, the very concept that has united people throughout history and allowed them to survive the horrors of wars and concentration camps. Therefore, such a policy of extermination takes away what is most precious to us: our ability for empathy and commiseration. The psychological trauma will be immense, so will the social, moral and political implications. In this context, the decision to exterminate stray dogs should be interpreted against the background of human rights violation and waning social confidence in the idea of a state. Indeed, the extermination project violates human rights and undermines moral and social order.
The Romanian authorities should be aware of political consequences resulting from antisocial policies.
Contempt and disdain for suffering and pain equals contempt and disdain for human rights because both humans and feeling animals have the right to be treated with respect. It is only extremely shocking and depressing that the state institutions and authorities do not realize that and, what is more socially and politically damaging, the very same institutions and officials implement criminal, anti-social policies which strike directly at the foundation of social order, collective sense of security and social confidence.
The official sanctioning of the wholesale extermination methods by the authorities will encourage individuals to slaughter and abuse stray animals creating a fertile ground for a lawless society. This is yet another responsibility of the decision makers who support the policy of slaughter. The social dimension of such a lawless action advocated by the Romanian state is extremely detrimental to the concept of just and unbiased society.
written by: Andrzej Szczepanek - Poland
Romania, rabies...
and how to fool the EU-Commission
An audit team of the FVO (EU Food and Veterinary Office) visited Romania in 2012 in order to justify its annual EU grant for Rabies eradication.
Romania stated that, in 2011 of an estimated population of 3.72 million dogs there were 3.42 million dogs recorded as vaccinated against Rabies. In other words 3.42 million Romanian dogs saw a vet.
Anyone who is a bit familiar with the situation in Romania knows this report is a joke, nevertheless it satisfied the European Commission.
You can read the entire report below...
Romania stated that, in 2011 of an estimated population of 3.72 million dogs there were 3.42 million dogs recorded as vaccinated against Rabies. In other words 3.42 million Romanian dogs saw a vet.
Anyone who is a bit familiar with the situation in Romania knows this report is a joke, nevertheless it satisfied the European Commission.
You can read the entire report below...
W A K E U P C A L L !!!
Surprise, surprise:
The Romanian Academic Society (SAR) has found the declared interest for increasing the absorption of EU funds
by Romania sometimes overshadows the importance of spending them in a correct way.
October 17, 2013 - by Irina Popescu - In a recently launched policy brief report on the vulnerability of EU funds in Romania, SAR stated:
“Sometimes only the pure compliance with technical issues is verified, which are often left for the authorities with control and sanction attributions,” reads the report.
“Although this issue involves a variety of players that ‘shake hands’ so that scamming these funds could happen every day, this is too often considered an ‘inherent right’ or a political tool that raises some but brings down others,” the report goes on.
Fraud gets to be discussed in the media or in the civil society only when it comes to major damages involving political figures or when the existence of too many frauds leads to warnings from the European institutions, according to SAR.
According to the local media, the number of suspected frauds with EU funds had tripled in Romania in the last two years.
The report includes a list of recommended indicators that can be followed by public authorities responsible for the spending of EU funds, beneficiaries, civil society and the media, in order to minimize the risk of fraud and irregularities with EU funds.
The Policy Brief, based on a qualitative analysis of the use of EU funds in Romania, undertaken by the SAR team during March- June 2013, can be found here (in Romanian).
Irina Popescu, [email protected]
Source
“Sometimes only the pure compliance with technical issues is verified, which are often left for the authorities with control and sanction attributions,” reads the report.
“Although this issue involves a variety of players that ‘shake hands’ so that scamming these funds could happen every day, this is too often considered an ‘inherent right’ or a political tool that raises some but brings down others,” the report goes on.
Fraud gets to be discussed in the media or in the civil society only when it comes to major damages involving political figures or when the existence of too many frauds leads to warnings from the European institutions, according to SAR.
According to the local media, the number of suspected frauds with EU funds had tripled in Romania in the last two years.
The report includes a list of recommended indicators that can be followed by public authorities responsible for the spending of EU funds, beneficiaries, civil society and the media, in order to minimize the risk of fraud and irregularities with EU funds.
The Policy Brief, based on a qualitative analysis of the use of EU funds in Romania, undertaken by the SAR team during March- June 2013, can be found here (in Romanian).
Irina Popescu, [email protected]
Source
October 14, 2013 - by Daniel Stroe – Bucharest
Private companies have surpassed local authorities as concerns the weight of EU funds frauds while the overall number of frauds has tripled last year compared to 2010, warns a report by the Romanian Academic Society (SAR), a leading Romanian think-tank.
SAR based its report on data provided by the country’s National Anti-Corruption Department (DNA0 and the Anti-Fraud Department (DLAF) and on the verdicts courts passed in trials concerning cases of EU funds frauds (associates, managers, share holders) which show the private environment represents 57,2 per cent of all the cases.
The second place is held by local authorities (mayors, deputy-mayors, local counselors and civil servants), with a 26.52 per cent weight, while NGOs take the third spot (8.7 per cent) and individuals, in majority farmers (7.5 %).
The most used fraud method is the abuse of office, corruption (bribe acceptance) and consultancy services which mask the fraud, use of EU funds for other purposes, investments with EU funds for personal utility, false technical tenders, reimbursements on behalf of fictional companies and money laundry.
Most of the frauds affected the pre-accession PHARE fund (46.5 %), followed by SAPARD, the program which envisions rural development and agriculture (17.4 per cent).
SAR also gave the example of a local pool in the town of Marghita, in Western Romania, where the local public pools was built with EU funds allotted for the construction of a spa park. The pool was only opened for a day and the financial supervision authorities received pictures with tourists swimming in the pool on its inauguration day.
Attending the release of the report, former EU Commissioner Leonard Orban said a large part of the frauds are generated by unintentional mistakes which are explained by the lack of experience on the part of both the beneficiaries and local authorities. He also said the number of the EU funds frauds tripled in 2012 compared to 2010 because the absorption rate rose from 1 per cent to 12 % over this period.
Romania is the country with the lowest absorption rate of European funds in the EU, with barely 32 per cent of the money accessed over the 2007-2013 budget. Bulgaria has an absorption rate of 37 per cent, according to a recent statement by the Bulgarian deputy-PM, Zinaida Zlatanova
Source
The petitions
1) "EU: take action regarding Romania, a European country challenging Europe!"
