It only Pets

They're only ... They're only ANIMALS People decided once to divide the world into themselves (humans), and other animals, and I think, this was the basis of all other divisions, which emerged among humans thereafter. The moment we call someone "animal" we think we may do whatever we want to that person. Like when Indians were considered animals, by the newly arrived Americans it was permitted to shoot them. When Jews were regarded as animals, it was acceptable to kill them in gas chambers. So if we fail to destroy this very foundation of hierarchy, then truly, we'll never solve the problems that divide us. Reducing prejudice against animals, or showing people that animals are, in fact, very similar to us, and that they differ less from us than many of us suppose, reduces people's prejudice against immigrants. They are a very stereotyped and discriminated group. Why does this happen? Well, immigrants are often compared to animals: "they're dirty, they don't speak our language", they are being de-humanised. Their humanity is degraded, and they are pushed closer to the animal world. If people become convinced that animals are very much like we are, in fact, they're no worse than us, our attidute toward immigrants will improve. Then the comparison with animals wouldn't be negative, as the animals, indeed, are very similar to us. A good question to ask is whether other mammals, as well as fish, birds, or all vertebrates, are, like humans, conscious beings. I mean, are they aware of stimulus coming from their environment? So, are they beings who also experience frustration? Do they experience any states of pleasure, or also pain and suffering? It's vital to include animals into ethical considerations especially, since this issue is still picked up too seldom in our culture and our country. What would such a consideration mean? Well, first of all, consideration of the moral status. It means, who should be included in the moral subjectivity and have that status, and what rights, according to that status, he should acquire. I guess, it's impossible, in the 21st century, to overlook the question of ethics any further. At least because we don't avoid the issue of disabled people, we discuss the rights of unborn children to live, the question of abortion. And still we overlook the animal issue. I don't like to think: populations, species, big groups. They don't suffer, do they? But individuals, they do. Therefore I always refer to that language of the rights, because those rights must be universal, and must be individual. This is what I like in this concept very much. So if we speak about rights, then I would always begin with those most essential, the very basic ones. The rights of animals are often discussed in a quite unessential, even absurd way, and unimportant matters, as for instance the right to a worthy death... What a right is that...?! Or the right to less brutal torture, or the right to a bigger cage... That's just ridiculous... Ridiculous in terms of justice. It's impossible to talk reasonably about animal rights, without talking about their very basic rights, like the right to live, the right to freedom, to bodily integrity, to such essential issues. Without those, there are no animal rights. In order to understand people's approach to meat and animal rights today, one must get back in the developement of children. Scott Plous in his article from 1993 refers to his research, which he conducted in a primary school. He asked the kids about how much do animals experience difficult times. Do they go through such experiences at all? They were to answer YES or NO. Surprisingly, as he stated, the kids in a primary school believed, that the animals who experienced least unpleasant sensations were the farm animals. The pets were second, and they thought that the ones who had the worst life were the wild animals. And of course, if you ask adults, if such a research was done, the answer would, most likely, be the opposite. A glaring manifestation of specisism in our society is the division made by people between pets, and the animals that they consume in the form of meat. Some they treat as their friends, and members of the household, and grant them some special rights, like they don't kill or eat them. Some give them a funeral, and treat respectfully their individuality, while others they treat merely as an object, a product, which is made into cutlets, that end up on their table. In order to be able to eat meat with a clear conscience, or to buy and consume products which in some way are linked to suffering of animals one needs to change ones attitude toward them. So if we believe, that animals do not suffer or like to be abused. Or maybe they're not intelligent enough for us to have any moral obligations towards them, then it's much easier for us to cut ourselves off from that what really happens to them. Animals are always depicted as volunteers for the industry. This is what the problem is about. They are forced into advertising themselves against their will. As dead... It comes to such absurdities as, for