| Dispelling the myth of disunity within animal protection groups |
 |
| If a myth is repeated time after time, the chances are that it will be perceived as truth. One such myth is that of the disunity within animal protection groups. As is the case in any groups having progressive agendas, there will naturally be some differing opinions between the groups on such issues as targets, priorities and methods. This creates the need to have several groups rather than one single group, which act independently of each other but collaborate in issues where there is common agreement. The alternative to supporting variations of opinion would be their suppression, and ultimately a dictatorship. We see this in any social issue groups as well as in politics, and it is for this same reason that a single party parliament is undesirable, while on the other hand, consensus is often desirable and welcome. So what is the true picture of the local animal protection non-governmental organisation situation? The picture is not as bleak as some may believe, or may wish others to believe it to be. After much hard work by all individual animal protection societies in Malta, we have managed to form as little as two separate federations, a feat which no other country to my knowledge has managed to achieve. We have a local situation where a majority of animal protection organisations are represented in either the "Partnership for Active Animal Welfare Societies" (PAAWS) or the "Malta Animal Rights Coalition" (MARC). These two separate federations have their own individual statutes and meetings, but both have link persons who communicate regularly so as to work together on issues on which there is total agreement, and to share information. More than this, each of the two federations deals with any particular issue by democratic vote, but each member organisation has the option to opt out of any issue that it may not agree on. Thus, while there is a single force by means of the collaboration of two separate federations (a case in point is the total unity in the case of the cats taken from San Anton Gardens), each federation, as well as each organisation within each federation, is allowed to maintain its individual independence, so long as the societies within the federations follow the written rules in the respective federation's constitution. Another benefit is that these federations are able to share knowledge, resources and expertise across the whole range of animal protection issues. For example, members of each federation are present on all the Animal Welfare Council's sub-committees, contributing expertise on topics ranging from stray animals, horses, exotic animals, pet shops, farm animals to marine mammals. The federations also regularly brief Maltese MEPs on animal protection issues at EU level so that they would be informed when new legislation is proposed. The enrolment of new members within each federation is decided by democratic vote from the existing members, and each society may freely choose to leave its present federation or join the other. Individual organisations are also free not to be represented in any federation if they choose so, but the advantages of being represented in a federation of like societies by far outweigh any disadvantages, thus resulting in a situation where practically all independent animal protection societies (exempting one or two who have chosen not to join any federation or else have not yet made that step) form part of one federation or the other. Animal protection groups have learned through experience that unity is strength. Many aspects of social and political life would benefit from the responsible attitudes of co-operation, dialogue and unity of purpose shown by Maltese animal protection groups. |
| Article written by Kenneth Cassar from PAAWS and edited by Michael Pearson from MARC, who also made some suggestions to make the text more accurate. |
| Animal welfare - Letter written in response to an opinion piece from Mr Ray Bezzina, communications co-ordinator at the Ministry of Rural Affairs and the Environment (Sunday 14th August). I refer to the opinion piece entitled “Animal welfare” by Mr Ray Bezzina, communications co-ordinator at the Ministry of Rural Affairs and the Environment (Sunday 14th August). It seems like whenever anyone criticizes the government of not giving animal rights the attention they deserve, the only thing that Minister George Pullicino’s public relations office can bring to its defence is the setting up of the Animal Welfare Council (AWC). It is ironic that the same minister has very recently stated that the AWC has been a failure, a statement which is supported by the fact that, as Mr Bezzina says, “Government is considering changes to the council's set-up and operations to make it more effective and efficient”. Considering that a whole year of AWC meetings have hardly produced any results, despite the hard work of the animal protection societies working through it, what is needed is not to make the AWC more efficient, but to make it work. Furthermore, Mr Bezzina’s claim that “all animal welfare groups play an active role in determining the council's policy” is not correct for two reasons. First of all, animal welfare group representation in the AWC is a minority. Secondly, only one of the two animal welfare federations is represented in the AWC. Fortunately, the two animal federations, despite what some might like people to believe, are in perfect working relations. But this still leaves animal welfare groups in a minority. So please don’t blame AWC inaction on animal welfare groups. Mr Bezzina says that “it is highly unjust to give the impression that animal welfare has not been pushed to the forefront of Government's agenda over the past few years”. I ask, how has animal welfare been pushed to the forefront of the government’s agenda? Perhaps by leaving karozzin horses in the summer sun for years? Perhaps by allowing the abduction of cats from public gardens by the Environmental Landscapes Consortium go unpunished? Perhaps by working so hard for the European Union to allow us a unique concession to hunt in spring? Instead of forever mentioning the AWC when being questioned on animal welfare work, it should name what the government has done to improve animal welfare, besides a few adverts in the media. Kenneth Cassar - Animal Rights Malta |