To:
The European Parliament
The European Commission
The Council of Europe
The European Ombudsman
The European Anti-Fraud Office
The Belgian State Secretary for European Affairs, Mr Olivier Chastel,
The European Parliament's Intergroup on the Welfare and Conservation of Animals
Dear Sir / Madam,
On 10th September the Lower House of the Romanian Parliament voted GEO 155/2001 to legitimise a 'catch and kill' policy for all homeless animals. The terminology used during the debate at the parliament was 'eradication'. Since this date media frenzy has been created because of the death of a young boy under what remains dubious circumstances. However the stray animals were blamed and as a result of the media frenzy and the vote, a state of abuse of animals exists now in Romania. Animals and their owners and protectors were immediately, and still are, at serious risk. It must be remembered that many millions of Romanians are animal owners or protectors of the animals. This law has polarized Romania's society and made it dangerously divisive.
It had to be expected that millions of animal lovers would seek to protect their own animals or the animals they 'protect' on the streets. Millions! It had to be expected that half a country would seek to defend and protect, and that the other half would seek to aggress.
Not only would this policy, bring infamy to Romanian authorities and by association, with Romania, apparently ill considered was the fact that an 'eradication' strategy simply will not be successful. Owned dogs will continue to breed and thereby ensuring a plentiful and constant supply of animals on the streets. Occupy for Animals, along with many others, suggested and still maintains, that this is a desirable condition! If implemented, it would therefore be a futile and ineffective policy.
The 'Making The Link' Study and Project Group - a major collaboration of international organisations, academics and world leading experts in THE LINK between exposure to animal abuse and the resulting effect on children's psychological health and development, had warned the Romanian Constitutional Court that the implementation of PL912 - their 'eradication' strategy, which can best be described as potentially 'the greatest animal genocidal impact on human health in European history' - would have a deleterious impact of the health of the children of Romania.
'Making The Link' - initiator Malcolm Plant (BSc, BA (Hons), MSc, Dipl Psych., Fellow of the Institute for Human-Animal Connection, University of Denver) wrote (among other):
"We would urge you to re-enforce your decision last year on precisely the same issue and with no additional changes to circumstances. Our concern is primarily for the health of the children which we will be measuring over the next few years. Academically we are anticipating hitherto profound impact on the children's health unseen in any previous study if you were to ratify the proposed amendments. As human beings, as parents, we are frightened about the effects if the new generation of Romanians are exposed to street horrors on a previously unprecedented scale."
On 25th September, 2013 Constitutional Court judge Petre Lăzăroiu, suggested that "the mass killing of stray dogs in Romania could traumatize the population"... Then the entire place ruled to cull all dogs... and that the eradication of Romania's homeless animals - although it had been ruled unconstitutional in January 2012 - was now "constitutional"!
On 25th of September, the Romanian Constitutional Court had an opportunity to define whether Romania is a country worthy of being called civilized or whether it should be consigned to popular perception of a country unworthy of being considered anything other than barbaric, mismanaged, corrupt and dangerous. They chose the latter.
Their approval of, and the implementation of GEO 155/2001, has produced worldwide condemnation and a perception that Romania is a country which introduces medieval practices and governs in a draconian mode. Most of the 'civilized' countries have introduced a 'Catch, Neuter, Vaccinate and Return' policy and now have very few homeless animals on the streets. This is a 21st century methodology.
Not only have the Romanian Government dismissed the warnings expressed by the experts, and failed to acknowledge T-N-R as the only proven successful strategy to control and curb stray animal populations (in fact: ALL 'catch & kill' policies have historically proven unsuccessful) but being aware of the costs and profits to be made from implementing the proposed 'eradication' strategy, are aware that significant personal profits can be made through corrupt alliances.
The net result will be abject strategic failure and the number of animals will not decrease. Through corrupt alliances, personal profits from the animal corpse disposal will have been secured.
But the biggest cost is in the human domain. Children exposed to the capture and often immediate slaughter of the animals will seek to psychologically protect themselves from such trauma. They will desensitize. Reduce their sensitivity towards living creatures including fellow humans. Some will embrace the attributes of their violent society and finding legitimized sanction for the destruction of the animal sub-group, will also aggress against the animals.
There is then some inevitability that once such aggression is socially sanctioned, their journey will continue by aggressing against person, against property. They will see no distinction. Their journey can easily lead to the killing of another person. Significant research has identified this development and ending. This is the slow diminishment of a society's moral substance and gradual increase into a prevalence of violence but a more immediate but equally destructive effect can be seen.
In any society, irrespective of political dictats, there is no homogeneity of support. Emotive issues exacerbate differences. Any society will contain those who passionately support the rights of companion animals and also those who have no regard or who are motivated by political hysteria. At such levels of passion, in counterpoint to each other, this polarization can produce levels of acute violence. Neighbor against neighbor! Even before official recognition of the law in Romania, two neighbors have fought over this issue and one was killed. Even before! One can only stand and watch now and wait while the death count gets higher!
So we have a government introduced policy which at best is ill informed, historically proven to be unsuccessful with previously proven successful strategies dismissed. And on top of all, a strategy which will polarize society resulting in violence between citizens and almost as if to reinforce the evidence that the strategy is ill advised, ill considered and incompetent, the children will be psychologically damaged. One cannot conceive of a more counter productive, societally destructive direction taken by any European Union Member Government in recent times.
Additional information is compiled at:
http://www.occupyforanimals.org/romania--a-country-cries-out-for-revenge-after-the-tragic-death-of-a-four-year-old-boy-who-had-been-attacked-by-dogs.html
And:
http://www.occupyforanimals.org/romania---on-the-greatest-animal-genocide-in-european-history-government-initiated-anarchy-violations-of-human-rights-and-children-rights.html
Occupy for Animals is being bombarded with emails and calls from desperate Romanian animal activists and rescuers who are pleading for help!
Not only are their own companion animals, and/or the animals that are in the care of their organisations and who most certainly constitute no 'danger' to the public and who often even already have potential adopters (outside of Romania) at risk of being taken by the dog catchers and thrown in their so-called 'shelters' where death is a certainty and not an option, but the people, too, are at risk of being physically attacked!
And it's only the beginning!
Considering the scale of the tragedy that is already unfolding, the societal disaster along with the potentially 'greatest animal genocidal impact on human health in European history' that we are heading towards, we are respectfully begging for you to intervene and to help Romania to get back on track before it's too late!
In addition to our plea for help, we also have a few questions that we - together with very very many people from Europe and from all around the world - would really love to have an answer to.
Below, our questions, suggestions, and remarks.
