by MPD
Categories: Animals.
Photo: hsus.org

Bad news for reasonable Canadians everywhere — your Parliament is acting a damn fool!

News recently broke that The Canadian Parliament’s restaurant will serve seal meat this week in support of hunters battling a European Union ban on seal products — a vote that passed last year with an overwhelming majority.

Specifically, the ban includes “processed goods derived from seals, including their skins – which are used to make coats, bags and clothing – as well as meat, oil blubber, organs and seal oil.”  About the decision, Senator Celine Hervieux-Payette said:

“All political parties will have the opportunity to demonstrate to the international community the solidarity of the Canadian Parliament behind those who earn a living from the seal hunt.”

That’s quite a loaded statement. Firstly, it’s important to note that seal hunting is an off-season activity that only produces a very small fraction of a fisherman’s income. In fact, the skin of a seal pup is only worth $33 at top price. Secondly, many believe that if the Canadian government invested in ecotourism instead of the hunt, they could see higher profits without brutality.

Canada has requested to meet with the EU at the World Trade Organization to discuss negotiating the legislation, but we’re pretty sure they’re going to be left in the cold.

To learn more about why seal hunting is absolutely never okay, visit HSUS.org!

  • Chastity

    I’m Canadian and I’m disgusted by this. However, I’m always going to say the following:

    ALL animals deserve to live in freedom. They do not deserve to be human ends.

  • Ariel

    Ugh I am Canadian and am disgusted as well.

  • spiderwoman

    disgusting savages without heart and culture – only crime!

  • Hufingraz

    I am from Eastern Canada and I know all too well how these savages think. Our government makes me sick! We have a bunch of incompetent fools running things.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=566480478 erin

    I’m not Canadian (but love them ;) except the fools who are in power doing this.. What a shame. I’m sure they’d feel differently if someone clubbed them to near death (like seals- except they die) and they’d change their mind on the issue.

    E

  • richard fisher

    im both a meat eater and a newfoundlander… that seal hunting province on the east coast. i’ve never had a taste for seal meat, though i’ve tried it, and don’t have any particular affinity for the seal hunt. i would like to point out though that while this is a story about stupid politicking… it illustrates that people do eat the meat from seals… and that it’s not left to rot on the ice as sea sheppherd and greenpeace claim.

    sea shepherd and greenpeace constatntly call it a conservation issue… and it’s not… it’s a moral one. baby seals aren’t killed… because in two years when they’re adults… they’re worth more. seal clubbing is a thing of the past… seals die by bullet which is far more humane than the way chickens are treated. and finally… baby seals for one reason… because the saline in their tears keeps their eyeballs from freezing.

    if you don’t support sealing… thats perfectly fine… but ask yourself if you’re against it for the right reasons. and there are plenty of right reasons. seals are cute is not one of them.

    • http://blog.babyganics.com Evan

      I understand your logic when you say that the people only care for these baby seals because they’re “cute”. I guess the real problem here is overhunting.

      • richard fisher

        but thats the point… there is no over-hunting… the herd size is actually massive… and the numbers killed are quite easily sustainable.

        if someone was opposed to the killing of all animals… and that was the basis for standing against the hunt… i respect that… uniformity of one’s beliefs… i totally get that… but thats not what happens for the most part.

        paul watson is a great example… the man outright lies about the seal hunt to gain support… which i dont respect at all… but he’s a vegan… and if he said “i oppose this because i dont believe in consuming animals in any way shape or form” i’d totally respect that… because it is at the very least honest. hell… there are interviews with watson during the 80s when he says that the reason greenpeace targeted the seal hunt is because they’re cute… and cute makes money… he stated emphatically back then that seal hunting is not a conservation issue. it was an emotional one that elicited donations. and now… he rails just as hard as greenpeace did… and rakes in donations.

        the problem with the seal hunt is because the reality of 20 years ago… is the sales tool of today. and if you’ll notice… peta is the only organization i dont rail against here… the reason being because they have a solid track record on believing that killing any animal is wrong… and have held that line for years… they state that as their motivation… and while they rely on old information… they state clearly that their moral opposition is just that… a moral one.

    • Chastity

      To fight against the seal hunt because “seals are cute” would be speciesist. As for me, I never saw it as overhunting–I saw it as a one of the many symptoms of speciesism. The exploitation of nonhuman animals is never acceptable no matter where you live or what your culture is. This twisted concept of “humane” was created by individuals and industries who are profiting or at the very least, benefitting, from the usage of nonhuman animals. There are many ways of producing income without involving them.

      However, there are also ways of being an animal advocate without giving or asking for money. Going vegan. Vegan education. Fighting for the removal of the property status.

      • richard fisher

        while i dont have the same world view as you… i cant help but respect your position. people dont need their heart strings tugged… they need real information to make informed decisions.

        when you play it on pure emotion without any fact… you’re joining the club of the likes of glenn beck and bill o’reilly… and really… who wants to be in that club.

      • Chastity

        But it IS an emotional issue. Our lack of emotion is what brought us to be speciesist in the first place. Don’t take my words out of context but do you know how offensive it would be if someone were to say “show me facts that Africans are worthy of respect”? The enslavement of the African people was a very profitable venture. Did we need science to prove that they were worthy of freedom? No because it’s an ethics issue. Ethics trump all.