example, a figure of an ostrich walking around in a supermarket with ostrich meat on a tray, giving itself to be consumed. This is a very frequent example of advertising. Also, as if they are cooperating. That they are aware of their part in the process of meat production. They are co-workers, glad for their status. And there is, for instance, pate made of poultry, and there's a smiling animal shown there, as if saying proudly: "Here I am, a part of this." "I'm glad to be born to die for this industry, to get ground into pate." We keep cows to get milk. We keep pigs to get meat. We keep minks to get fur. We keep Negros to get cocoa, coffee and bananas. We keep Chinese to get computers, cheap clothes, and so on. Everything is simply farming. "Living animals" "Filled up with taste" "If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration" Peter Singer For very trivial needs of humans the very basic rights of an animal are violated. Just for entartainment... ... their freedom is denied, their bodies are injured, or an extreme stress is inflicted on an animal. For very trivial "needs", on a very low level. For having fun one day in a year. It's incredible, that this might be a reason to inflict such a terrible harm. Circus is an institution, where on each step a very basic abuse takes place. Not only on the arena, where it's visible least, as the animals have to behave in certain way to look funny. As if they were willing to have fun. However, let's keep in mind, that they work in this way. CIRCUS They are trained in this way, they are brought up in this way, and they are forced to do this. And if they don't turn out to be useful, then they "disappear". Then some other ones are brought in. I know what happens with animals who are unable to work in circuses. Some of such animals we tried to save by placing them in shelters. Those animals were really severely injured. Not only physically, that's obvious, but also mentally. It is not natural to move from place to place, all over the country, every day, for one's whole life. Seeing only the stage, back-yard, and cage-bars, stage, back-yard, and cage-bars... If we speak about wild animals, we think of a wolf, a tiger or an elephant. This is a symbol of freedom in nature. Wolf especially, because it appears in Poland. Tiger - we all know, is the biggest cat in the world. NO ENTRY!! A tiger, 300 kg heavy, can run and wander across 100 square kilometers a day, for hunting. And here they have to suffer in a cages of 15 square meters. For their entire life. Often they are sick. They don't swing in circus-madness as elephants do, but they circle around in their cages endlessly, all the time. They're bored. Yeah, terribly bored... The life of a tiger, who cannot hunt, run nor swim in a lake, for instance, but instead is shut in a cage, in which they have nothing. Nothing to play with. Just waiting: to perform, to train, and to eat. This is their life. A passive life. Their life is so awful and sad, that we can only imagine, if we feel empathy. How it would be to live in freedom. This is not a science about animals, but finding out about what we can do to exploit a weaker being. How to form the weaker one to fulfil your wishes, be it aesthetic or for entertainment. What kind of science is that? This is a "science" which is very hard to unlearn. In no way is it natural, neither is it educational. We cooperated with children's rights spokesman and we managed to convince the Ministry of Education to issue a recommendation for all superintendents of schools to stop giving away, in schools, free tickets to circuses with animals. And it works. It is a success. An important ethical problem is fur farming which still does exist in Poland, and still, new farms are being opened, to produce mink fur. From the ethical perspective, it's pretty hard to find any argument, that could justify this industry. Should it be based on Singer's welfare-ethic or should it be based on the abolitionist approach of G.Francione. Killing of animals takes place here, imprisoning and an enormous suffering connected with the way they are kept just in order to fulfil such a trivial "need" which is fur. One of the major reasons for the development of the fur industry in Poland are legal limitations or the total banning of such industry in other countries. Places like: England, Northern Ireland, Wales, Croatia or Austria introduced a total ban of any type of fur industry. Other countries like Italy and Switzerland introduced such regulations concerning breeding of fur animals that the industry simply became unprofitable. The reasons those countries introduced such strict rules were both environmental, and for the humane treatment of animals. The life of an animal on a fur farm is comparable to the life of an animal reared for meat. A fox, for instance, or any other fur animal, lives, in fact, only from spring to winter. Breeding in spring, then, of course, immediately, the young are separated from their mothers, as soon as possible. Then they live until the first frost, when their fur gets more dense. And then