The spotlights have been switched on and are now shining brightly into
the bedrooms of the EU and our EU-Sleeping Beauty has already opened her eyes.
But when will she get up, at last?
Introduction
March 3, 2014 - 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.
On 25th September, 2013 Constitutional Court judge Petre Lăzăroiu, 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"! Go figure!
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.
Not only would this policy, bring infamy to Romanian authorities and by association, with Romania, apparently ill considered is 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 assuring a constant supply of dogs seems to be a desirable condition in Romania. Resolving the stray animals issue would leave all those who make big money from it (including mayors and other politicians with a far too cosy relationship with local businessmen) without their huge profits and that is why a massive, country-wide sterilization campaign that would include ALL owned dogs, has never even been suggested. Without the sterilization of ALL owned dogs, Romania's 'eradication program' - just like all other previous 'catch & kill', or 'catch & incarcerate & starve to death' policies - will be a futile, very expensive but totally ineffective policy, given that it addresses the effect but NOT the cause.
The EU-Commission, along with the Parliament and the Council, are aware of the continued failure of the Romanian government to find a sustainable and humane solution to the problem of surplus dogs in Romania. The utmost cruelty practiced on a daily basis in various parts of Romania in the name of “euthanasia” of dogs is in flagrant breach of European values and of a number of international obligations binding on Romania.
The inability of the EU Commission, so far, to come up with a credible solution has caused citizens of many EU countries to question the entire justification of the existing EU legal framework. In particular, it goes beyond the limits of imagination of a growing number of EU citizens that Romania, a country receiving millions of euros of financial assistance from other EU countries every year is, at the same time, “entitled” to completely disregard a set of European values. Such values are enshrined in Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”), acknowledging animals as sentient beings.
By now, it is clear that Romania, an EU Member State, remains unable to solve – in a sustainable and humane fashion – an issue that has been successfully solved in a number of less developed countries.
The competence
The letter demonstrates clearly that the European Commission has the legal competence – and a legal duty - to intervene.
According to independent legal research, the EU Commission has legal competence to intervene in the ongoing cruelties directed at Romania’s surplus dog population. The legal competence is not based on animal welfare (ARTICLE 13) ALONE, but IN PARTICULAR ON public health (ARTICLE 168).
Romania’s rabies eradication program is co-financed by the EU. The “control of the population of dogs” was explicitly listed among the measures agreed to be implemented under the program. In fact, in Romania, Article 1 of the recently-adopted Methodological Norms (enabling the culling of the dogs in practice) clarifies as follows:
“The purpose of the present norms is to reduce the number of stray dogs,…, to reduce the occurrence of rabies and other zoonoses, to reduce the risk to human health”.
The Methodological Norms (the killing norms) were adopted to fight rabies and protect human health, and killing is NOW taking place across the country. Often this is death by grotesque means. Encouraged by governmental exhortation, this is being enacted in the streets, in shelters, in the fields and in the woodlands.
And that YOUR money is supporting this! YOUR money!
The EU have the power to freeze this funding until a humanely compliant strategy is adopted. But will they?
Your voice can decide! Your voice can be heard in the Hallowed Halls of the EU where elections are due in May!
Your voice can ask: "Which of these helpless creatures did MY money kill today? MY money! In MY Europe!"
Please join the 211 European organizations that co-signed the letter by signing the ECT-petition today.
The burden proof
The burden of proof is on the Commission when it claims that EU funds granted to Romania under other programs are not being used, directly or indirectly, to fund Romania’s large-scale dog management business, enriching private businessmen operating as contractors to local administrations.
This applies notably to the Regional Operational Program, as co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund. Under the Regional Operational Program alone, as co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund, the amount of 3,7 billion euros have been granted to Romania during the period 2007-2013. The total amount invested by the EU into Romania under Cohesion Policy 2007 – 2013 is understood to be approximately 20 billion euros.
To date, the Commission has stated that it is “not aware of misuse of EU funds in relation to the killing of dogs in Romania”. The Commission has also stated that “according to the information received from the managing authority of the 2007-2013 regional program, none of the projects selected for financing include specific objectives related to stray dogs”.
BUT, in view of the millions of euros of public funds that the local authorities in Romania are spending on the Catch & Kill program, how does the Commission explain the origins of the funds?
What measures has the Commission taken in order to ascertain that EU funds granted to local administrations are not, directly or indirectly, being used for dog-related purposes under the pretext of, for instance, enhancing public health, public safety, tourism or employment?
The company names of the private businessmen enriching themselves while operating as contractors to local administrations do not necessarily refer to dogs at all, but often tend to refer to generic consulting services instead. Therefore, the ECT, representing the 211 European organisations who co-signed the letter, urge the Commission to clarify whether (and on which grounds) the Commission continues to exclude the possibility that EU funds may, directly or indirectly, be used to finance the multi-million euro “Catch & Kill” dog management business in Romania.
This applies notably to the Regional Operational Program, as co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund. Under the Regional Operational Program alone, as co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund, the amount of 3,7 billion euros have been granted to Romania during the period 2007-2013. The total amount invested by the EU into Romania under Cohesion Policy 2007 – 2013 is understood to be approximately 20 billion euros.
To date, the Commission has stated that it is “not aware of misuse of EU funds in relation to the killing of dogs in Romania”. The Commission has also stated that “according to the information received from the managing authority of the 2007-2013 regional program, none of the projects selected for financing include specific objectives related to stray dogs”.
BUT, in view of the millions of euros of public funds that the local authorities in Romania are spending on the Catch & Kill program, how does the Commission explain the origins of the funds?