        We need science to prove that the human body can do without flesh and bodily fluids. It has been proven. We need science to prove that nonhuman animal exploitation is detrimental to the environment which has also been proven. However, we don’t need facts, reason and science to prove that we need to leave nonhuman animals alone.

        I haven’t followed Bill O’Reilly but Glenn Beck is shrill and lacks intelligence. I get the impression that he just wants to rant and has nothing valid to bring to the table.

      • Chastity

        Another thing: it’s common sense that humans have been causing the surplus and the extinction of nonhuman animals. Yes, I know extinction is a natural thing but it’s not natural at the hands of human beings. If we had left nonhumans alone from the beginning of history, we wouldn’t be running around in circles trying to solve population issues.

      • ddpalmer

        No we would be running around wearing leaves with no technology beyond the pointed stick.

      • http://vegan--japan.blogspot.com/ herwin

        chastity, your whole world view of having just two categories for all the living beings on this planet, one you call “human animals” and the other the erm, “non human animals” is a very speciesist world view. the only correct categorizing is the plain biological one, in which “human beings” are classified in the animal kingdom, together and at the same level with all the other millions of animals.

        DD Palmer, humans evolved around farming communities by discovering, cultivating and living of plants such as rice and grain. Farming communities promoted working together and because of a steady food supply farming communties could develop into towns.
        btw, still waiting for some valid scientific articles about whales that comes from lethally conducted whale , erm, “research”. dont slip up here, buddy, you might loose your job as a forum wrecker for the whalers..

      • ddpalmer

        I already answered your research request herwin. You have made it clear that there is nothing that you will accept, you will just keep moving the goal posts. The Japanese say they are doing research and that is actually all that Article VIII requires.

        And it is kind of hard to lose a job that I never had.

        Humans domesticated animals before farming ever existed. And farming was limited when only human power was available. Domestication of more species allowed more area to be farmed more efficiently and provided a steady source of meat. This allowed two things, specialization where not everyone had to be involved in finding/producing enough food to survive and more free time. These both lead to advancements in technology which lead to more specialization, fewer people needed to supply food and more free time. It was a big feedback loop that lead to modern civilization.

        With no domesticated animals human advancement would have stopped or been very much slower than it has been.

      • http://vegan--japan.blogspot.com/ herwin

        PPD, you didnt answer my request, you simply copied and pasted a truckload of bs articles on the forum, for me to short out. and i already did comment on many of these articles. instead of mindles copying and pasting, carefully choose some articles to make your point.

        “Domestication of more species allowed more area to be farmed more efficiently and provided a steady source of meat”
        i am sorry, but i dont follow this logic. why should the domestication of more animals lead to more efficient farming ? if you mean buffaloes that helped with farming than i agree with you.
        and i would think that more farming would lead to more vegetable resources like grains, potatoes and rice, all staple foods that are the foundation of todays modern civilization.
        i dont follow your twist of thinking that “meat: gave us more time, i rather would argue that it is agriculture that gives power to few people to produce enormous amounts of foods so other people can have free time to develop other skills and develop society.
        btw, you are paid to harass us at the whaling topics, what are you doing here ?

  • Chastity

    herwin, it’s not speciesist because it acknowledges that humans are animals. I don’t know if you’re trying to corner me or are trying to raise a valid concern but I’ll address it nonetheless.

    The sentence “human and nonhuman animals” insinuates that human beings are another species of animals. Notice the lack of “s” at the end of “human”? (out of sheer habit I add the ‘s’, although technically I shouldn’t) It’s more speciesist (and politically incorrect) to simply say “animal(s)” because we remove ourselves from them and suggest that we are different. We are of a different species but we are not different beings. By classifying ourselves into two categories “humans”, “animals” suggests the subordination of nonhuman animals. For instance, plants can be called plants because we are not the same beings. They have clinical terms but there is no need for politically correct terms. If I were to take the example of Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement (don’t take my words out of context), a politically correct way of referring to black people (I’m even cringing as I’m saying “black people”) would be “nonwhites”. Just because I refer to them as nonwhites, it doesn’t mean that I am racist and insinuating that white skinned individuals are superior.

  • http://vegan--japan.blogspot.com/ herwin

    you cry when you say black ? you sensitive soul…

    its speciesism nicely political-correctly wrapped up, despite your fancy words.
    you classify (and thus seperate) all living beings into two categories, that by itself is speciecism. the biological way already classifies humans into the animal kingdom together with the White Crested Whobbler, The Yellow Eyed Mosquito, and the BonoBono Chimpansee.
    The biological way of classifying isnt speciesist so there is no need for your er, interesting use of words that makes US animal rights activists and vegans look like WACKO’s to ordinary people.

    Black people are black people. Calling them Non Whites is just stupid. The word “Non Whites” only has meaning because there are “Whites”. Non Whites can include indian people asian people, african people, Non Whites refers to anybody else that is not white thus its the old “we” and “us” seperation.

  • Chastity

    herwin, I didn’t even bother reading whatever tripe you just wrote but if you want more information, google The Abolitionist Approach and Unpopular Vegan Essays.