they are killed, when it's most profitable, as nobody will keep an animal for two years, when it can be killed after just one year. A fox, who is the size of a medium dog lives in only one square meter. Again, it's something that we accept for foxes. If we think about dogs, who are animals with similar needs, it terrifies us. But for foxes, who probably have even greater need for space, as they're wild, it doesn't terrify us, somehow. But it should because these animals live in a totally empty environment. They simply live in a cage, which consists of wire-netting. Just to make it easier. Their excrement falls down right onto the ground, so cleaning is unnecessary. Those animals have no place to hide. A natural need of a wild animal is hiding. Otherwise it gets stressed. Furthermore, they obviously have no contact with other animals. They are caged separately. There's no playing, nor any other interaction with other animals. They are mammals, too. They have the need to contact, to touch, and to play, to be together, and during a frost, to cuddle up together. Fur animals have no such possibility. They are kept only in order to be killed and transformed into fur. American mink is specific, for it is very aggressive and it can destroy the population of the European mink, if they run away from farms. But the breeders say: "To run away from a farm is difficult." No, that is not true. They run away from farms every day, all over Poland. Many, even hundreds of them: foxes, minks, martens, and many other predators. They can, and they have a great influence on local fauna. They escape very often. According to genetic-code research conducted in Warta River Mouth National Park some of the mink living there, have escaped from farms. When minks escape, they are dangerous for local birds, fish and nests, so breeding of these animals in Poland is a danger for the local environment. We know about several investments, which are to be realised in Poland. This leads to resistance from society, from people who live nearby. They simply do not want such a farm to destroy the environment. Also, they do not want to have an animal-concentration-camp nearby. In the case of mink, just like in case of other animals, this is exactly how it looks. Many tens of thousands of mink, sometimes even more, in one place, in very long barns, in hundreds, even thousands of cages. Obviously, the cages are small. That makes it impossible for them to fulfil any of their needs, except eating. But this, as we know, is far too little for any animal. A mink, or any other caged animal needs plenty of space. They need a very rich environment: a river, plants, flowers, hiding places, soil but there, in cages, they're closed in a 40 by 80 centimetre cage. I saw it. It's really, very, very sad. They are sick. They suffer from paranoia and other illnesses. Often are they injured, and often their wounds are infected. Often they eat their own faeces, they devour their own young. They bite their own bodies and bodies of their fellows living in the same cage. Sometimes there are many animals in the same cage. 3, 4, even 6. They get sick, they receive antibiotics. Acts of cannibalism occur. Finally, they are killed in a very cruel way. Some 1,5 percent of every breeder's income, and that's really a lot of money, goes to the development of fur fashion and to support new designers. Designers, who get, so to say, irresistible offers from the fur industry usually begin their design in fur, and they follow it later on. So fashion and the fur industry are closely linked. The majority of Polish skins are exported and sold via Scandinavian auction houses, so the cooperation is quite intensive. As for carnivorous fur animals, foxes, raccoon dogs, minks and polecats, are killed in Poland. Of herbivore fur animals - rabbits, coypu and chinchilla are killed. Nowadays fur animals breeding is absolutely senseless, and I do hope, that it will be an anachronistic idea, banned and eliminated first. We fight for it in Poland, and other organisations fight for it abroad. But first of all it's necessary to get through to the people who buy furs. Some of them are not aware of what fur animal breeding entails. Producers are not honest enough to put the information on the labels. For instance: "This fur has been made of 100 chinchillas, who had lived merely for a half a year, and were killed by breaking their necks. They had lived in these terrible conditions..." No, no-one is going to do it, for then the sale of fur would collapse. Therefore we, organisations and activists, we do that. We show the public what the fur industry really looks like, and sales of fur decline. It doesn't happen as quickly as we would like, but it's happening, and I think, it's just a matter of time, and we'll finally win. As mammals, we all have similar receptors. In terms of feeling pain, nociceptors play a role. All mammals are equipped with them. Similar chemical substances are in charge of conducting information to nerve bundles. An interesting thing is, what in my opinion is a fact still not acknowledged with