To the EUROPEAN COMMISSION, the COUNCIL OF EUROPE, the EUROPEAN OMBUDSMAN, and the European Parliament's Intergroup on the Welfare and Conservation of Animals - regarding the new 'legislation':
Romania's Constitutional Court ruled on 25th September, 2013 that the proposal which had been accepted by the Lower House of the Romanian Parliament on 10th of September, 2013, is "constitutional" and that the 'euthanasia' of all homeless dogs in Romania, after 14 days spent in their so-called 'shelters if not adopted or perished before this time has elapsed, is 'constitutional', too, although they had ruled in January 2012, that: "the killing of healthy animals was unconstitutional as a mean to control stray animal populations until all other solutions had been applied".
What has changed since January 2012 on the "management" of Romania's stray animals populations?
- We haven't heard of any massive sterilization campaigns!
- We haven't heard of any 'education of the populace regarding the importance of spay & neuter' their owned (but allowed to roam freely and to mate as they wish) companion animals. And in this context, we would like to remind you that an estimated 5 million puppies are born each year in Romania in rural areas of which some are being killed by their owners, and the others are simply being thrown out on the streets or in the woods.
- We haven't heard of any measures taken to undermine breeding, including "back yard breeding"!
To the European Parliament's Intergroup on the Welfare and Conservation of Animals - regarding the before mentioned points:
- Can, and will, the European Parliament's Intergroup on the Conservation and Welfare of Animals, please ask Mrs Daciana Sarbu - Vice President of the Intergroup, co-initiator of the Written Declaration on Dog Population Management 0026/2011, wife of Romania's Prime Minister Victor Ponta - what she has done in her own country to promote and implement a humane management of the stray animals populations as she has so brightly described in the WD 0026/2011? Please ask Mrs Sarbu what she has done to promote responsible animal ownership in her own country? Please ask Mrs Sarbu what she has done to educate the populace of Romania about the importance of spay and neuter, and/or not to let their animals roam freely and to mate as they wish? Please ask Mrs Sarbu what she has done to avoid the tragedy that is now unfolding, bringing unnecessary suffering and death to both animals and their protectors?
As the wife of Romania's Prime Minister Vîctor Ponta, and a Vice President of the Intergroup, she had, and still has a unique position and opportunity to bring change to her country regarding stray animals population control and welfare, but we haven't - sadly and to our very great deception - heard of any actions taken by Mrs Sarbu in this field. In fact, we haven't heard anything from her since the adoption of WD0026/2011.
These questions might be, and probably are, irrelevant because they simply won't change a thing to the situation of the poor homeless dogs in Romania, but we really would love to know her, and/or your answer to our questions. In fact, we are sure that very very many people are interested in knowing the answers to these reasonable and justified questions.
Also, with the speech that Mrs Sarbu has given at the Intergroup-meeting from 12th of September, 2013, her totally misinformed and erroneous statements self-declared her as being unfit for office as either a member of the Intergroup, let alone as Vice President. Please, download and listen to said speech at the following link:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_iBJnK4Nmk1ZjhFYl9tMVNmU0k/edit
In light of the surprisingly misinformed content of the presentation by Mme Sarbu and her continued absence from Intergroup involvement especially when a serious focus is placed on her country, we would reserve the right to further explore Mme Sarbu's suitability for office and we are sure that you would encourage any adverse detail to be presented, as you of course only want officials who exemplify the highest quality in seeking the best of interest for the animals and people of Europe.
UPDATE October 3, 2013 - the additional information regarding Madame Sarbu's profoundly unprofessionally uninformed delivery can now be read at:
http://www.occupyforanimals.org/romania---daciana-sarbu-a-head-with-two-faces---one-face-smiling-at-the-death-bringers-the-other-face-smiling-at-the-protectors.html
- Can the Intergroup please advise us as to who to complain to if someone is failing in his/her duty as regards to the position he/she, maybe now un-deservingly, finds himself/herself in?
To the EUROPEAN COMMISSION, the COUNCIL OF EUROPE, and the EUROPEAN OMBUDSMAN - regarding the new 'legislation':
Former senator Marius Marinescu, president of the Romanian Animal Protection Association FPAM, and initiator of the Law 'Marinescu 1' commonly known as Law 9/2008, officially stated that:
- "LAW NO. 9/2008 (Law MARINESCU 1) remains in force. Euthanasia is prohibited.
- Article 7 index 1 of the Act provides: "It is forbidden to euthanize dogs, cats and other animals, except animals with incurable diseases identified by the veterinarian."
- GEO (Government Emergency Ordinance) 155/2001 concerning euthanasia, approved on 10 September, 2013 by the Parliament, does not repeal the law 'Marinescu 1'"
and, considering that the dog catchers are already in action all over Romania - at the order given by their Government - and are catching all dogs that they can get hold of and sometimes even owned dogs on private properties (gardens and yards) to take them to an "uncertain" destiny, we believe this to be unlawful.
QUESTION:
- Can, and will, the EU-Commission help to shred some light into the matter as to which law is now the one that must be respected?
- Can, and will, the EU-Commission help to restore the "order" in Romania if proven that the Romanian Government acts unlawfully?
To the COUNCIL OF EUROPE - regarding human rights violations and the safety of Romanian citizens:
We have seen people being arrested (already days before the vote on the new 'legislation'), we have seen dog catchers entering private properties and "stealing" owned companion animals, we have seen people being physically attacked by dog catchers when trying to defend their owned companion animals who they consider being part of their family, and we have (already) seen people (neighbors) killing each other. One just needs to check the Romanian news to find many cases, and one just needs to wait and watch while the death count gets higher. Or one can take action now and try to stop the anarchic madness.
And those who are not being physically aggressed are being forced to witness extreme cruelty to animals, and even to humans, on a daily basis, and to such an extent that they lose any good quality of life, and the feeling of being safe.
Experts have warned that exposure to abuse has an impact upon any individual who witnesses it, and that the exposure to uncontrolled animal abuse as happening right now in Romania, connects directly with children's psychological health. That children exposed to the capture and often immediate slaughter of the animals will seek to psychologically protect themselves from such trauma. They will desensitize. Reduce their sensitivity towards living creatures including fellow humans. Some will embrace the attributes of their violent society and finding legitimized sanction for the destruction of the animal sub-group, will also aggress against the animals.
QUESTIONS:
- Can, and will, the Council of Europe intervene in trying to protect the safety and the human rights of Romania's citizens?
- Can, and will, the Council of Europe intervene in order to protect Romania's children from psychological impairment due to the exposure of uncontrolled animal abuse?