What measures has the Commission taken in order to ascertain that EU funds granted to local administrations are not, directly or indirectly, being used for dog-related purposes under the pretext of, for instance, enhancing public health, public safety, tourism or employment?
The company names of the private businessmen enriching themselves while operating as contractors to local administrations do not necessarily refer to dogs at all, but often tend to refer to generic consulting services instead. Therefore, the ECT, representing the 211 European organisations who co-signed the letter, urge the Commission to clarify whether (and on which grounds) the Commission continues to exclude the possibility that EU funds may, directly or indirectly, be used to finance the multi-million euro “Catch & Kill” dog management business in Romania.
...and the silence
Not only has the Commission not yet responded to the 211 European organisations that have co-signed the ECT-letter, the Commission has also - to date - not yet answered the parliamentary questions that different MEPs have formulated in response to the European Communication Team's letter.
Luxembourgian MEP, Claude Turmes (Dèi Grèng) who appeared on national Luxembourgian TV RTL, in an excellent video-report made by RTL-reporter, Violetta Calderelli, agreed with the European Communications Team's claim that the Romanian stray animal eradication program falls under EU-competence, but that it cannot be that the millions of EU-funds that Romania receives each year to eradicate rabies, would be used to fund such an inhumane and ineffective stray animal population strategy. Mr Turmes agreed also, that the Commission should freeze this funding until Romania enacts a humane, cost-effective stray animal control strategy in accordance with international best practice.
MEP Claude Turmes further said that he had written to the Romanian ambassador in Luxembourg concerning the cruel treatment of dogs in Romania, but that the ambassador had, until then, not yet responded. On 11th of February, 2014, Mr Turmes has also formulated a parliamentary question to the Commission, which at to date still remains unanswered.
Please click on the picture below to watch the report made by Luxembourgian TV-station RTL, featuring MEP Claude Turmes, Pia Berrend, founder and campaign manager at Occupy for Animals and member of the European Communications Team, and Myriam Englaro, a Luxembourgian animal rights activist.
Luxembourgian MEP, Claude Turmes (Dèi Grèng) who appeared on national Luxembourgian TV RTL, in an excellent video-report made by RTL-reporter, Violetta Calderelli, agreed with the European Communications Team's claim that the Romanian stray animal eradication program falls under EU-competence, but that it cannot be that the millions of EU-funds that Romania receives each year to eradicate rabies, would be used to fund such an inhumane and ineffective stray animal population strategy. Mr Turmes agreed also, that the Commission should freeze this funding until Romania enacts a humane, cost-effective stray animal control strategy in accordance with international best practice.
MEP Claude Turmes further said that he had written to the Romanian ambassador in Luxembourg concerning the cruel treatment of dogs in Romania, but that the ambassador had, until then, not yet responded. On 11th of February, 2014, Mr Turmes has also formulated a parliamentary question to the Commission, which at to date still remains unanswered.
Please click on the picture below to watch the report made by Luxembourgian TV-station RTL, featuring MEP Claude Turmes, Pia Berrend, founder and campaign manager at Occupy for Animals and member of the European Communications Team, and Myriam Englaro, a Luxembourgian animal rights activist.
Parliamentary questions have also been asked by Finnish MEP Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE) on 11th of February, 2014. They, too, remain without response till to date.
The asked questions are:
1. Does the Commission agree that it has legal competence to intervene in the issue of Romanian dogs based on EU legislation on Public Health? (If not, why not?)
2. Does Romania’s Rabies Eradication Programme mention dog population control among the measures to be carried out?
3. Does the Commission agree that Romania’s Rabies Eradication Programme should urgently be clarified by way of an explicit condition as follows: Romania must implement long-term measures at the national level for the management of the dog population in accordance with international best practice. In other words, the current “Catch & Kill” policy should be replaced by more efficient and humane measures. (If not, why not?)
4. Does the Commission continue to exclude the possibility that EU funds are, directly or indirectly, being used to finance the multi-million euro “Catch & Kill” dog management business in Romania via local administration budgets? (If so, on what grounds?)
On 17th of February, 2014, the European Communications Team has written to ALL members of the Animal Welfare Intergroup. To date they haven't got any response yet.
That the Commission has not yet replied to the 211 European organizations that have co-signed the ECT- letter only signalizes that they are struggling to find a way out of the mess that they now find themselves in. But why does the Intergroup not respond? Why the silence?
Ignoring things doesn't make them to go away!
The asked questions are:
1. Does the Commission agree that it has legal competence to intervene in the issue of Romanian dogs based on EU legislation on Public Health? (If not, why not?)
2. Does Romania’s Rabies Eradication Programme mention dog population control among the measures to be carried out?
3. Does the Commission agree that Romania’s Rabies Eradication Programme should urgently be clarified by way of an explicit condition as follows: Romania must implement long-term measures at the national level for the management of the dog population in accordance with international best practice. In other words, the current “Catch & Kill” policy should be replaced by more efficient and humane measures. (If not, why not?)
4. Does the Commission continue to exclude the possibility that EU funds are, directly or indirectly, being used to finance the multi-million euro “Catch & Kill” dog management business in Romania via local administration budgets? (If so, on what grounds?)
On 17th of February, 2014, the European Communications Team has written to ALL members of the Animal Welfare Intergroup. To date they haven't got any response yet.
That the Commission has not yet replied to the 211 European organizations that have co-signed the ECT- letter only signalizes that they are struggling to find a way out of the mess that they now find themselves in. But why does the Intergroup not respond? Why the silence?