due respect, also fish are not only equipped with nociceptors, but also there have been found opioids in their bodies, when they are injured. As we remember, opioids appear in organisms that experience pain. That's why it's unjustified to claim that fish are unable to feel suffering, and unable to generate states of consciousness. We attempt to find our human features in animals. If an animal has a distinctive facial expression able to show fear or to shout like we do, then its suffering is understandable for us, while a fish doesn't do that. It suffers in its own, silent way, so different from ours. This makes our empathy toward a fish much more difficult. Some kinds of fish, e.g. trout, have many nerve cells in their bodies, especially heads, that their sensitivity to mechanic impulses, for instance mechanical pressure, is comparable with the sensitivity of the human eye. Yeah, this is understandable due to the environment, in which they live, as changes of water pressure are of vital importance to them. Indeed, fish are treated very differently from other animals. They are probably the only animals, whose death we can see in a shop. Nobody kills a pig or a cow on a counter in a shop, watching it die. Yet, fish are treated exactly in this way. Often one speaks about fish only in December. It's good, because then most people can see their death, and understand the issue. This happens, however, throughout the whole year. By lakes and rivers, when people, just for "hobby" and for fun, catch fish. They catch the animal from its natural environment, they wound it, they cause suffering, and all this as entertainment. Sometimes in the presence of a child. This takes place all through the year. It differs in no way from what happens in December, except the context, maybe. The same happens in the fishing industry, when not just one or ten animals but tons are caught, not even counted. They are hoisted up very rapidly from the depths, which alone already causes injury. They're dropped down onto the ship-deck, causing unimaginable wounds and suffering. Then they wait for the death, and finally die. That's just like in a shop, except, that the scale of it is gigantic. Depending on how we calculate the number of animals killed, including fish, who obviously are animals, then it'll be many hundreds of millions. 25 million pigs alone are killed in Poland, per year. Generally, Poland has become a good market for foreign companies, so industrial farming is still developing. Maybe not as intensively as in poorer countries like Romania or Ukraine, but still, many animals, especially pigs, are bred industrially. Usually the environment consists of nothing but just a concrete floor without anything there to occupy the animals. It leads to aggression, sicknesses, stress, despair, etc. The animals have no possibility of meeting their natural needs. Crowding them in such a little area causes easy transmission of sicknesses from one animal to another. Secondly, the sicknesses accumulate and mutate. Of course, the sickness prevention is tried. Various antibiotics, and diverse pharmaceuticals are used. In the case of sows, i.e. female pigs kept for breeding, it's even worse. They are kept in small cages, so called "gestation crates", in which they spend most of their lifetime, because they are either pregnant, or they feed their young while still being kept in such a crate. Those cages are so small, that the sows cannot turn around in them. They can only stand or lie there. Hens in industrial farming, especially those kept in cages, suffer also in an unimaginable way. It's enough to look at how crowded they have to live and how they are mistreated: debeaked, crowded in very little space, forced to lay eggs in quantities which cause decalcification of the body all with a lack of veterinary care. If an animal gets sick, then there's no consideration for any treatment. It simply doesn't pay; there's no time, and no money for it. Such an animal often lies until it dies or is disposed of, or is used to make fodder for other animals. Big, closed halls are overfilled with ammonia they are sweltering and dark. The majority of the animals live in darkness, having no access to fresh air, nor light, having no possibility to take a dust bath as chickens usually do. They cannot follow their natural instincts. Examples of rescuing such animals show, that really deep in their instincts, all those needs exist. Hens, that are taken from such breeding factories try to make a nest. They can do all that. They have it all encoded in their genes. They have all those needs. So in all those cages and concrete halls, they cannot meet their needs. They suffer. Yes, they really do. Perhaps fortunately, I'd say, they don't live that long. They only live for a few months. But still, they can become sick, they can suffer terribly, and finally they die. So they have nothing left of this life. Many people say: "It's thanks to my meat-eating that those animals live at all, so they should be thankful to me." But really, let's put ourselves in the situation of an animal that