To the COUNCIL OF EUROPE - regarding the 'European Council's Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals' and violations of said Convention:
Romania has signed said Convention on 23/06/2004 - has ratified it on 06/08/2004 - and it entered into force on 01/03/2005 - and in addition to this, Romania has also embraced parts of said Convention in their National Animal Protection Law 9/2008.
Being a signatory of the 'European Council's Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals', Romania had and still have a binding obligation to take adequate measures in the field of stray animal population control, including the housing and care of these animals.
As you know all of the before mentioned points of the Convention are NOT being respected.
QUESTIONS:
- Can, and will, the Council of Europe take any measure to remind Romania of their binding obligations regarding the management of stray animal populations and the adequate care of these animals, among others?
- Can, and will, the Council of Europe, please remind Romania that the 'European Council's Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals' is NOT an essentially cosmetic, futile, and very expensive useless piece of paper initiated at the expense of European tax payer's money, but without any value other than the paper on which it is being printed, and which can readily be dismissed?
To the European Anti-Fraud Office, and the Belgian State Secretary for European Affairs - regarding corruption, misuse and potentially misappropriation of public funds and EU-funds
ALL 'catch & kill' or 'catch & incarcerate & starve to death' policies have proven unsuccessful in Romania. The WHO clearly states that killing stray animals does not stop the problem and only offers a temporary “solution”. The World Health Organization’s “Guidelines for Dog Population Management” (Geneva 1990) and various other academic studies show that killing dogs is ineffective. Despite mass extermination campaigns by misguided municipalities the street dog population grows, and the best examples of both good and bad stray animal population control policies come from their own country:
- In 2001, Traian Basescu, the then-mayor of Bucharest launched a campaign that led to the extermination of about 144,000 stray dogs in the capital alone, spending almost 9,000,000 Euros (62 Euros per dog) during the period from 2001-2007. Between 2008-2010, 20,000 dogs have been killed in Constanta spending 1,500,000 Euros (75 Euros per dog).
The only towns in Romania that used catch/neuter/release programs were Oradea and Lugoj, and the results are showing:
- ORADEA
- 2006 – stray dog population: 4,000
- 2011 – stray dog population: 270
Costs incurred to spay/neuter a dog: 14 euro – program run and funded by Robert Smith - FPCC/Dog - Project Oradea, UK, in collaboration with city hall Oradea
- LUGOJ
- 2008: 2,500 stray dogs
- 2011: 235 stray dogs
Costs to spay/neuter a dog: 12 euro – program run and funded by city hall Lugoj in collaboration with local animal welfare organization, Free Amely.
- According to Princess Maja von Hohenzollern, Romania has killed an incredible 10 million stray dogs during the period from 2004 to 2009. That IS a 'genocide of dogs' that has never happened in Europe - and the entire world - before. Romania has killed almost as many dogs as the entire population of Romania with the only "result" that the streets of Romania are again (still) littered with live and dead dogs.
- Overall it is estimated that Romania has spend between 25 and 40 million euros between 2001 and 2008 for the 'management' of the stray animals, while their numbers only grew larger!
- Contrary to the popular belief that fuels the anti-stray protests, the money spent on food for the strays was just a infinitesimal part of the budget, as the dogs were being fed “subliminal” quantities, to quote the so called specialists from DSVA Brasov. Out of a total budget of 1,500,000 lei for 2008, the dog catchers in Brasov allocated only 5,000 lei for the dog food, less than 3%.
The stray dog business as a very lucrative business and by intentionally NOT taking the right decisions to solve the problem, the Romanian government supports the prosperity of a dirty industry in which many people (including mayors and other politicians who accept bribes) profit from:
- the collecting of dogs
- the construction of unnecessary shelters (including research and design)
- the housing of animals, including supposedly feeding and caring of the animals
- the incineration of the deceased animals
YES: "interestingly", even culling dogs can be very profitable. The President is therefore asking the tax payer to fund an expensive, non-evidence based, ineffective practice!
QUESTIONS:
- Can, and will, the OLAF please investigate the correct (or fraudulent) use of public funds spent under the pretext of stray animals management in Romania? As you know best, Romania ranks high at the corruption-index and it has been suggested countless times by many Romanian organisations during the last years, that the money would disappear into the pockets of greedy, dishonest politicians, mayors and business men, but that the dogs would not benefit from the public money that is being spend for their supposed management and care. We have seen shelters where the dogs were not even given a drop of water all the while the municipality had spent gigantic sums for their "care".
- Can, and will, the Belgian State Secretary for European Affairs please let us know if the European Union gives money for animal welfare to Romania and the exact amount; if that proves to be the case then an independent commission should be assigned to do a complete investigation as to the appropriation of these monies.
- What could perhaps be happening is that money slated for animal welfare could very well be used for purposes other than it was intended maybe even for the personal gains of those individuals who advocate these atrocities. Misappropriation of money and falsification of documents to cover up such misappropriation is nothing new and has been uncovered in other countries of the Eastern Block. Such information, however, is usually covered up and a wall of silence is put up by methods of intimidation.
Thank you, in advance, for the time taken to read this, for considering our plea for help, and for answering our questions!
For and on behalf of Occupy for Animals and the signatories of our petition:
Pia Berrend / Founder at Occupy for Animals
http://www.occupyforanimals.org
occupyforanimals.wix.com/straysofeurope
Email: [email protected]
2) "EU, where is the elusive face of accountability and response within
the spider's web of European bureaucracy?"
for more information, please see separate campaign
TO:
The President of the European Parliament
The President of the European Commission
The President of the European Council
The President of the European Parliament's Intergroup on the Welfare and Conservation of Animals
But Where Is He/She? Where is the elusive face of accountability and response within the spider's web of European bureaucracy?
Voices of terror and anguish are being heard across the country of Romania. Death cries of over one million animals which the recently introduced law has condemned to death.
Let us also not play with semantics by using words like 'euthanasia' and 'humane'. Animals will and are being killed grotesquely on the streets and in extremes of inhumane activity in the shelters.
Voices of concern have been raised! Accompanying this cacophony are the voices of the children whose screams of terror will soon be silenced. Silenced by a natural process where they will desensitize to the horror. Their psychological defense mechanism will protect their emotions. Exposure to abuse and violence will become normal to them, they will not care.
Unfortunately desensitization comes at a cost. They will lose the ability to be empathic and compassionate towards animals and people. An uncaring, compassion-less society, determined primarily by government practice. A practice which has polarized a society... some aggressing against animals and some seeking to protect.
