Daciana Sarbu:
'A Head with Two Faces' 
One face smiling at the death-bringers, the other face smiling at the protectors!

October 3, 2013 - 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. 

Society demands a better response than.... NOTHING! But we have a body whose function is to assist with the erosion of the word NOTHING. 

But we listen 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, identifies to the world that she is totally misinformed about policies and events over which her position demands knowledge. 

This to be compounded because of political interest with her association as wife of one who had, 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. After the 'slaughter law' became "legislation", the PSD leader made it clear that he "does not want to live in a country where homeless dogs are being slaughtered". This statement came a bit too late, in our opinion... But now, as Romania's Prime Minister, he will HAVE to live in such a country, together with all the other good people, the animal protectors, and all those innocent children who would not want to live in such a country either. But who cares?

May we, as the public who are represented, challenge the ignorance within this exchange...

Daciana Sârbu unprofessionally, compared the new law in Romania to those in Germany and France. Not so de facto! Romania will kill dogs, healthy or not. This is NOT a policy in a civilized society. 

The order of magnitude? Hundreds of thousands will die in Romania. This is without precedent in ANY developed society. 

Madame Sarbu critically alludes to emotions driving reactions when indeed the policy of legitimized mass slaughter in her country was emotionally driven. 

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? Does this not also demand further investigation of the root element, so apparently readily accepted by European Institutions, challenge the validity of qualifications of the significant Romanian officials? There are suggestions that this too is consistent with a profoundly corrupt society. 

The sun is setting on the day of trusting these individuals and authorities BUT a new day is dawning and the light from this new day is shining directly onto the inadequacies, ineptitudes and practices of those individuals and authorities who should be reflecting realities and advancing change and not posturing and presenting ill-informed defences of a policy which has created a shiver of abhorrence throughout the civilized world.



"Deal with your country problems and don't bother me again.
Leave the third world to us"

Daciana Sârbu, who is married to Victor Ponta --- who was proven to have lied about a master's degree and to have plagiarised much of his doctoral thesis (the accusation came from the camp of President Băsescu, who seems oddly unaware that himself exaggerated his own daughter academic credentials in 2009 when defending her nomination for a place in the European Parliament) --- had little on her curriculum vitae when she entered politics, but immediately became an adviser to the Năstase government – in which her father served as a minister. She is now a member of the European Parliament, and a Vice-President of the European Parliament's Intergroup on the Welfare and Conservation of Animals, and co-initiator of the Written Declaration on Dog Population Management 0026/2011 – one of the best-paid jobs possible for a Romanian politician.

The wife of the Prime Minister of Romania, the country which exhibits horrendous abuse of any humane animal rights and which has recently introduced the most draconian stray animal solution ever introduced, occasionally, albeit infrequently, travels to become her alter ego as a Vice President of the European Parliament's Intergroup on the Welfare and Conversation of Animals, where she is permitted to represent those millions of European citizens who seek humanity, justice and security for all. 
An ill-recognized connection exists between animal and people. This connection is seamless with animal abuse impacting with severity on the human domain. Her recent speech astonished and dismayed many at her apparent ignorance about many facts which should be known to anyone in her position. 

Or perhaps the requirement for her to fulfill two positions diametrically opposite, her speech was politically laden? 

We would suggest that this position is untenable!


Please listen to Madame Sarbu's historic speech, which she had given at the Intergroup-meeting from 12th of September, 2013, below.


With our petition from 27th of September, 2013, we, Occupy for Animals, had asked the following questions to the Intergroup:

"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. 

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?"


Below the "adverse details" that we had
promised to present...



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 known 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 was sent because....“

Huh?

10) Regarding the letter sent by the Intergroup: „I wanted to do more strong on the President of Romania reaction, 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 countries 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, 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 party's 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 speaker 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 opinions from European people. She is a representative of the EU!

AND: 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!



The Petition
to have Madame Sarbu removed from office



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!




Please SIGN OFA's petition to ALL EU-Bodies!


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 The Animals 

By signing our petition at:
► ► https://www.change.org/petitions/european-union-please-take-action-regarding-romania-a-european-country-challenging-europe

the following message will instantly be sent to the above mentioned addressees:

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 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 Lazaroiu, 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. 

And that: 

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."

and that: 

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. 

QUESTIONS: 

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!

[signer's name]