What's Up?: Calgary's Disgraceful Abuse of Animal Owners via Legislations, and I won't support the NAIA

To: dog_anti-rescue_anti-peta_new@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 11:13 AM

Subject: Re: dog_anti-rescue_anti-peta_new I won't support the NAIA

I can go round and round about this forever. If you read Wayne Dyer's "Pulling Your Own Strings" it might help to understand the mistakes that were made here. I get the impression that Patti Strand things that making ourselves look better to the AR people will help our problems and that stringent legal controls are necessary. I would think that she would be the person who understood that we can't give them anything at all and that a strict regime like the Calgary regime would set us up to be run ragged. It's bad enough when a human is running it.

Calgary's laws may have driven more people away from owning dogs than there are left. This means both oppression and a tremendous shrinking of our numbers as a reaction to animal rights activism. Those who are out will be more likely to be bitter. They are likely to join in what, after all, seems to be what animal owners are like, so they will help harry the animal owners who are left. This will direct the energy with which we might have fought for our rights into persecuting ourselves, into getting animal owners to do an unfair penance. It will still be an "if you want your right to own animals you will have to do things our way and suffer when we want you to suffer" kind of thing. Freedom is not only not part of this occasion, it is heavily militated against.

This kind of thing is pretty typical of people who have been persecuted. If they give their persecutors any sort of credit for being right about anything, then the least indication that they are right about something becomes a mandate for us to follow their orders, even if we do it while denying that we follow their orders. This is a good definition of "drinking the koolaid." It even seems like a logical process of taking in the poison on purpose so that we can process it on our own terms. Rotsa ruck. Even if I live the rest of my life I'm not going to live long enough to see a satisfactory end to this. It just reboots the cycle.

What is the positive contribution that Strand wants to make, how does she want to implement it, and how does Calgary fit into this in any way, shape, or form?

Fighting the animal rights threat is a trap. This is why they use violence, to get us to fight. The fight distracts us from developing a truly compassionate ideology and it hardens us against each other. Few judges would have ever falsely convicted people of abuse if they could see the compassionate side and the fact that even a lot o the "substandard" work fed and sheltered a lot of perfectly health animals. That is a fact that often leaks through into the papers, that alleged abusers have nice healthy animals, which means that if our ideology rewarded good care of animals, there would be credit to weigh against the debit. The way that it's being run now they don't give credit that people have earned so the results are inevitable, even if false to life.

Know your rights. They don't. My blog: www.animalculture.org

__._,_.___

Messages in this topic (12) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

Messages

Mandatory spay and neuter means pets must grow old and die without replacements. No more babies, no more pets in our homes. Stop it before it's nationwide. Sterile animals cannot replenish themselves. It's the "facts" of life.