Ignoring things doesn't make them to go away!
On the EU-conference from 12th of February, 2014 regarding the mid-term assessment of the EU animal welfare strategy
During the conference, Commissioner Tonio Borg (at 14:30) said, regarding the stray animal situation in Romania and the competence of the EU, that he had been inundated with emails from concerned EU-citizens regarding the cruel treatment of dogs in Romania. And he continued:
"... but unfortunately, the Commission has no competence on certain particular animal welfare issues... there has to be a commercial element, or a cross-border element, but I still wrote to the Romanian Prime Minister, reminding him of the obligations which the EU and Romania have under the OIE. So we can always put, if not legal pressure, some kind of political pressure. But please do accept that we do not have competence on all matters relating to animal welfare."
Well... dear Commissioner, let us please tell you that, according to the independent legal research done by the European Communications Team, the European Commission DOES HAVE the legal competence – and a legal duty - to intervene.
And talking about "commercial element", let us also tell you that the Romanian Extermination Enterprise, legalized under Law no. 258/2013 which the Romanian Constitutional Court has ruled as being 'constitutional' on 25th of September, 2013, is a vast governmental project and stands for good money to be made by various companies involved in the rounding up, the supposed maintenance, the killing and the disposal of the animals, killed by violence or neglect. According to our calculation - which is based on figures and costs shared by the Romanian government themselves - it looks as if the Romanian government was ready to spent an incredible 403,104,000 euros of public money on a stray animal population control strategy that the WHO (World Health Organisation) considers to be ineffective!
We believe that this is a "commercial element" with a considerable "commercial value"! As to a "cross-border element", we will enumerate a very important one for you further down this page...
"... but unfortunately, the Commission has no competence on certain particular animal welfare issues... there has to be a commercial element, or a cross-border element, but I still wrote to the Romanian Prime Minister, reminding him of the obligations which the EU and Romania have under the OIE. So we can always put, if not legal pressure, some kind of political pressure. But please do accept that we do not have competence on all matters relating to animal welfare."
Well... dear Commissioner, let us please tell you that, according to the independent legal research done by the European Communications Team, the European Commission DOES HAVE the legal competence – and a legal duty - to intervene.
And talking about "commercial element", let us also tell you that the Romanian Extermination Enterprise, legalized under Law no. 258/2013 which the Romanian Constitutional Court has ruled as being 'constitutional' on 25th of September, 2013, is a vast governmental project and stands for good money to be made by various companies involved in the rounding up, the supposed maintenance, the killing and the disposal of the animals, killed by violence or neglect. According to our calculation - which is based on figures and costs shared by the Romanian government themselves - it looks as if the Romanian government was ready to spent an incredible 403,104,000 euros of public money on a stray animal population control strategy that the WHO (World Health Organisation) considers to be ineffective!
We believe that this is a "commercial element" with a considerable "commercial value"! As to a "cross-border element", we will enumerate a very important one for you further down this page...
At last,
someone switched the lights on!
On December 4, 2013 a delegation of the European Parliament went to Romania and had some meetings with Romanian officials ANSVSA - Sanitary-Veterinary and Food Safety National Authority - and the Mayor of Bucharest. The delegation members were assured that the law on dog management was a law on "adoption" and not on "euthanasia" and the citizens had access to public shelters which were totally transparent and complying with the law.
On January 28, the delegation returned to Romania in order to inform themselves on the situation directly on site by visiting as well dog shelters of the city halls. The Delegation found that there was a major discrepancy between what the authorities had told them during their first visit and what they found on site during their second visit.
On January 28, the delegation returned to Romania in order to inform themselves on the situation directly on site by visiting as well dog shelters of the city halls. The Delegation found that there was a major discrepancy between what the authorities had told them during their first visit and what they found on site during their second visit.
On 12th of February, 2014, the Vice-Chairman of the AGRI Committee and Vice-Chairman of the Animal Welfare Intergroup, MEP Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI (ECR) together with the Vice-Chairman of the Animal Welfare Intergroup MEP Andrea ZANONI (ALDE) hosted a press conference in relation to their recent visit to Romania, during which the MEPs addressed concerns regarding the situation of stray dogs in light of the recently adopted Stray Dogs Euthanasia Law by the Parliament of Romania aimed at culling the stray population, and presented their reflections and conclusions and put forward plans, recommendations and possible initiatives in search of a solution on how to address the issue.
It was a pleasant surprise to hear that the MEPs had finally seen the horrendous conditions in the so-called shelters by themselves, and which confirmed what we have been telling them for years.
"I did not question the necessity of reduction of stray dogs in Romania but I believe that Romanian authorities have decided to conduct this reduction in an inhumane and ineffective way", said MEP Wojciechowski.
"With this new legislation, owners are forced to sterilize their dogs with their own money. Otherwise, they will be punished with very severe financial fines which would mean excessive costs for poor owners, especially in rural areas.This situation will result in getting rid of dogs and another increase of homeless animals.This time number of these animals may increase even to millions", said MEP Wojciechowski. As far as we know the whole procedure of catching, keeping and anesthetising one dog is rewarded with EUR 250.
"I am convinced that it would be much cheaper and efficient to use these resources for sterilization of these animals. Therefore, the number of animals would be reduced", added MEP Wojciechowski.
"During my first visit I met several representatives of Romanian authorities, including mayor of Bucharest, who assured me that reduction of stray dogs will be conducted in a humane way - through adoption or - should other ways be impossible - through euthanasia in a humane manner. I have also visited several shelters - this visit proved that signals regarding violent treatment of dogs in these places are true", said MEP Wojciechowski.