Lest the gravity not be understood, six deaths have already occurred because of this polarization... after only one week since its introduction. One can only imagine her death count as the weeks, months and years pass.
Many are the entreaties, the petitions, the appeals in the past but now a different dimension of outrage is being expressed by the people of Europe. The Romanian Government's introduction of a Law which impacts on the animals, the children and grossly negatively on their society has created outrage at an unprecedented level.
But who among our elected representatives responds?
Who in the public funded institutions steps forward with accountability?
Where is this face?
We hear the inadequate posturing of those institutions who declare unacceptability of behaviors. Well may we declare that such 'unacceptable' behavior is taking place right now in Romania.
European institutions, where are your teeth?
Where is this face?
Abdication to Article 13 of the Treaty of Lisbon has long been invoked because no competence is given to the issue of stray animals. The nebulous 'terms' 'subsidiarity' and 'proportionality' are invoked as inhibiting factors to EU activity and involvement.
There is also some confusion as to the exact definition of the terms 'subsidiarity' and 'proportionality' as contained within Article 13 of the Treaty of Lisbon. We had asked the EU if they could please help us to clarify our thinking. But they couldn't. They seem to be clueless themselves about the correct definition of the nebulous 'terms' 'subsidiarity' and 'proportionality' and our questions still remain unanswered.
What we had asked was, if we were correct in assuming that in, for example, the case of Romania initiating an 'eradication' program with attendant consequences for Romanian society, such a proportionally extreme policy would satisfy the four criteria of:
- there must be a legitimate aim for a measure
- the measure must be suitable to achieve the aim (potentially with a requirement of evidence to show it will have that effect)
- the measure must be necessary to achieve the aim, that there cannot be any less onerous way of doing it
- the measure must be reasonable, considering the competing interests of different groups at hand
If among the many tens of thousands of EU-employees, proportionally a minority, and be it only ONE person, could answer the above question and send it to us at <[email protected], [email protected]> we would be infinitely grateful. A suggestion might be to ask the one who "designed" Article 13 of the Lisbon Treaty. He or she might know the answer...
Let it also be acknowledged that if we take a commonality of all Member States as a benchmark, then the current events would challenge the sensibilities if they were described as any other than disproportionate. But let us no longer make forlorn requests of the abjectly unresponsive institutions of the EU and CoE.
Let us take the constant abdication factor of the Treaty of Lisbon. The Treaty defines all animals, including the planned eradication group, as 'sentient beings'. The Treaty also prescribes for EU involvement in the domain of 'Human Health'. There IS evidence that exposure to animal abuse LINKS to human health issues in addition to aggression acquisition and enhancement. A society created where compassion and empathy are diminished but aggression is increased.
One wonders if the elusive face which does not address the issues demanded, is the same face hidden away in a dark room at the end of a long corridor within the labyrinth of the EU and determines that although they will do nothing to address the issues creating such a health affecting, distorted and dangerous society, they will however sanction the free-movement of citizens of this society into other EU Member countries where such emotional disabilities, behavior and enhanced aggression are anathema.
This IS trans-national!
Will the nameless face step forward and address these concerns of the European people and which affect ALL of Europe?
3) "The European Union MUST - according to its own constitution -
intervene in Romania!"
for more information, please see separate campaign
The President of the European Parliament
The President of the European Commission
The President of the European Council
The President of the European Parliament's Intergroup on the Welfare and Conservation of Animals
To all those of the European Union who experienced problems identifying the necessary and proportionate involvement in Member Country affairs: an event has now occurred which in its radicality, completely defines and clarifies these concerns.
For details regarding said event, please visit:
http://www.occupyforanimals.org/romania---on-the-greatest-animal-genocide-in-european-history-government-initiated-anarchy-violations-of-human-rights-and-children-rights.html
The Treaty of Lisbon identifies two conditions: that of 'proportionality' and 'subsidiarity'. Questions posed about these terms are currently awaiting a clarification response.
http://www.occupyforanimals.org/the-european-institutions-and-the-power-of-inaction.html
We offer to the European Commission the suggestion that the recent Romanian Law to slaughter all stray animals not only is inconsistent with EU animal welfare law but also is health affecting and introduces societal disturbance. Provision of a Duty of Care to protect mental health is also embraced within the Romanian Constitution. Therefore the current activity which has deleterious effects on mental health can be deemed 'unconstitution-intranationally'.
'Subsidiarity' carries the following guidelines:
It is suggested that the recent policies introduced in Romania causing enormous suffering to animals on a hitherto un-imagined scale, concomitant with the evidenced impact on children's health through exposure to such public aggression. Serious community diminishment of empathy and compassion. Emotions allied with enhanced aggression with EU sanctioned access to other EU countries where such standards are anathema. An introduced abuse of animals, that the Romanian Parliament defined as 'eradication' and the polarization of a society, some aggressing, some protecting, with six deaths already. Children's psychological heath is being affected on a national population scale!
This definitively DEMANDS the EU to introduce policies which are both humane and effective.These exist! They are embraced within EU Law. EU LAW is being mocked on a previous hitherto unseen scale.
ALL conditions of engagement under the 'subsidiarity' principle are hereby met! A mandate is set! The European Union MUST - according to its own constitution - intervene in Romania!
The President of the European Commission
The President of the European Council
The President of the European Parliament's Intergroup on the Welfare and Conservation of Animals
To all those of the European Union who experienced problems identifying the necessary and proportionate involvement in Member Country affairs: an event has now occurred which in its radicality, completely defines and clarifies these concerns.
For details regarding said event, please visit:
http://www.occupyforanimals.org/romania---on-the-greatest-animal-genocide-in-european-history-government-initiated-anarchy-violations-of-human-rights-and-children-rights.html
The Treaty of Lisbon identifies two conditions: that of 'proportionality' and 'subsidiarity'. Questions posed about these terms are currently awaiting a clarification response.
http://www.occupyforanimals.org/the-european-institutions-and-the-power-of-inaction.html
We offer to the European Commission the suggestion that the recent Romanian Law to slaughter all stray animals not only is inconsistent with EU animal welfare law but also is health affecting and introduces societal disturbance. Provision of a Duty of Care to protect mental health is also embraced within the Romanian Constitution. Therefore the current activity which has deleterious effects on mental health can be deemed 'unconstitution-intranationally'.
'Subsidiarity' carries the following guidelines:
- Does the action have transnational aspects that cannot be resolved by Member States? ·
- Would national action or an absence of action be contrary to the requirements of the Treaty?
