iRant: Treat me like an animal, so I can have better Human Rights?

In honesty I wasn't sure how to approach this rant. In fact I spent a great amount of time considering whether this was actually a rant or a moan...
It took me a while, but in the end I conceded that, I try to only moan about things I can and will change. I see no point in moaning about things that I will never or can never change, to me it just seems a fruitless operation...*shrugs*.

I would like to apologise now, just in case you read this and get the feeling I'm sounding somewhat evangelical. Please do not mistake me for a 'tree-hugger' (no offence to huggers of trees), or a preacher or a 'do-gooder'....these are just some observations.

So..where to start? Hmmm...."Human Rights" as a term, I really don't agree with. In honesty, I abhor it.

Abhor - to regard with extreme repugnance or aversion; detest utterly; loathe; abominate.

Yes, I feel that strongly about it, I mean the number of secondary questions that get thrown up every-time I hear the term its untrue.
- Firstly, what is 'Human Rights'
- What is a 'Human Right'
- Who decides what a 'Human Right' is?
- How is it decided that the people(s) that decide what a 'Human Right' is, are the most appropriate candidates for the that particular decision?
- If the rights of 'Humans' are to be discussed, shouldn't a majority of the 'Humans' who these 'rights' are supposed to be for, have a say in what is and isn't a 'Human Right'...?

Who came up with this notion or idea of 'Human Rights'....?
I did some brief research, that leads to the idea that the concept of 'Human Rights' was founded in Europe, Germany in particular, in 1525. Something to do with peasants making a list of personal demands against a ruling arm in some war, or something.

In my mind, in order to issue, or outline the 'rights' of another life form you have to consider yourself to be superior to that other life form. Now I know that as 'Humans' we have absolutely no problem with this concept in principle or practice. So I guess its actually witnessing the audacity to blatantly display it to masses and nations, is what I consider to be an insult to my senses.


I consider the term a farce. Especially when you take a snapshot at the societies we currently live in. I mean a prime example of this, is the calling for Human Rights to be acknowledged and implemented the world over. Now, the nations in the world that currently make lots of international noise about the Human Rights conduct of nations abroad, are Europe and America.

Both the aforementioned have little or no problem using 'Human Rights breaches' as a justifiable reason to enter foreign countries and further breach 'Human Rights'.

I think the protests both in the UK and USA helped me to see the fallacy of this pseudo moral high ground.

The treatment of some of the peaceful protestors was shocking and certainly in breach of some rights...and that was at the hand of licensed authorities...captured on TV and mobile phones.

There are other examples of where 'Human Rights' are ignored or overlooked, like the case of the man with the low IQ, who took a liking to sex, but was being subject to a court injunction which basically said he was not responsible enough of mind to engage in such activities. (The man with the low IQ). I appreciate there is some responsibility to be had as an adult and yes maybe he could be a liability with regard to not protecting himself properly (or at all), but surely a man has the right to consenting sex with whom so ever is legally permitted to engage?

Let me not even get into Guantanamo Bay...

Despite these examples, there is one that without a doubt, has pissed me off the most! Beyond all things sensible this none-sense is still allowed to happen and is legal, in fact not only is it legal but corporation make billions off of it every year, year in, year out. People are actually paying to have their human rights violated.

I need to calm down a little, so let me take a slight detour...I'll get back to the above I promise.

So...as much as I'm a city slicker, I love me some country, I'll save you the cliche list about the air, the greenery and the peace, cos I know you've heard it before and its not REALLY telling you anything 'new'. Oh look, by 'not' telling you I just told you...anyway I digress.

So, I was chilling out in the countryside recently. I got the opportunity to stand by a field and watch some cows grazing, beautiful sight, if you've never slowed down long enough to watch, I recommend that you do at least once in your life. Anyway...I stood watching these cows graze for a while, then a haulage vehicle pulls up. It turns out it was a transport for the livestock. I watched as the cows were shushed into the lorry, watched the door being sealed and the truck drive away.

Once the truck left I noticed only half the herd had left. There was a gentleman on the field at the time and so I decided to seek his council on this current event. I asked "if the remaining cows would be on the field for the night?", to which he replied "No, the lorry that just left, will come back for these".

I was a little bit confused by this, as the lorry clearly had enough space to fit all the cows on, so this really should have been one journey. I did feel stupid, but I asked, "Erm...why didn't you just load them all on at once?". My new farmer friend, chuckled and said "You can't carry more than X amount of beasts in that amount of space, if the authorities were to stop me and count them, we'd lose our transporting license, we wouldn't be able to carry livestock in transit".

Simple Simon, never turns down any opportunity to learn, so this new information would be probed, so I further asked "What are the criteria for transporting livestock then?". What he basically told me was that, the vehicle couldn't legally carry more than 20 of the cows.

