Are Animal rights less important than human rights asks Ian Dunt at politics.co.uk

The debate over animal welfare is misguided. Where human need clashes with animal rights, humans must take precedence.

By Ian Dunt

This week MEPs in the European parliament voted to allow the continued slaughter of animals under Muslim and Jewish practises – called halal and shechita respectively.

There is an animal welfare argument in all this. Religious commentators say the more traditional techniques used by their respective faith are actually more humane than the mass-production methods used across Britain. Animal rights activists cite the lack of a stun gun in the process, which instantly makes the animal unconscious before slaughter.

Both these stances leave me distinctly unmoved. I remain entirely indifferent to the suffering of animals as a political issue. That's not to advocate cruelty. I would, of course, like all animals to be killed as humanely as scientifically possible. They should never undergo any further suffering than that necessary to support human needs. But when it comes to weighing animal rights and human needs, there's no contest.

There is a certain cruelty in many animal rights activists – and their sympathisers – who value animal life to the point where they, consciously or subconsciously, rate it over humans.

via politics.co.uk

Click on link to read article.

MY COMMENT: If we made a good job of teaching what it is to be fully and positively human the care of animals would rise massively.

Posted via web from sunwalking's posterous