- Does action at European level have clear advantages?
It is suggested that the recent policies introduced in Romania causing enormous suffering to animals on a hitherto un-imagined scale, concomitant with the evidenced impact on children's health through exposure to such public aggression. Serious community diminishment of empathy and compassion. Emotions allied with enhanced aggression with EU sanctioned access to other EU countries where such standards are anathema. An introduced abuse of animals, that the Romanian Parliament defined as 'eradication' and the polarization of a society, some aggressing, some protecting, with six deaths already. Children's psychological heath is being affected on a national population scale!
This definitively DEMANDS the EU to introduce policies which are both humane and effective.These exist! They are embraced within EU Law. EU LAW is being mocked on a previous hitherto unseen scale.
ALL conditions of engagement under the 'subsidiarity' principle are hereby met! A mandate is set! The European Union MUST - according to its own constitution - intervene in Romania!
4) The petition to have Madame Daciana Sarbu removed from her position
for more information, please see separate campaign
TO: The European Parliament's Intergroup on the Welfare and Conservation of Animals
Copy to:
The European Parliament
The European Commission
SUBJECT: Madame Daciana Sarbu's totally misinformed and erroneous statements self-declared her as being unfit for office as either a member of the Intergroup, let alone as Vice President and we would suggest you remove her from her position.
Dear Sir / Madam,
The sun is slowly setting on the public's respect for THE institution of Europe...
A horrified civilized world looks on as the country of Romania whose corrupt re-deployment of assigned public funds has consistently failed to introduce any humane strategy to control the homeless animal population such as has been achieved in every global civilized country.
The result is the legitimization of an 'eradication' policy which will result in the destruction of many hundreds of thousands of street animals. Destruction by traditional Romanian methods which include injection of substances, such as injecting with anti-freeze, battering with shovels, ADD TO LIST - like practiced in the past. Since the new "legislation", the following methods - although not acceptable in any other European country - are now totally legal and even encouraged, such as the use of carbon dioxide, carbon oxide, potassium chloride, nitrogen, electric shocks, penetrating captive gun.
This policy was rapidly implemented due to the EMOTIONAL response of the population because of the death of a child ALLEGEDLY caused by homeless animals.
The civilized world watched in horror as this draconian policy passed through the Romanian parliamentary system. Appeals were made to the EU.
BUT the major body of Europe, whilst disagreeing with the policy... could do NOTHING. But society demands a better response than.... NOTHING!
Not only did the two press releases from the Intergroup on the subject not impress or inspire anyone, but we listened in abject horror as a Vice-President of the European Parliament's Intergroup on the Welfare and Conservation of Animals, Daciana Sârbu, during a recent exchange during an Intergroup meeting from 12th of September, 2013, identifies to the world that she is totally misinformed about policies and events over which her position demands knowledge.
The public now questions the expertise of those who represent them in the European Arena. Questions are now asked about what is 'suitability for purpose' of these non-elected representatives? Madame Sarbu's delivery was profoundly unprofessionally uninformed. What qualifications does she have to command respect? In Romania there is an understanding that qualifications can be achieved by corrupt means. Was this the foundation of her acquiring such an elevated position?
There are also things that just do not go well together, like being a Vice President of the Intergroup, a co-initiator of the Written Declaration on Dog Population Management 0026/2011, the wife of Romania's Prime Minister Victor Ponta;
- and do NOTHING in her own country to promote and implement a humane management of the stray animals populations like she has so brightly described in the WD 0026/2011;
- and keep a very neutral position when her input is most needed. Her neutral position being probably inspired by the attitude of her husband who also, throughout the scandal caused by the 'slaughter law', kept a very neutral position and refrained from openly telling if he was in favor of the euthanasia of stray dogs, or against. It was only in the 13th hour, October 3, 2013 that Mr Ponta made an 'impressive' statement: "There are two phases before the euthanasia: the adoption phase and the sterilization and keeping the dogs in the shelters. I would like, if we consider ourselves a civilized country, to use more the first two. This is my message and my signal":
- and just stand by and watch as the tragedy is unfolding, bringing unnecessary suffering and death not only to animals but also to their protectors. In case you have missed it: three people have died so far and it's only beginning. One can only stand and watch now and wait while the death count gets higher! We are waiting for the day that we will read with deep sorrow that a Romanian child has died of Carbofuran ingestion, which - as you know best is banned in the EU - but widespread in Romania. Daily are the reports of dogs found poisoned with Carbofuran and there are many necropsy reports that confirm this.
In light of the surprisingly misinformed content of Madame Sarbu's speech from 12th of September, 2013, and her totally erroneous statements, as well as her continued absence from Intergroup involvement especially when a serious focus is placed on her country, we believe that Madame Sarbu is not fit for office as either a member of the Intergroup, let alone as Vice President and we would suggest you remove her from her position.
We, as the public who are represented, have challenged the ignorance within this exchange. And we would hope that you, who, of course, only want officials who exemplify the highest quality in seeking the best of interest for the animals and people of Europe, would agree with us that, after listening to her historic speech and reading our reflections, Madame Sarbu has no place in the Intergroup.
Madame Sarbu's speech as well as other interesting information is compiled on our website, at:
http://www.occupyforanimals.org/romania---daciana-sarbu-a-head-with-two-faces---one-face-smiling-at-the-death-bringers-the-other-face-smiling-at-the-protectors.html
We thank you, in advance, for the time taken to read our message and for taking the necessary steps regarding Madame Sarbu's unsuitability for office.
Yours,
[Signer's name]
Below our reflections regarding her delivery from 12th of September, 2013:
1) Sarbu critisizes the text sent by the Intergroup on Sept. 09, 2013
Why? She comes to that point later.
2) She says that: „4 year old child was killed by a dog in a public park at noon.“
This is misleading. The child was found dead on private land more than 1 km away from his caregiver who was in the park. Significant controversy surrounds this death with an emphasis on how a 4 year old child could traverse the rough land to arrive at the location of his death. It is know that paedophiles, drug addicts, and other shady figures, operate in this area.
3) „Following this death, unprecedented media hysteria was used to generate an emotive response from the population against street dogs. One day after the death, the President of Romania made a public statement saying we should kill all dogs and then there started a debate at the media with the people it was actually a very emotional debate - nobody cares about was is good to do or what is normal to do, it was just an emotional reaction.“
There was no consultation or consideration of effectiveness of the strategy to 'eradicate' all the street dogs. Significant manipulation of the media occurred, inciting popular opinion against the street dogs.