Shelters are every often located in places which are difficult to find and they are closed for people who wish to adopt a dog. Although financed from public money, they are treated as private ownership. Furthermore, adoption procedure is very complicated and it makes adoption practically impossible.
MEP Wojciechowski said further:
"It has become a business for private companies that receive a lot of money to catch and put down these animals, or run these shelters - well... shelters is hardly the right word - given what is going on in them. This program costs a lot of money and it means a lot of profit for the companies involved. And so it's not in their interest to solve the problem. They want the problem, the issue to continue for as long as possible so that can earn as much money as possible out of it.
The new legislation doesn't solve the problem, it's exacerbating it"
Below, the pictures showing MEP Wojciechowski and his assistant on their way to the Slatina "dog shelter" where they found themselves in front of closed doors.... unable to get in.
Romanian strays – Borg’s favour for Farage
by EU-Reporter Anna van Densky on February 17, 2014 - The fact-finding mission of MEPs Janusz Wojciechowski and Andrea Zanoni have blasted the myth of any improvements for Romanian stray dogs. The scenes of extreme cruelty, stories of shocked witnesses describing massacres in dogs’ ‘shelters’ that resemble concentration camps (pictured) – all this morbid evidence has reopened the debate on the fate of 100,000 dogs in ‘new’ Romania. The latest governmental regulations have firmly blocked the adoption process, and canine slaughter is becoming increasingly profitable.
While multiple European animal protection associations have sent money to Romanian shelters, they were not aware of the fraud taking place – after pictures are taken, the dogs are brutally slaughtered in their cages with sticks and spades, and the money provided goes to the false care-givers. Some are even left to die without food and water…
“They are gangsters. It is the mafia who has taken advantage of the situation. It is a profitable business to fill pockets and destroy victims,’’ a Romanian activist told EU Reporter, following an MEPs’ press conference on 12 February. “Moreover, the criminals are opposing the sterilization policy as it would shut down a source of future income.”
There was a brief pause in atrocities following the pressure of public opinion, but then Commissioner Tonio Borg stepped in, explaining that he had “no tools to influence the situation”.
“The mafia understood this as ‘la carte blanche’ to go on with the massacre of dogs,” another activist added. The Commission’s reaction, describing the complaints “as grievances falling outside the scope of EU law” was taken to be Borg washing his hands of the affair, which subsequently provoked an atmosphere of toxic frustration during the First European Conference on the Welfare of Dogs and Cats in October 2013.
Many of participants felt indignant that the commissioner managed to avoid the most controversial issue of Romanian authorities ordering the massacre thousands of healthy and gentle stray dogs in response to one bitten child. Activists regard the Romanian strays taboo as sheer hypocrisy on the part of Borg, developing his thesis on “building a Europe that cares for companion animals”, while Romanian ‘care’ meant elimination.
The Commission’s incapability to stand tall for animal welfare by indulging the Romanian government in this way was a heavy blow. However, with 70 million homes having companion animals, European animal lovers form a substantial part of the electorate and they are running out of patience. They are entitled to raise a question if they agree to invest taxpayers’ money into a country that is openly stamping on the very same humane values for which the Union was created.
Perhaps UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage should send a bunch of flowers to Commissioner Borg – one glance at the massacre of caged Romanian dogs would speak volumes on disengagement from EU enlargement policy.
The elections are coming soon, and it will be the turn of European citizens to allow MEPs to “fall outside the scope” of their interest, if they are unable to respond to their grievances.
Come the ballot, we’ll see who has the last laugh!
“The mafia understood this as ‘la carte blanche’ to go on with the massacre of dogs,” another activist added. The Commission’s reaction, describing the complaints “as grievances falling outside the scope of EU law” was taken to be Borg washing his hands of the affair, which subsequently provoked an atmosphere of toxic frustration during the First European Conference on the Welfare of Dogs and Cats in October 2013.
Many of participants felt indignant that the commissioner managed to avoid the most controversial issue of Romanian authorities ordering the massacre thousands of healthy and gentle stray dogs in response to one bitten child. Activists regard the Romanian strays taboo as sheer hypocrisy on the part of Borg, developing his thesis on “building a Europe that cares for companion animals”, while Romanian ‘care’ meant elimination.
The Commission’s incapability to stand tall for animal welfare by indulging the Romanian government in this way was a heavy blow. However, with 70 million homes having companion animals, European animal lovers form a substantial part of the electorate and they are running out of patience. They are entitled to raise a question if they agree to invest taxpayers’ money into a country that is openly stamping on the very same humane values for which the Union was created.
Perhaps UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage should send a bunch of flowers to Commissioner Borg – one glance at the massacre of caged Romanian dogs would speak volumes on disengagement from EU enlargement policy.
The elections are coming soon, and it will be the turn of European citizens to allow MEPs to “fall outside the scope” of their interest, if they are unable to respond to their grievances.
Come the ballot, we’ll see who has the last laugh!
Their tacit approval of the evil
makes them the evil's accomplices!
The EU has yet again not taken any serious action regarding the cruel treatment of dogs in the so-called shelters that the MEPs themselves had the opportunity to witness during their latest visit from 27/28th of January, 2014.
Although the European Communications Team has identified a solid legal ground which would enable them to intervene in the cruel treatment of dogs in Romania and has presented it to them on a silver plate, the Commission remains silent... and the MEPs continue to send letters to the Romanian government which will likely remain unanswered, just like the previous three letters sent by the Intergroup to President Basescu as well as the one from Commissioner Borg. Basescu did not find it necessary to respond to any of them.