lives on an industrial farm. I would rather not live at all, than to live the entire life in a crowded, dirty, and stinking prison. "LIVE ANIMAL TRANSPORT" Obviously, industrial farming is also used in the case of cows. There too, everyone wants to earn as much as possible, and also there no consideration is given to the needs of the animals. In the case of milk cows, they're, in fact, reduced to milk producing machines. More and more often, milk cows never go out at all. So they're either confined to a little cow-run, or, cheaper for the farmer, they're simply chained to the spot, on a very short chain. Almost all the time are they connected to a milking machine. Like other mammals, like women, who don't produce milk just like that, but in order to feed their young. The same is in the case of cows. Cows are impregnated about once a year. The calves are taken away from them as soon as it is possible, cause the sooner you remove the calf, the more milk there is for sale. A milk-cow lives only a few years. She's unable to live longer. Her body is exploited without ceasing. She gives 10 times more milk than she would naturally. She is regularly impregnated, and all the vital nutrients she needs go into the milk. They are used for the process of reproduction. By drinking milk we contribute to this, and in a more direct way, than we might suppose. "Your Milky Way" Animals from smaller farms are sold at farmer's markets. Most often they are really in a miserable condition, especially dairy-cows. They are completely worn out, sick, and it's unprofitable to cure them. Instead of being treated, they are taken to the market. Often these animals can hardly stand. Often, they can only lie. It is illegal to trade such animals, and to transport them to a slaughter-house. Such animals should first be treated. Otherwise, according to the law, they should be "put to sleep", but Polish farmers have found another way: they simply sell them as low-quality-meat, which finally finds its way to all kinds of products. "Slaughter livestock transport" Attendance at such a market can easily dispel the preconceived notion, that animals from small farms have a good life. Because they don't have it so good. You can see in what condition they are at the market. It's obvious how they treat those animals, both the sellers, and the buyers. So this gives us at least some idea of how those animals are slaughtered. Several years ago I was there for the first time. I returned almost mentally sick. For I had seen streams blood, I'd seen broken bones, screaming, yelling, force-loading of those beautiful animals, whom we still depict as a symbol of freedom. A symbol of freedom, packed up in a little trailer, or a car, like a tin. Horses are brought there, quickly re-loaded onto a big lorry and then, 2000-2500 kilometres journey with no food and no water. Poland is the biggest mass-murderer of horses. It's us, who mass-produce the largest number of horses for slaughter, in Europe. We mass-trasport them, still alive, and we also slaughter them here. We are the biggest in terms of murdering horses, in Europe. We, Poles. The horses' problem is that they grow so fast. Those little foals, whom Italians love to eat, they often call them "latossi" which means, those, who suck mother's milk. The most delicious meat! The fact, that the mother later cannot eat for a weak, because her child had been taken away from her, that she neighs and cries, and so does her child, during transport... Well, who cares...? There is money somewhere on the way. Right now, as we're talking, there are horses loaded up on lorries. Right now, horses are transported to roundups. Right now, the slaughter-houses are working at the full speed. In terms of ethics, vegetarianism is the very first step, that you can take in order to improve the animals' situation. But is it the ultimate step? - I don't think so. Mainly because vegetarians consume a lot of animal products anyway. Well, it happens often. Frequently those products come from industrial farming. And there, animals are ultimately killed. Secondly, they suffer terribly. Veganism, as a concept, that emerged in the 1940s in England. The first Vegan Society came into being then, created by former vegetarians. And this is also significant, that it came from the vegetarian movement, by rejecting more products than vegetarians did. Vegetarians reject only meat, while vegans reject all animal products. And this is exactly what it is. The definition of veganism is: An attempt to minimise contribution to the exploitation of animals in each area. Firstly, in terms of diet, but also clothing, entertainment etc. So, we reject animal products because their production results in suffering and death for the animals. As simple as this! "We wish you a good appetite!" I am a supporter of the plant-food diet, the vegan diet, which can be more gentle or strict - as you wish. My patients get a choice of whether they go for the evolutionary version: vegetables, fruits, groats and legumes, or if they prefer, as I suggest, a stricter vegetable-and-fruit