So, are human beings really superior to animals?
IN his latest article (“Afghan animal rescuer Pen Farthing is not a second Noah. He’s a selfish moral imbecile”, The Herald, August 31) Andrew Mckie calls Mr Farthing foul-mouthed, and by implication psychopathic. It’s interesting the extent to which Mr Mckie fails to see that by using such derogatory terms about another human being he is himself foul-mouthed and setting himself above Mr Farthing in his selfappointed hierarchy. He alludes to Christian teaching but he’s being selective: where is he taking the beam from his own eye?
It’s true that we treat animals hierarchically as he points out. I confess that while my cats are central to my wellbeing, I can’t conjure up fondness for slugs (though I would never kill one and I acknowledge that their place in the bio system is no less significant than my own, I imagine much more so).
I quote Mr Mckie: “... to believe an animal – or even class of animals – has more value than human life is literally psychopathic.” I challenge him to list the ways in which human beings are superior. Which species of animal does he know which slaughters and tortures gratuitously, for example? Is he more loyal than a horse or dog? Or less grasping? Which species is responsible for raping the Earth or has he forgotten? I recommend he read Esther Woolfson’s deeply researched and breathtakingly humane book, Between Light and Storm: How We Live With Other Species.
Joyce Gunn Cairns, Edinburgh.
Belief in a circle of life
WHILE my heart aches for the people suffering in Afghanistan, as an animal rights activist I am among those who was thrilled to see somebody who had pledged himself to a group of animals and was willing to do anything he could do to stand by that pledge. I am reminded of the words of my friend Captain Paul Watson, who heads up Sea Shepherd, an organisation known for interfering with whaling vessels: “My clients are the whales. Find me one whale who disagrees with what I am doing and I will stop.”
According to Andrew Mckie, those of us who believe in a circle of life rather than a hierarchy of life are psychopathic. While that was insulting, it was at least good to learn from him that my “confusion” about whether dogs go to heaven is shared with Pope Francis. I adore our current Pope, and am thrilled to be bonded with him in any way, even if it is as a recipient of Mr Mckie’s disdain. If Mr Mckie lands in Heaven snarling at those of us who don’t automatically put all human life above all other life, while my dog is busy indiscriminately licking faces elsewhere, I’ll go elsewhere, thanks.
Karen Dawn, Executive Director of Dawnwatch, an animal advocacy nonprofit organisation, Santa Barbara, California.
Not an exercise in sentimentality
ANDREW Mckie displays a lack of understanding of the web of life and a lack of compassion. There is not an animal on this Earth, except mankind, who has deliberately and knowingly created nuclear weapons, bombed countries into the Stone Age, then walked away leaving the survivors to the mercy of religious extremists. The dogs in question are mostly service animals, who, like the interpreters, helped the British and American forces by sniffing out explosives.
As Mr Mckie points out, there are many charities, supporting human beings, animals, insects, birds, for the simple reason that if they didn’t exist, the world would be a poorer place, as governments don’t seem able to deal with what they should be doing. But those individuals who support charities can’t do it all. Some of us help animals, some of us help people. It’s adult human males who are causing the trouble, not dogs.
Pen Farthing’s work is reminiscent of what happened when the British Army abandoned hundreds of thousands of horses and donkeys who had worked for them during the First World War, and left them to die of malnutrition and neglect. The male human animal is not happy unless he is inventing new methods of killing, whether it’s bombing or just leaving sentient beings to die of hunger.
This is not an exercise in sentimentality and skewed moral priorities. You don’t have to look far to find the culprits in Afghanistan, and it most certainly wasn’t the dogs who worked for the army which abandoned them. Margaret Forbes, Kilmacolm.
Where is the opposition?
SO Nicola Sturgeon thinks she now has an undeniable mandate to call another independence referendum (“Sturgeon says mandate for Indyref2 now ‘undeniable’”, The Herald, September 1). She claims colossal issues such as tackling climate change and recovery from the pandemic mean that this is the time to break up the UK.
However, I do have to wonder at her priorities when Scotland has so many home-grown problems, such as a huge housing crisis, the worst death rate from drugs misuse in Europe and an education system sinking so low that even the poorest Eastern European countries have better outcomes than we do. Add to that lifeline ferry services to the offshore Scottish islands no longer fit for purpose, a serious lack of skilled workers and training.
There is so much that needs fixing that can only be fixed by a Government that cares about its people. The SNP (sadly always a one-trick pony) after 14 years in office appears to have given up, simply repeating the tired old mantra about independence.
The last two referenda, Brexit and Scottish independence, split the country right down the middle. We do not need any more division, we need strong government by people willing to make a difference right now, rather than than constantly harping on about some magical mystical land somewhere beyond the rainbow.
Oh where is an effective opposition when you need one?
Celia Judge, Ayr.
Immaturity of Green MSP
I WOULD have hoped that in a functioning parliamentary democracy politicians of whatever hue would see it as their role to strive to persuade and convince opponents. It is disappointing to see a prominent member of Scotland’s Green Party, Maggie Chapman, expressing delight that the recent Snp/green Party deal has unionists “frothing at the mouth” (“Green MSP delighted that deal with SNP has ‘unionists frothing at the mouth’”, The Herald, August 31).
This attitude from the Greens demonstrates, I believe, an immaturity which does the Green Party no service and which underlines a lack of integrity matched only by that of the Libdems when they went into coalition with the Tories in 2010.
I would like to assure Ms Chapman that as a unionist, and a patriotic Scot, I am not frothing at the mouth but that I am deeply disappointed that active Scottish politicians are pulling Scottish politics down to its lowest common denominator.
Hugh Scott Smith, Edinburgh.
The hypocrisy of Kate Forbes
ONLY a few weeks ago Finance Secretary Kate Forbes was trumpeting that Scotland could do so much better if independent.
She now has the effrontery to say that, in the event of new restrictions being enforced she has no money for business support or furlough and would need “additional help from the UK Government” (“Forbes: We have no more money to help firms or workers in any new lockdown).
The hypocrisy of this Government is mind-blowing. Isobel Hunter, Lenzie.
60% argument is perverse
IN their endorsement of Mark
Smith’s recent contribution to Scotland’s constitutional debate (“Even nationalists must accept the 60% independence rule”, The Herald, August 30), your correspondents Keith Howell and Jill Stephenson (Letters, August 31) appear unable to grasp the irony of what they are arguing. They feel Scottish Secretary Alister Jack’s proposal to set a bar of 60% opinion poll support for a second independence referendum to be reasonable and fair.
Just think about that for a minute. Mr Howell and Ms Stephenson conclude that the Tories, who garnered 10% of Scottish seats at the 2019 Westminster election, should now dictate an arbitrary level of support six times that before they might consider that Scots should be able to decide their country’s future. This must be muscular unionism in action, arrogantly dismissing the 55% of Scottish MSPS elected in May on manifesto commitments to deliver Indyref2.
The perversity of their arguments perfectly illustrate why Scotland’s governance requires urgent review.
Iain Gunn, Elgin.
IT appears that unionists want one referendum rule for the Irish and a very different one for the Scots.
The 1998 Belfast Agreement between the UK and Irish governments states, at Annexe A, that the Northern Ireland Secretary “shall” hold a referendum on a united Ireland “if at any time it appears likely (to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland) that a majority of those voting would express a wish (for a united Ireland)”. Should the referendum result be close, Schedule 1, Clause 3 of the Agreement allows for a second referendum “(not) earlier than seven years after the holding of a previous poll...”.
So no 60% rule and no “once in a generation” stitch-up for the Irish.
Tom Johnston, Cumbernauld.