It seems to us, as if the Commission, for political reasons, was unwilling to utilize the above-mentioned legal competence... and thus their tacit approval of the evil makes them the evil’s accomplices.
Although the European Communications Team has identified a solid legal ground which would enable them to intervene in the cruel treatment of dogs in Romania and has presented it to them on a silver plate, the Commission remains silent... and the MEPs continue to send letters to the Romanian government which will likely remain unanswered, just like the previous three letters sent by the Intergroup to President Basescu as well as the one from Commissioner Borg. Basescu did not find it necessary to respond to any of them.
It seems to us, as if the Commission, for political reasons, was unwilling to utilize the above-mentioned legal competence... and thus their tacit approval of the evil makes them the evil’s accomplices.
And what about the killings that are happening
on the streets of Romania, literally everyday,
in front of children and other sensitive people?
|
|
The Commission seems not to care about the poor Romanian homeless dogs or the millions of Euros that Romania receives each year and which - as it seems - are being used to fuel the Romanian Extermination Enterprise, but what about the children and other sensitive people who have to witness animal abuse on the streets of Romania, sometimes on a daily basis?
Millions of people capable of cherishing their relationship with animals and sensitive enough to cultivate their affection for them will be exposed to enormous psychological trauma resulting from the animal slaughter.
What about the animal lovers and activists who are being outcast, verbally attacked and even aggressed simply because they care for the animals?
Does the Commission care about them? Or has the Commission chosen to ignore them also?
The people have the right to love and care but the official policy of animal mass slaughter negates the right and makes it invalid. In this respect, animal rights violations are at one with human rights abuses. The psychological trauma and damage done as a result of such cruel and arbitrary decisions by the Romanian officials will have its devastating moral, legal, social and political consequences leading to the weakening of the state institutions and social order.
Malcolm Plant, the initiator of the 'Making the Link Study and Project, wrote:
And so it is that sometimes a phenomenon can be identified, of such magnitude that it defies human senses. The ground on which we walk, facilitates our existence... our movement, but that this apparently flat ground is in fact a sphere suspended in space is not discerned until we adopt alternative perspectives.
The connection between animal abuse and inter-human abuse and violence is called 'the Link' and there is now a large body of research identifying that animal abuse can be a predictor of abuse against person and property. Individuals abusing animals in their homes are likely to enact abuse against members of their own family or even to manifest such abuse within the community.
Such research has previously been conducted in western societies where regard for companion animals has evolved to them being regarded as ‘'family members' and where few unwanted animals remain on the streets in the wider community. Isolated incidents permitting a contrast against the norms of a society allow such abuse identification possibility.
Imagine if you will, that such criteria identifying potentially aberrant individuals, exists as a society, as a nation. A country of 20,000,000 exhibiting all the ingredients to promote, learn and practice aggression. We will seek to reason here that such an environment exists and the conclusion of which challenges the very foundations of the security and homogeneity of the European Union. It will be further evidenced that the addressable entity is not the animal victim or even the individual who aggresses, but the society which promotes this on a hitherto un-imagined or identified scale. A national aggression training facility now being freely exported. Ramifications affect every country, every city, every street of the European Union. Should the rationale presented here be fully accepted then it is incumbent upon political powers to address.
We will provide evidence from learned expert Professors in this field. Also we will present results from a study conducted for the first time in such an environment. We will evidence the normality of abuse and aggression throughout this country. And finally we will present an act of such despicable horror on the streets of a European City that the resonance of the word ‘enough’ is invited to be echoed through every home in Europe.
There is a large body of research linking the abuse of animals with inter-personal abuse and aggression. Such research has primarily been conducted in western societies and where the severity of enacted aggression has ranged in gravity up to and including serial killers. Animal abuse in western societies can be arguably more readily identified as it contrasts with the moral norms of such societies. Inabilities of Romanian governments over many years to apply proven humane stray animal management strategies has resulted in an increasing expansion of the stray animal population. Perceived as verminous because of numbers and undesirable because of threats of aggression, abuse, maiming and killing in public places had become commonplace. The 'Making the Link' Pilot Study had identified that 86% of children in the study group had witnessed animal abuse in public places. Aggression potential is compounded by indications of proportionally different levels of domestic violence.
Two factors are essential to be considered in environments such as that which exists in Romania. ‘Situational Factors‘: included among these is displaced aggression where the victim of the aggression was not the originating cause. Such aggression increases if the victim is categorized as representing a socially undesirable or reduced status group.
Opportunity is an important factor where situations present and heighten the opportunity for aggression and where in Bandura’s moral disengagement theory two factors, the cognitive construction of moral justification whereby the aggressor creates cognitive constructs to justify aggression and also the dehumanization of the victim. Romania’s government in categorizing the already outcast and devalued group of stray animals by formally categorizing as 'extermination worthy' increases the diminution of status and therefore enhances the possibility of the practice of aggression.
Assuredly, aggression practiced against animals carries a heightened likelihood of aggression against people and property. The MTL Pilot Study found that children who aggressed against animals also aggressed against people, admitted theft, arson, exemplified reduced empathy and presented suicidal tendencies. A survey of psychologists in the USA found that 87% considered animal abuse to be a mental health issue, yet in Romania 86% of the study group children had witnessed this in public places.
Social Learning Theory suggests that the main features of the socialization process are the models to whom children are exposed, the reinforcements and punishments they receive, and the beliefs they are taught and learn. It is argued that those who abuse animals are frustrated individuals who transfer their anger onto animals who cannot retaliate.