diet, which more than 25 years ago was put forward by doctor Ewa Dabrowska. Veganism for me is, first of all, a certain lifestyle, which embraces ethics. That is ethical treatment of animals, by which I understand not eating them, not killing them, not using them for unnecessary tests, if there is any excuse for any animal testing in the 21st century. So first of all the ethical aspect. Secondly, it is quite a healthy diet, which means, that I don't get sick so much as before. Consumption of large amounts of meat, especially red meat, leads to many lifestyle diseases. We have two main killers nowadays: Cardiovascular diseases, with strokes and infarcts included. The second group is cancer diseases. From the oncological point of view, according to the greatest institution that deals with cancer research, World Cancer Research Fund, red meat consumption leads to development of colon cancer and there are so called diet-dependent cancers, as for instance, mamilla cancer in women, and prostate cancer in men. A breakthrough was a publication by a well known physician from Harvard in 1990, Dean Ornish, who published in "Lancet" the results of his one-year work regarding the change of diet by his patients with an advanced coronary-heart disease. He divided these patients into two groups: The first group was fed according to, the Harvard recommended, so called "food pyramid", where meat was acceptable. The second group ate only plant based foods, called "plant-based-diet". After a year he checked certain parameters like cholesterol, as well as the symptoms of the coronary disease in these patients. It turned out, that the recommended by Harvard "food pyramid" caused development of the disease, i.e. aggravating the symptoms with the symptoms of angina pectoris worsened by 186 percent. The opposite happened in patients on the plant-based-diet, where not only cholesterol level decreased, as compared to the "food-pyramid" group, but also in three years there was no need to apply by-bass or angioplasty. Vegan diet is based on plants, it means: vegetables, fruits, grains and legumes. It supplies us with everything, except vitamin B12, so we need to supplement vitamin B12. It's available at chemists with no prescription required. Many people wonder if a vegan diet can supply us sufficiently with proteins and iron. Legumes, as for instance peas, beans, lentils, chick-peas are so called high-purine plants, which supply us with a sufficient amount of protein. We search for calcium from non-diary sources. Too high consumption of diary products may lead to so called metabolic acidosis which causes loss of calcium from the system. Most people can live on a vegan diet. To make it easier, and to make the first symptoms of dietary cleansing easier, considering the transition period, I'll remind the vegetable and fruit diet here. It's worth to eat a lot of grains, like for example millet, and legumes. Going over from a traditional diet that includes meat and other animal products to a vegan diet is not a problem. A bigger problem is, in terms of cleansing of the system, while going over to a vegetable-fruit-only diet. But still, I tell my patients to go easier in the transition period by eating grains and legumes. And most of people have no problems with that. This is only a question of habit. "From private slaughter" Each new vegan makes it easier for following new vegans, because the more vegans there are, the more vegan products will become available marked as "vegan", dedicated to vegans, more restaurants and bars and so on. In terms of society it's still difficult. But it's also difficult in terms of choice, because it's quite a big change. What is "normal" is so much different, that the change into veganism is a big one. That's not a small change of lifestyle. That's a total change. Often when somebody is interested in animal issues and becomes vegan, then he begins to pay attention to his consumer choices. So, after we have checked which products in a shop are vegan, we begin to wonder about where they come from and how they've been produced. Did they cause suffering of people? In what conditions were they produced? What country do they come from? Are workers rights respected there? Even though a product doesn't seem to be connected with animals, does the corporation test their product on animals? Often we can, for example, buy spices for a soup, made by a concern, which tests its products on animals, without us being aware of that. So I guess, when somebody accepts the value of veganism and its ethical dimension, he begins to consider other choices as a consumer. Some become even activists, because veganism is just the beginning. "Hunting tradition and culture" "Elephants will never forget" "FUR" - "HAMBURGER" "People's stomach - a grave for animals" "ZOO - teaches... entertains... brings up" "Stop fur farming! You can live without fur - they cannot!" "Act for animals!" "An animal is not a thing" "Stop slaughter for entertainment" "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, later they fight against you, and finally you win." I