Fascinated by the subject, I decided to go away and read up on agricultural cattle haulage. My findings were very interesting indeed.

Did you know, that a cattle haulage vehicle has individual pen's for each beast. I mean like each cow gets its own compartment. As if that wasn't wonderful enough, there is also a 'space per animal' regulation and I quote

Medium sized cattle of approximate weight - 325kg, must have a minimum of between 0.95 – 1.3m(squared) whilst in transit

Yes you read that correctly, there is actual regulation around how much space a cow has in transit. I delved into the subject further as I do and got some valuable information on the subject, I thought I'd be so kind as to drop a link at the end of this rant so you too can be amazed by my findings...

Anyhoot, now that I've calmed somewhat, I'll re-address the subject I took a break from earlier.

I'm unfortunate enough to have to take public transport to work.. so every blessed day, I, like hundreds of thousands of other cattl....I mean commuters, board over-packed rush hour trains. Each individual inadvertently touching another, sharing varying bits of DNA, whether it be through the air or by fabric to fabric connection, its just one, tightly squeezed mosh pit of 'sharing'. If the crowds weren't enough, I actually pay an annually rising ticket fare for the 'privilege'.

So while I'm crammed in this tube, my mind races, doing all manner of calculations about just how dangerous the current situation is.

Firstly; If the train was to stop in a tunnel...how long would it be before we run out of air?

If we were stuck in a tunnel for an undetermined amount of time, how would one, attain a state of relative comfort?

After asking a myriad of 'what if' type questions, my simple brain strikes gold! "How comes there isn't a maximum number of passengers per carriage restriction?"

Now, at the time of thinking this, I initially thought I was being pedantic... but then I remembered back in my youth, when I used to go clubbing quite a bit, the term "I'm sorry, we've reached capacity" was a legitimate reason for you not being able to get in, even after you've flashed two crisp £50 notes at the bouncer.

Then I remembered conversations I've had with venue managers, regarding private parties and venue capacity. These conversations always lead back to the same thing, 'It's health and safety, if authorities came in and saw us above capacity we could lose our license.'

In my school days the commute was via bus and they have the restrictions clearly written on the entrance to the bus, it was something like 62 seated and 18 standing or something like that. Coaches also have a seating restriction of 75, with no standing passengers.

Airplanes have a passenger restriction, in fact every other form of passenger/livestock transport, has a population restriction...all of them, except the tubes and the trains.

Now, please explain to me how it is;
a) possible
b) logical
that the modes of transport, that carry the most people in any 24hr period, have absolutely no guidelines for the number of passengers allowed to be safely transported from one place to another?

In disbelief I set about looking for the facts, figures and details...I'll save you the trouble, there are NO published details about passenger numbers (that I could find), with regards to trains and tube services. That is correct, you can stuff as many people as you like into a tube and not have to worry about 'Health and Safety' regulations.

So, now that we've come to grips with this non-sense, I know at least one person will say 'but what you've mentioned is a health and safety issue, it doesn't have anything to do with Human rights'. To those of you that share this view, I'll simply point you to article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states and I quote;

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

If you as an individual can hand on heart say, that being stuck in a packed train, or tube, during rush hour, during a heatwave isn't cruel, degrading or inhuman...then maybe you are one of the cows that I saw on that haulage truck.

I never thought I would ever say this in my life but...'Please treat me like an animal, so I can have better Human Rights'.

iRant, because sometimes the liberties being taken are just unacceptable.

PROMISED LINK!!!! Animal welfare during transportation


Other animal related rants - Pets in the west, the Plight of the animals

iRant: For the plight of the animals

If I'm fortunate enough to have you as a 'regular' reader, then you would probably remember me previously making mention, of my fondness of animals...[Pets in the west]..(smile through gritted teeth). If your not one of the aforementioned 'regulars' please take a quick journey back there....i think it will help you to understand this post a little better...

Anyhoot, away with the formalities...

I'm fortunate in being privy to what most would call a colourful, scenic journey on my daily commute. I am blessed to be able to bare witness to some of the creators fine creatures. How so I hear you say?

I happen to work in a very rural area and as such its not uncommon for me to see:

Sheep
Chicken
Pheasant
Grouse
Horses
Cows
Rabbits
Squirels
Foxes

A nice wide selection of animals, none particularly predatory (minus the Foxes...). My daily commute will see me bump into all of the above at some point during the journey and believe me its a breath of fresh air every time, you would be amazed at the size and colour of all the above when your face to face with them.