A scenario emerges where aggression is encouraged by ill-considered government legislation where the stray animal is deemed eradication worthy. This presents legitimization and encouragement of the practice of aggression against a potential animal victim on every street corner. Such unrestrained and socially acceptable behaviour leads to an increase in the need to satisfy through aggression and which increases the likelihood that this will be enacted against persons and property.
Major organisations such as WHO and OIE caution against mass euthanasia as a strategy for animal management primarily because historically it has always proven unsuccessful in addition to being significantly more expensive to implement that the proven successful management strategy of neutering. The Romanian government has therefore taken a poverty endemic, patriarchal society with already significant aggression problems into a previously unexplored domain by encouraging enactment of violence. Time will reveal what lies in this darkness and whether an aggression training facility is being created at the edge of Europe. It is hoped that this proves not to be so as, with travel restrictions removed, it will be empirically evidenced not only in Romania, but throughout the cities of Europe.
The MTL Study will seek to evidence how the stray animal issue can be addressed by introducing interventions which will seek to modify perceptions and attitudes. A group of adolescents 15-18 years old will be presented with a Humane Education/Responsible Ownership program over a 2 year period. This will be accompanied by introduction of an Animal Abuse Helpline whereby prosecutions for animal abuse will be sought thereby raising the perceived status of the animals. In order to evidence how humane controls can be enacted, a neutering program will be introduced. Psychometric measurements have been taken of 570 children. Split into control and study groups, measurements will be taken again in 2 years time. It is anticipated that positive psycho-social change will be identified. Particular focus will be on factors identified in the Pilot Study as causing concern ie empathy enhancement and aggression reduction.
It is anticipated that the study will identify how change can be introduced and will serve a s a model to be implemented wherever such environments exist.
And so it is that sometimes a phenomenon can be identified, of such magnitude that it defies human senses. The ground on which we walk, facilitates our existence... our movement, but that this apparently flat ground is in fact a sphere suspended in space is not discerned until we adopt alternative perspectives.
The connection between animal abuse and inter-human abuse and violence is called 'the Link' and there is now a large body of research identifying that animal abuse can be a predictor of abuse against person and property. Individuals abusing animals in their homes are likely to enact abuse against members of their own family or even to manifest such abuse within the community.
Such research has previously been conducted in western societies where regard for companion animals has evolved to them being regarded as ‘'family members' and where few unwanted animals remain on the streets in the wider community. Isolated incidents permitting a contrast against the norms of a society allow such abuse identification possibility.
Imagine if you will, that such criteria identifying potentially aberrant individuals, exists as a society, as a nation. A country of 20,000,000 exhibiting all the ingredients to promote, learn and practice aggression. We will seek to reason here that such an environment exists and the conclusion of which challenges the very foundations of the security and homogeneity of the European Union. It will be further evidenced that the addressable entity is not the animal victim or even the individual who aggresses, but the society which promotes this on a hitherto un-imagined or identified scale. A national aggression training facility now being freely exported. Ramifications affect every country, every city, every street of the European Union. Should the rationale presented here be fully accepted then it is incumbent upon political powers to address.
We will provide evidence from learned expert Professors in this field. Also we will present results from a study conducted for the first time in such an environment. We will evidence the normality of abuse and aggression throughout this country. And finally we will present an act of such despicable horror on the streets of a European City that the resonance of the word ‘enough’ is invited to be echoed through every home in Europe.
There is a large body of research linking the abuse of animals with inter-personal abuse and aggression. Such research has primarily been conducted in western societies and where the severity of enacted aggression has ranged in gravity up to and including serial killers. Animal abuse in western societies can be arguably more readily identified as it contrasts with the moral norms of such societies. Inabilities of Romanian governments over many years to apply proven humane stray animal management strategies has resulted in an increasing expansion of the stray animal population. Perceived as verminous because of numbers and undesirable because of threats of aggression, abuse, maiming and killing in public places had become commonplace. The 'Making the Link' Pilot Study had identified that 86% of children in the study group had witnessed animal abuse in public places. Aggression potential is compounded by indications of proportionally different levels of domestic violence.
Two factors are essential to be considered in environments such as that which exists in Romania. ‘Situational Factors‘: included among these is displaced aggression where the victim of the aggression was not the originating cause. Such aggression increases if the victim is categorized as representing a socially undesirable or reduced status group.
Opportunity is an important factor where situations present and heighten the opportunity for aggression and where in Bandura’s moral disengagement theory two factors, the cognitive construction of moral justification whereby the aggressor creates cognitive constructs to justify aggression and also the dehumanization of the victim. Romania’s government in categorizing the already outcast and devalued group of stray animals by formally categorizing as 'extermination worthy' increases the diminution of status and therefore enhances the possibility of the practice of aggression.
Assuredly, aggression practiced against animals carries a heightened likelihood of aggression against people and property. The MTL Pilot Study found that children who aggressed against animals also aggressed against people, admitted theft, arson, exemplified reduced empathy and presented suicidal tendencies. A survey of psychologists in the USA found that 87% considered animal abuse to be a mental health issue, yet in Romania 86% of the study group children had witnessed this in public places.
Social Learning Theory suggests that the main features of the socialization process are the models to whom children are exposed, the reinforcements and punishments they receive, and the beliefs they are taught and learn. It is argued that those who abuse animals are frustrated individuals who transfer their anger onto animals who cannot retaliate.