guess, every person, who'd like to get involved in animal activism, or any other form of action for animals, has, indeed, many possibilities. To reach the people is crucial. To help them change their point of view, to understand what speciesism is. They'll understand in what a terrible way, in thousands of ways, we attack animals during our lives. It is necessary to give right education, especially for children. To make them see, that the animals, whom we cannot see on nature-TV-channels, like for instance chickens, cows and pigs, have a very rich inner life. They are very intelligent, they have advanced social relations, and so on... We have to save children, by showing them how, in reality, we are related to animals. Not based on hierarchy, but parallel, on the same level with us. One can help by helping animals in a direct way. One can help by adopting. People who work in big companies can promote adoption of animals. One can organise temporary homes for animals, or material help for animal sanctuaries. Use the media. Everybody can. Not only by the internet, which is a tremendous way to reach big groups of people. You can also establish your own fan magazines, or a bigger publishing house. You can fund or collect money for brochures. One can raise funds by grants. It's possible now. We're sitting in a library with many such publications financed by institutions, telling us about animals. Various strategies: social, legal, political, even religious. Why not? Also art can be a medium to reach people who are normally not active in social affairs, but still are vulnerable to art. If you have an interest in art, then you are sensitive. We search for ways to reach people who have interests and values in other areas of life, like feminism, animals, racism and so on. You can also help existing organisations, to act in those organisations. There are groups that organise actions in the whole of Poland, like "No-fur day", "The Fish day", or "Vegan week". These are actions which everybody can organise and take part in. Write to us, and we will send free material. It's a simple way - just to give out leaflets. To create street action, which is more common now in Poland. A few people, simply go out in the streets, to meet passers-by. If you see, that harm is done or that an injury has occurred to an animal then report it to the police, to an animal rights organisation Take pictures with a camera or a mobile-phone. Document it. In order to help animals collect evidence, which proves that the monster is a monster. Don't turn your back on them! Do not say: "Oh, but what can I do...?" You can do a lot! There are many local groups now. And this is great! Independent, local groups of activists. People organising themselves. Let's search in our area: in schools and universities, at home, in the streets, by computer and the internet. Wherever. And let's act! There is no "one strategy that works". Whatever the issue: animal rights, feminism, homophobia or antifascism. It doesn't matter. The point is that there are many points of view and different social reality. Acting in Poland is not the same as acting in Spain, the USA, or Taiwan. Therefore the strategy must be flexible. Regarding a world-wide action for change and improvement of conditions for various oppressed groups. It's necessary to search for ways to cooperate. As the research on dehumanisation and stereotypization shows, the same or very similar processes play their role both in the attitude of a dominating group over an oppressed group of people, as also where a group of people dominates a group of animals. If the psychological basis is the same, then it's right to plan actions that are somehow universal. Since its very beginning, the vegetarian movement has been connected with other social movements and I see it as a big problem, that it's already at a distance from other issues. I think, that the vegetarian movement, and the animal rights movement have no chance if they're not included in a broader program of social change, or a broader environmental movement. Slowly, step by step, you can explore these problems. When I joined the Zapatista Army, I thought it was the most beautiful kind of struggle in the world. Once I read about the Zapatista Army, that they also killed wild pigs and other animals... for meat. I was already vegetarian then, and I was never involved in animal activism, but I was just a vegetarian. Quite privately. Then, once, when I had already been in Poland for some months, I saw a dying dog, run over by a car in a street. Then I recognised, that animals really need our help. Yeah, I felt... That was an emotional issue. And then later you read about the World War II, which killed 55 million people. This is still nothing comparing to 55 million animals being killed within just a few short hours. So the greatest massacre of human beings in our history is like an hour in the history of animals... English text: saveAnimals@wp.pl realisation music In this movie were used XAVIER BAYLE graphics from TIERE RAUS series thanks to ... www.theyareonlyanimals.org