Take the Grouse bird for instants:





Now you should recognise the bird as it was made famous by this advert:




This bird really does exist...I mean like there is a bird that looks and moves like that bird in the advert....its CRAAAAZY! Its a shame they weren't endowed with any sense though, generally speaking they wait by the side of the country lane, till they are almost right in front of a passing car, then dart across the lane and then dive into a nearby bush....suicidal I tell you....but then again there is always a Grouse at the other end waiting, so maybe they are playing dare? When I think about it what else have they got to do with their day?

Anyway...outside of the Grouse, the other animals on the list are ...well pretty run of the mill, which then leads me to ask what the point of this rant is....

Oh yeah thats it! Cruelty! Yes I said it CRUELTY!

One morning on my way in to work I was slowed by a horse being ridden by a human, nothing unusual there, a common sight for my in fact. For those of you who don't know the code and the practice, "one is to slow one's vehicle to a walking pace, being sure as not to make any unexpected movements or loud noises that could startle the Horse (s)" Like I was saying the Horse being ridden was a common sight, what did catch my eye however, was a shape I couldn't quite clearly see on the fur of the Horse. At the point where I was about to pass the Horse, the shape became clear...it was a 'Love Heart', as soon as I saw it I thought 'aaaahh the owner loves the Horse thats lovely'.

I got about 100m down the road and my mind was invaded by this thought 'How do they know the Horse wanted a heart shaved into the fur on its buttock? How do they know the Horse even likes 'Love Hearts'? Hold on a minute, how do they know the Horse likes to have some slightly over weight person on its back...' And so the thoughts raged on...then it became very clear to me that these Horses were being abused, worst still they were being bred to be abused.

In most western countries harming an animal can get you into serious trouble, in fact let me not speculate, here are the rules per country:

America - USA Cruelty Penalties
UK - UK Cruelty Penalties
Asia - Erm...there isn't a link for China or India or that region, not because there isn't an laws protecting animals, but because the laws are largely ignored, or in the case of China only just being formed.

Now the America link is quite straight forward...fines and jail time, state dependent of course.

The UK link doesn't actually tell you the penalties for animal cruelty but they are:

"Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, the maximum fine for animal cruelty and welfare offences is £20,000. The maximum term of imprisonment for offences is six months."

So basically, fines and jail time.
That for me is not whats important on this particular link, if you scroll all the way to the bottom of the page you will see this:

"Our success in courts by following Code

All prosecutions are conducted by independent solicitors, who also review the evidence against the CPS’ Code and will advise if they are not satisfied that the criteria for a prosecution has been met.

It is by following this Code that we are able to achieve a good success rate in the magistrates' courts, achieving an impressive 98.2 per cent success rate in 2009."

"98.2% success rate" ...just savour that statistic for a moment, then consider if such due diligence was applied elsewhere how many pedophiles wouldn't have been employed in the schooling system or how many wife beaters wouldn't still be out there beating women. Oh...look at me missing the most obvious, the child neglecter's/abusers.

You see this statistic clearly shows that high levels or rates of success are fully achievable with proper application, this stat leads me to believe that people aren't prosecuted for 'real' crimes, because the system doesn't have it as a priority...it seems animals are higher up on the agenda.

Another interesting set of criteria I came across:

Animal rights

This is a link to the RSPCA page that clearly outlines the 5 basic needs that an animal should be afforded without question.

Its a very humble list, but what I found most interesting was that prison inmates are not afforded some of the 'basic needs' on the list...so again animals are being treated better then human beings.

Anyhoot, I digress, the point of the matter is this, the horse with the 'love heart' shaved into its fur is being abused. Now some will argue that the Horse is fed and sheltered and groomed and given shoes etc... But then I ask what the heck were Horses doing before mankind started tampering with them?

Animals in Zoo's are being abused, yes their fed, yes there sheltered but one thing everyone seems to overlook is this, the worst form of punishment is having your freedom taken away from you, its one of the actions that can dramatically change psyche and permanently alter the characteristics of a living creature. Do you really think that the Lions in the Zoo's don't know that whats happening to them is not right?

The caged environment is a tool, its the objective of the cage to tame the 'wild' in all animals, its part of the 'breaking' process. The moment an animal is placed in an enclosure, its natural foraging regime has been dramatically limited. Food being provided by a Zoo keeper has killed the natural process of 'the hunt'... the caging of an animal is the dumbing down of its nature. Ultimately the spirit of the animal dies and the 'cuddley' exterior remains.

So...on one hand we have the RSPCA cracking down (with a 98% of efficiency) on individuals who are cruel to animals, yet there are a number of million dollar industries that rely on animal cruelty as the back bone of their business model...can some one say 'Hypocracy'?

So strangely enough, I'm on the side of animals, but its seems that its more the non domesticated ones... on the whole cats and dogs are living better lives that a lot of human beings.

iRant because the human superiority complex reeks to high heaven....