A scenario emerges where aggression is encouraged by ill-considered government legislation where the stray animal is deemed eradication worthy. This presents legitimization and encouragement of the practice of aggression against a potential animal victim on every street corner. Such unrestrained and socially acceptable behaviour leads to an increase in the need to satisfy through aggression and which increases the likelihood that this will be enacted against persons and property.
Major organisations such as WHO and OIE caution against mass euthanasia as a strategy for animal management primarily because historically it has always proven unsuccessful in addition to being significantly more expensive to implement that the proven successful management strategy of neutering. The Romanian government has therefore taken a poverty endemic, patriarchal society with already significant aggression problems into a previously unexplored domain by encouraging enactment of violence. Time will reveal what lies in this darkness and whether an aggression training facility is being created at the edge of Europe. It is hoped that this proves not to be so as, with travel restrictions removed, it will be empirically evidenced not only in Romania, but throughout the cities of Europe.
The MTL Study will seek to evidence how the stray animal issue can be addressed by introducing interventions which will seek to modify perceptions and attitudes. A group of adolescents 15-18 years old will be presented with a Humane Education/Responsible Ownership program over a 2 year period. This will be accompanied by introduction of an Animal Abuse Helpline whereby prosecutions for animal abuse will be sought thereby raising the perceived status of the animals. In order to evidence how humane controls can be enacted, a neutering program will be introduced. Psychometric measurements have been taken of 570 children. Split into control and study groups, measurements will be taken again in 2 years time. It is anticipated that positive psycho-social change will be identified. Particular focus will be on factors identified in the Pilot Study as causing concern ie empathy enhancement and aggression reduction.
It is anticipated that the study will identify how change can be introduced and will serve a s a model to be implemented wherever such environments exist.
"Let he who has ears to hear, let him hear!
Let he who has power to speak, let him speak!
For he who lives with silence,
will hear the cacophony of societal destruction all around him!"
Neglect of Stray Dogs
MEPs Deliver Damning Indictment of Romania's Mismanagement
written by Dr Rita Pal on 5th of March, 2014 for the Huffington Post
Highlights From the Vice-Chairman of the AGRI Committee and Vice-Chairman of the Animal Welfare Intergroup, MEP Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI (ECR). Press Conference. European Parliament on 12th of February, 2014:
"This visit proved that signals regarding violent treatment of dogs in these places are true"
"I did not question the necessity of reduction of stray dogs in Romania but I believe that Romanian authorities have decided to conduct this reduction in an inhumane and ineffective way"
"It has become a business for private companies that receive a lot of money to catch and put down these animals, or run these shelters - well... shelters is hardly the right word - given what is going on in them. This program costs a lot of money and it means a lot of profit for the companies involved. And so it's not in their interest to solve the problem. They want the problem, the issue to continue for as long as possible so that can earn as much money as possible out of it".
"The new legislation doesn't solve the problem, it's exacerbating it"
The plight of Romanian dogs and the subsequent 14 day cull law has caused uproar. Mass protests were held all over Europe and the US. Social networks were buzzing with criticism of the Romanian authorities. Hundreds of petitions backed by famous animal rights activists circulated. Last year, all of these concerns fell upon deaf ears, leading us to question whether anyone was awake in officialdom. As a tsunami of concerns reached the Eurogroup, they wrote:-
"We are aware that a lot of unsubstantiated 'evidence' of perpetrated cruelties has been circulating during the last weeks and that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between reliable information and invented horrors".We suggested that the intergroup mount an investigation. Indeed, this is what they kindly did. Two visits to Romania [December 4, 2013 & 28th January 2014] were made by a delegation of the European Parliament. Their mission was to establish the truth and determine whether the contents of correspondence received from Romanian citizens was evidence-based. Correspondence alleged that dogs were being killed in front of children and this concerned the team.
Brief conclusions of their visits were as follows :
1. Romanian authorities had assured the delegates that canine population control was conducted according to European Standards. The delegation found that there was a major discrepancy between what the authorities had told them during their first visit and what they found on site during their second visit.
2. Adoption from shelters was impossible due to an enormous amount of red tape/obstacles.
3. Dogs were left without food and water at some of the shelters visited.
4. There was a serious failure in the monitoring of shelter conditions.
5. The whole procedure of catching, keeping and anesthetizing one dog is rewarded with €250. It would be much cheaper and efficient to use these resources for sterilization of these animals. Therefore, the number of animals would be reduced.
6. Romania would benefit from further transparency in dog shelters to ensure a higher level of compliance with European standards.
This has been the first ray of light from officialdom at the European Parliament.
Commenting on their visit, Dr. Aurelian Stefan D.V.M (who is the Veterinary Director [Romania Animal Rescue (RAR) /Animal Spay and Neuter International] based in Romania) stated :
"In my opinion, the EU should push Romania to develop a Master Plan to improve the animal welfare in Romania. Visiting shelters might help but that can be achieved by watching the footage on the web. Romania does not have a strategy and does not have cases of concrete measures such as fines or even jail time for animal abusers. In this respect, there is total silence and total neglect.Shelters are the most horrible places that will never be visitor-friendly and when you are allowed in, there is no difference between a Nazi extermination camp and a shelter like the Craiova shelter. Most of the dogs spayed in this town (over 7000) were spayed with help from RAR, and RAR also enabled local charities to get donations from our friends in the USA and Europe.
National strategy should include spay and neuter education, veterinary training and law enforcement. Of course, any other ideas are welcome. It is a simple strategy but such complex implementation that needs European help and pressure".
Occupy For Animal has started to ask whether Europe's Sleeping Beauty was finally opening her eyes.
