Ottawa Citizen
Eugene Lapointe . Human against human
Eugene Lapointe, Citizen Special
Thursday, February 28, 2008



http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=f8bc1b81-491d-4b23-9ec7-e313436bdb47

Have you noticed that developed countries are suddenly taking
aggressive steps to enforce animal rights? After years of campaigning,
vegetarian activists are now succeeding in getting developed nations
to champion their causes. But instead of the direct campaigns of the
past, they have turned to setting nations against each other.

This has nothing to do with quiet diplomacy. Animal rights groups have
created a dangerous new trend in foreign policy that would have been
inconceivable only a few years ago.

Canadians are victims of this new tactic and they are rightly upset.
Our harp seals are clearly capable of sustaining current harvests and
plenty of Europeans want to buy fur coats. Unfortunately, a fringe
political movement that says there is never any justification for
killing animals is sabotaging this win-win situation. As a result,
Europeans are poised to raise our hackles by banning seal product
imports on the most spurious of grounds.

When did this mantra become mainstream? The answer is that it isn't.
But enough politicians who should know better have been seduced by the
political payoff that comes from exporting environmentalism. That is
to say, domestic animal hunting is OK but any carried out by
foreigners presents a global problem that has to be forcefully
confronted.

And the animal rights groups, most of which originate in the United
States, are opening offices in all regions of the globe where they
become local lobbyists for activist foreign policies. The seal issue
is nominally between Canada and the European Union, but the animal
rights group that is orchestrating the battle is based in Washington,
D.C.

Not only are Europeans now blindly charging down a path set before
them by animal rightists, they are setting themselves up for a fall.
The activists know that once they have established the principle that
hunting animals is wrong for foreigners, they can exert greater
influence on domestic animal welfare policies.

And it is not just the Europeans. Take a look at Australia, which has
just sent out a coast guard vessel to monitor Japanese ships lawfully
carrying out research whaling in international waters. This "in your
face" Greenpeace-style brinkmanship was demanded by the same American
group that is orchestrating the seal campaign against Canada.

Other green activists have gone so far as to shun their pacifist
ancestry and, without any sense of irony, have actually urged that
naval frigates be deployed to stop Japanese whale hunting.

The repercussions are already coming in Australia with the launching
of campaigns against the culling of millions of kangaroos and the
export of four million live cattle to the Middle East. How can we
complain about the Japanese, they ask, while allowing such inhumanity
to emanate from our own shores?

Others question why a nation would send a government ship to
photograph the lawful killing of less than 1,000 abundant minke whales
while taking no steps against, for example, the genocide in Darfur or
other human rights abuses in other countries. Are the lives of
abundant whales more valuable to Australians than fellow human beings?
Or are there just more votes in bashing whale hunting?

So what will be next for the environmental crusaders? Will U.S.
warships be dispatched into Canadian waters to protect polar bears?
Will European storm troopers be sent to close down Australian
coal-fired power stations to reduce emissions from the world's biggest
per capita emitter?

With a whole series of international treaties and conventions already
managing wildlife and development issues, together with extensive
domestic laws, there is no justification for extreme measures to be
even considered.

Politicians overseas would be wise to take a long hard look at the
goals of animal rightists before throwing rocks over here. And they
need to think carefully about where their confrontational
environmentalism might lead before so readily embracing it.