4) „...after all these facts the parliament discussed a law (...) which is almost similar to the law in Germany and France.“
Which facts? An ill explored, ill informed law was implemented based on an emotional reaction. No consultation took place, simply a President took 24 hours to announce HIS intention.
Regarding the Animal Welfare Law in Germany:
§ 17: Mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu drei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe wird bestraft, wer 1. ein Wirbeltier ohne vernünftigen Grund tötet oder 2. einem Wirbeltier a) aus Rohheit erhebliche Schmerzen oder Leiden oder b) länger anhaltende oder sich wiederholende erhebliche Schmerzen oder Leiden zufügt.
Germany only allows euthanizing animals if there is a good reason for euthanasia. That could be: un-curable illness, old animals that suffer from pain or very aggressive animals - which has to be seen from case to case and approved by the veterinary services.
Germany has a lot of stray cats and although a mandatory national castration program is discussed at the moment, there are regional funds for castration programs and a lot of cities and communities have already implemented their own mandatory castration programs.
How about France? Below the text taken from the French law regarding domestic animals, stray animals, and lost/found animals:
Il est interdit de laisser errer les animaux domestiques et de façon générale tout animal domestique quel qu’il soit, de les abandonner ou d’attirer des animaux errants avec de la nourriture.
La divagation des animaux peut occasionner des troubles importants de la tranquillité et de la sécurité publiques.
La fourrière:
Refuge - Les maires s’assurent de l’existence d’un service de fourrière, service public destiné à accueillir et à garder les animaux trouvés errants, au niveau communal ou intercommunal.
La fourrière accueille les animaux capturés et les garde pendant un délai franc de 8 jours ouvrés, au terme duquel, si l’animal n’est pas réclamé, il est considéré comme abandonné et devient la propriété de la fourrière. Il peut alors être cédé gratuitement à une association de protection des animaux qui dispose d’un refuge afin de permettre son adoption par un nouveau propriétaire. L’euthanasie ne peut intervenir que si l’animal est considéré par un vétérinaire comme non adoptable, dangereux, ou trop malade.
Un guide a été élaboré à l’attention des maires. Il a pour objectif de proposer une aide à la compréhension de la réglementation relative aux animaux errants ainsi qu’un appui pratique pour la mise en place et la gestion de fourrières destinées à l’accueil des chiens et chats errants sur les territoires communaux.
The French law says that, after 8 days in a public (communal) shelter, and if not claimed, the animal becomes the property of the French state and can be given without fee (for free) to a private shelter in order to facilitate his/her adoption.
Euthanasia of an animal can only be performed if a veterinarian determines that the animal is NOT adoptable, too sick, or aggressive.
5) „We should focus on observing what is happening in these shelters and how they will do the procedure.“
This has never been a practice in Romania. An enormous volume of evidence exists describing the inhumane conduct in the shelters. Please advise as to how this monitoring will take place?
AND we can tell Madame Sarbu (and the Intergroup) already now, how the euthanasia will be performed given that the new "legislation" has been modified and contains now the following mentions:
"The Veterinary College has introduced in the law, the fact that 'euthanasia' must be done in compliance with the 'Euthanasia Code' which was drafted and issued by the Veterinary College! Thus dogs may be “euthanized” now also using carbon dioxide, carbon oxide, potassium chloride, nitrogen, electric shocks, penetrating captive gun – which are all cruel methods non-acceptable in the EU!
The Sanitary Veterinary National Authority has excluded from the law, the right of the NGOs to assist at the 'euthanasia' of the dogs in the shelters!"
6) „We cannot do anything but respect the law and watch if everybody is doing their job correctly and that will not assist of mass killing of dogs in the streets which the general population is asking for.“
With some astonishing naivity, this expression ignores the fact that a 'Slaughter Law' would polarize a society with some aggressing and some defending the animals. People have died and will continue to do so. Because this is emotive in the public arena, animal deaths are occurring and will continue to occur in public places. Exposure to animal abuse impacts on children's health and IS within the competence of European Law.
7) „...60.000 stray dogs on the streets and this is not normal. 20 years we just spoke on what to do or not, a lot of money was spent but there are no results. Now the President is giving us advice what to do. He was mayor of Bucharest, he had a lot of money to manage the stray animals population and he did nothing“
This is: An intriguing admission of funds not being used for allocated purpose! This is suggestive of corrupt practices with no desire to create a succinct solution!
8) „Now it’s difficult politically and in the public to manage this in a normal way when everybody is saying to kill the dogs because watching a child dying on a normal day in a park is something terrible.“
Is it really the opinion of the population? In a democratic society, would not such a health and security affecting issue not invite an evaluation of public opinion?
9) „We should not choose between dogs and people... we should just manage this according to the law and ... in a normal way not emotional. So these are the facts. Of course my position is difficult being a member here so that's why I wanted to discuss before the letter because....“
Huh?
10) Regarding the letter sent by the Intergroup: „I wanted to be more strong on the reaction of the President of Romania, because he is the president of Romania and he cannot say: Let’s kill the dogs. This is wrong. This I wanted to condemn and be more stronger. This was wrong. The law I will send it to you ... But now with the law it’s almost the same as in France and Germany, of course there are counties that do not allow euthanasia, it’s the Parliament who decided so I don't think we can say something against it.“
Huh?
The speaker says: "What we are focused on in our criticism is the uncontrolled killing of dogs. We are concerned with the way it's happening...... If they want to solve the stray dog problem (a note from OFA: killing is no solution. Killing has proven to be ineffective all over the world), who are we to say that they cannot do it. BUT, of course, we can demand that is done in a humane way, a controlled way"
Demand without monitoring is futile, cosmetic and profoundly ineffective. How will response to these demands be assured? Would this monitoring also include an assurance that any deaths are not only conducted humanely but also NOT on the streets as the social polarization and alegiance divisiveness would appear to have promoted? Remote evidence of this could be invited to ensure that this slaughter is controlled within the public arena because of its impact on human health and security.
Sarbu doesn’t want a volunteer from Vier Pfoten to talk about the actual situation in Romania. She says the animal activists just want to solve the problem on the streets The volunteer makes clear that Sarbu is the wife of the Prime Minister of Romania so of course she has to defeat her parties votes.
Volunteer identifies that children suffer through seeing abuse on the streets. Did you know that Mme Sarbu?
After that Sarbu demands to invite some official representatives from a NGO next time this issue is discussed and the speeker says: "Well I hope that you know your colleagues very well that they know who they can talk to or not."