In its excellent summary, the animal rights campaign group also refers to a vital letter that was sent to the European Commission [EC] dated 23/1/2014 and supported by 211 organizations. The letter demonstrates clearly that the EC has the legal competence - and a legal duty - to intervene. The European Communications Team claims that the
"Romanian stray animal eradication program falls under EU-competence, but that it cannot be that the millions of EU-funds that Romania receives each year to eradicate rabies, would be used to fund such an inhumane and ineffective stray animal population strategy".This claim has been supported by Luxembourgian MEP Claude Turmes (Dèi Grèng) who has written to the Romanian ambassador in Luxembourg and formulated a parliamentary question. Similar questions have been asked by Finnish MEP Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE).
The EC has remained silent. Clearly putting pen to paper is proving extremely challenging. We ask whether the EC is able to determine the meaning of the word "action" in a period when the lights' and cameras' focus is on them. The world is waiting in anticipation to determine whether the Commission has any bite in the land of Count Vlad Dracula .
Highlights From the Vice-Chairman of the AGRI Committee and Vice-Chairman of the Animal Welfare Intergroup, MEP Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI (ECR). Press Conference. European Parliament on 12th of February, 2014:
"This visit proved that signals regarding violent treatment of dogs in these places are true"
"I did not question the necessity of reduction of stray dogs in Romania but I believe that Romanian authorities have decided to conduct this reduction in an inhumane and ineffective way"
"It has become a business for private companies that receive a lot of money to catch and put down these animals, or run these shelters - well... shelters is hardly the right word - given what is going on in them. This program costs a lot of money and it means a lot of profit for the companies involved. And so it's not in their interest to solve the problem. They want the problem, the issue to continue for as long as possible so that can earn as much money as possible out of it".
"The new legislation doesn't solve the problem, it's exacerbating it"
The plight of Romanian dogs and the subsequent 14 day cull law has caused uproar. Mass protests were held all over Europe and the US. Social networks were buzzing with criticism of the Romanian authorities. Hundreds of petitions backed by famous animal rights activists circulated. Last year, all of these concerns fell upon deaf ears, leading us to question whether anyone was awake in officialdom. As a tsunami of concerns reached the Eurogroup, they wrote:-
"We are aware that a lot of unsubstantiated 'evidence' of perpetrated cruelties has been circulating during the last weeks and that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between reliable information and invented horrors".We suggested that the intergroup mount an investigation. Indeed, this is what they kindly did. Two visits to Romania [December 4, 2013 & 28th January 2014] were made by a delegation of the European Parliament. Their mission was to establish the truth and determine whether the contents of correspondence received from Romanian citizens was evidence-based. Correspondence alleged that dogs were being killed in front of children and this concerned the team.
Brief conclusions of their visits were as follows :
1. Romanian authorities had assured the delegates that canine population control was conducted according to European Standards. The delegation found that there was a major discrepancy between what the authorities had told them during their first visit and what they found on site during their second visit.
2. Adoption from shelters was impossible due to an enormous amount of red tape/obstacles.
3. Dogs were left without food and water at some of the shelters visited.
4. There was a serious failure in the monitoring of shelter conditions.
5. The whole procedure of catching, keeping and anesthetizing one dog is rewarded with €250. It would be much cheaper and efficient to use these resources for sterilization of these animals. Therefore, the number of animals would be reduced.
6. Romania would benefit from further transparency in dog shelters to ensure a higher level of compliance with European standards.
This has been the first ray of light from officialdom at the European Parliament.
Commenting on their visit, Dr. Aurelian Stefan D.V.M (who is the Veterinary Director [Romania Animal Rescue (RAR) /Animal Spay and Neuter International] based in Romania) stated :
"In my opinion, the EU should push Romania to develop a Master Plan to improve the animal welfare in Romania. Visiting shelters might help but that can be achieved by watching the footage on the web. Romania does not have a strategy and does not have cases of concrete measures such as fines or even jail time for animal abusers. In this respect, there is total silence and total neglect.Shelters are the most horrible places that will never be visitor-friendly and when you are allowed in, there is no difference between a Nazi extermination camp and a shelter like the Craiova shelter. Most of the dogs spayed in this town (over 7000) were spayed with help from RAR, and RAR also enabled local charities to get donations from our friends in the USA and Europe.
National strategy should include spay and neuter education, veterinary training and law enforcement. Of course, any other ideas are welcome. It is a simple strategy but such complex implementation that needs European help and pressure".
Occupy For Animal has started to ask whether Europe's Sleeping Beauty was finally opening her eyes.
In its excellent summary, the animal rights campaign group also refers to a vital letter that was sent to the European Commission [EC] dated 23/1/2014 and supported by 211 organizations. The letter demonstrates clearly that the EC has the legal competence - and a legal duty - to intervene. The European Communications Team claims that the
"Romanian stray animal eradication program falls under EU-competence, but that it cannot be that the millions of EU-funds that Romania receives each year to eradicate rabies, would be used to fund such an inhumane and ineffective stray animal population strategy".This claim has been supported by Luxembourgian MEP Claude Turmes (Dèi Grèng) who has written to the Romanian ambassador in Luxembourg and formulated a parliamentary question. Similar questions have been asked by Finnish MEP Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE).
The EC has remained silent. Clearly putting pen to paper is proving extremely challenging. We ask whether the EC is able to determine the meaning of the word "action" in a period when the lights' and cameras' focus is on them. The world is waiting in anticipation to determine whether the Commission has any bite in the land of Count Vlad Dracula .
