Animal Crackers

Stephen Pollard is all worked up about Paul McCartney:

On today’s BBC Six O’Clock News, the former Beatle and his wife, Lady Heather, are shown watching gruesome footage from China of cats and dogs being killed and then stripped for their fur. The practice is indeed sickening and no decent person could be other than horrified.

Where Sir Paul’s moral indignation becomes simply warped, however, is in his next sentence. “I wouldn’t even dream of going over there to play, in the same way I wouldn’t go to a country that supported apartheid . . . It’s against every rule of humanity.” Sir Paul and his wife then call for a worldwide boycott of all Chinese goods. “If we can hit them in their pockets, maybe they’ll do something to stop this.” [...]

Sir Paul has worldwide fame. He could do untold good campaigning for his fellow human beings. Instead, he chooses to try to save a few animals. Go figure.

On the contrary, what perplexes me is the way people get so outraged about those who campaign against animal cruelty - and we're not talking about animal lib nutters here, just cases like this where we can all agree that unnecessary cruelty is involved. What's the problem? It's not a zero-sum game, where any outrage against animal cruelty automatically detracts from campaigns against people cruelty. I've no doubt that were Sir Paul to see gruesome pictures of people being killed and then having their skin peeled off while some were still alive, to sell as leather coverings for handbags, he'd be as horrified as the rest of us. The difference would be that thousands of others would be horrified too, to the extent that it would hit the headlines across the world, and there'd be no need for Sir Paul to speak out.

Do we really want another celebrity giving us all the benefit of their opinion on every political topic? Stephen forgets that Sir Paul may not share his views: to judge from the political pronouncements of other rock stars, he almost certainly wouldn't. Just be glad that he isn't campaigning for troops out of Iraq now, or a boycott of Israel.

Comments

[Anthony]

I take your point Mick, but I can't help thinking that of the myriad of awful occurances that happen to humans - many of which are highlighted on your blog - that celebs never seem to kick up a stink about them at the same rate they will leap to save kittens or join a campaign to kick Bush et al. Perhaps Richard Gere's criticism of China over Tibet is an exception in that respect.

Perhaps one day there will be a "Rock artists against North Korean Oppression", but I suspect "Rock Artists against cruelty to North Korean Donkeys" would be much more likely.

[Mick H]

Somehow it doesn't bother me that celebrities don't campaign about, say, North Korea. Why would they? I actually rather like that very English eccentricity of getting all worked up about mistreatment of veal calves, or donkeys in Spain, or whatever it may be.

[Anthony]

Why would they?

The same reason they allegedly get worked up about a US invasion of Iraq.

Concern for their fellow man.

[John Barr]

His concern is admirable, but Sir Paul's got it backwards (as usual). In general, wealthy countries are much more concerned with animal welfare than poor countries. Therefore, to save Chinese doggies and kitties one shouldn't boycott but instead spend as much as possible on Chinese-made electronics. Go ahead and buy that home theater system - you may save a Chinese dog from a horrible fate!

[Scribbles]

Human beings can speak up for themselves as well as each other - animals cannot. From birth to death, how much pain they feel, whether or not they go hungry, how long or short their lives are, depends entirely upon us. I don't see therefore how any attempt to improve animal welfare can be seen as a waste of compassion. The very first tug on our humanity should be for the vulnerable, the children, the elderly, those with mental and physical impairments, and, yes, for other non-human creatures.

The RSPCA works with a lot of child welfare agencies in this country, because often where there is animal cruelty or neglect there can also be child cruelty or neglect. Is this not what we see in poorer countries? It could be that poverty causes this deficit of pity towards the vulnerable. But to argue that is to argue that the rich are rarely cruel, and I think we all know that is not true.

Top post, Mr Hartley!