Sarbu should listen to all opinion from European people. She is a representative of the EU!
- Not only did they invite someone from an NGO but a representative who was far better informed than one of the Vice Presidents of the Intergroup. Two minutes allocated and deliberately eroded by Sarbu!
Thank you!
On the position of the Romanian Orthodox Church
According to an article published in the Romanian media on 20th of September, 2013, Daniel, Patriarch of the Romanian Orthodox Church, stated that:
"One man alone is worth more than the whole material universe. Galaxies are not worth a man's soul, because only man was created in the image of the ever living God, only he was called to love, and for eternal happiness in communion with God" at the end of the Divine Liturgy at the Patriarchal Cathedral on the day of the Virgin Birth.
"We pray to the Virgin to bring peace to families, peace to people, peace between peoples and to protect families and children who are often exposed to all forms of violence - the newest violence coming from stray dogs. There is great need to appreciate the value of the human person" said Patriarch Daniel.
"One man alone is worth more than the whole material universe. Galaxies are not worth a man's soul, because only man was created in the image of the ever living God, only he was called to love, and for eternal happiness in communion with God" at the end of the Divine Liturgy at the Patriarchal Cathedral on the day of the Virgin Birth.
"We pray to the Virgin to bring peace to families, peace to people, peace between peoples and to protect families and children who are often exposed to all forms of violence - the newest violence coming from stray dogs. There is great need to appreciate the value of the human person" said Patriarch Daniel.
The petition
TO:
Daniel, Patriarch of the Romanian Orthodox Church
It was with great sadness that we have learned that You, together with many of your priests, would approve the killing of all of Romania's homeless dog, who we believe are God's creation, too...
And in this context we would like to remind you of the words of Romanian Eastern Orthodox priest, theologian, academic, and professor, Father Dimitru Stăniloae:
Daniel, Patriarch of the Romanian Orthodox Church
It was with great sadness that we have learned that You, together with many of your priests, would approve the killing of all of Romania's homeless dog, who we believe are God's creation, too...
And in this context we would like to remind you of the words of Romanian Eastern Orthodox priest, theologian, academic, and professor, Father Dimitru Stăniloae:
"(The saint's) consideration extends even to animals and to things, because in every
creature he sees a gift of God's love, and does not wish to wound that love by
treating His gifts with negligence or indifference."
-- Fr Dimitru Staniloae
creature he sees a gift of God's love, and does not wish to wound that love by
treating His gifts with negligence or indifference."
-- Fr Dimitru Staniloae
We stand as fellow human beings bound together by a shared compassion and sense of justice - of such are made the building blocks of civilization - and the 25th of September, 2013 - the day your Constitutional Court voted for the 'slaughter law' - was one of those rare moments in history where species separation was determined by the abuse of power of a handful of individuals.
Species separation has been historically determined by Man. From the religious concept of 'soul' through Immanuel Kant's 'autonomous abilities'. But when the definition seeking is over and all the books are closed, differentiation melts into the loving warmth expressed between a child and his companion, between those who are lonely and their best friend and the family of five who know that really they are six.
By giving your support for the mass-eradication of many hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions of innocent creatures, you have not only betrayed the dogs, but also your very own God, who created them.
By giving your support for their mass-eradication you have not only become complicit in the suffering and ultimately the horrible death that these innocent creatures now have to face; you are also co-responsible for the death of at least three people, so far.
This "legislation" has polarized Romania's society and made it dangerously divisive. It had to be expected that millions of animal lovers would seek to protect their own animals or the animals they 'protect' on the streets. Millions! It had to be expected that half a country would seek to defend and protect and the other half would seek to aggress.
Three people have died so far. And it's only the beginning. One can only stand and watch now and wait while the death count gets higher!
Death is all around. It can be seen everywhere. It is palpable. But there is a hidden death. Invisible but deeper. Children born with natural regard and compassion for living creatures are exposed to these horrors. To protect themselves from emotional pain of seeing such abuse, they desensitize to them. They shut off their feelings of empathy and compassion. Once lost... never regained.
A society exists now where regard for others is being washed away by the grotesque visions seen on the streets and the inadequacies and irresponsibilities of a government and the Orthodox Church who preside over a new kind of theft, much more obscene. The theft of children's innocence and ability to care! Ability to exercise compassion and empathy. Humanity lies weeping in the corner at such a betrayal of trust!
There is now a massive body of research being introduced into Eastern Europe with a program called 'Making the Link', which is a major collaboration of international organisations, academics and world leading experts in THE LINK between exposure to animal abuse and the resulting effect on children's psychological health and development.
The 'Making the Link' Study and Project Group claims that one of the effects of children being exposed to animal abuse is that the children begin to desensitize to protect their emotions. For the child who daily sees such abuse... such atrocities, the human mind invokes a clever self-protection mechanism. It progressively desensitizes to the stimuli which cause so much emotional pain. It switches off to the horror!
And, unfortunately, one of the effects of this desensitization is that they begin to lose the ability to be empathic to both animals and people. This is nature's protection process.
But if a person can not now be empathic, how can they exhibit the central requirement of ALL religions? How can they find God?
What has been taken from them by the irresponsibility of your government?
Maybe you did not know this before, but you know now. And we are sure that you would not also want to be complicit and co-responsible in exposing innocent children to uncontrolled animal abuse and which will inevitably affect their psychological health, their ability to experience and express compassion and empathy and consequently their ability to access their spirituality - and THIS in addition to your co-responsibility in the murder of all these innocent creatures of God (the dogs) and the deaths of those people who have already died and those to come.
At the end of the Divine Liturgy at the Patriarchal Cathedral on the day of the Virgin Birth, you've said:
"We pray to the Virgin to bring peace to families, peace to people, peace between peoples and to protect families and children who are often exposed to all forms of violence - the newest violence coming from stray dogs. There is great need to appreciate the value of the human person"
One would suggest that the Patriarch and leaders of the Orthodox Church may wish to reconsider who is the violent part, and to re-appraise for their support of the new 'Slaughter Law' now that you know that it exposes children to abuse and violence which can inhibit their ability to access their spirituality and which has already brought death to three people and deep sorrow to their families.
Yours,
[signer's name]
After months of misleading reports by European
and world wide media,
finally some start to report the truth
An excellent video report was shown on Austrian television station ORF. Please click on the next picture to watch said report.
Click on the picture to read the article in Finnish
|
Click on the picture to watch the video report
|