Dear signatories of the "Justice for Dalton" petition,
Our campaign, encapsulated by the mantra “Friend. Not Food.” has instigated quite a fervor in the past weeks. The uproar was unexpected, yet the echoes of over 7,000 signatures, media coverage, billboards, radio and television mentions, and the lively social media discussions mark the campaign's roaring success.
What initially began as a plea for our canine friends quickly ignited a debate on the broader theme of consuming various animals. The principle of equality in this context has been repeatedly cited: the logic runs - we consume non-humans, dogs aren't human, thus, consuming dog meat is ethically unproblematic.
Although a striking number, including vegetarians, uphold this perspective, I maintain my stance. Consuming a dog does not merely feel emotionally disconcerting but fundamentally challenges an ancient partnership that dogs and humans have fostered over millennia.
This mutual arrangement between our species and theirs is deeply rooted in our shared history. From wild wolves drawn to human settlements, we witnessed an organic process of 'self-domestication'. Over time, this birthed a unique partnership, with both species benefiting from each other's presence.
Eating a dog then becomes more than a mere dietary choice – it transgresses the boundaries of this special relationship. In short, eating a dog is a betrayal of that friendship.
However, I wish to clarify that the Justice for Animals Trust's purpose extends beyond prescribing dietary preferences. Our central aim remains advocating for the humane treatment of all animals. The spotlight on dogs is due to their distinct relationship with humans, but our concern extends to all animals - pets, livestock, or wildlife.
Each creature should experience compassion, dignity, and respect, and we consistently strive for improved welfare standards. The ongoing debate, in fact, highlights cultural differences and invites an introspection about ingrained habits. Can change occur? I remain hopeful.
The 'meat politics' surrounding our dietary choices are complex, tangled in our shared history, societal norms, and varying degrees of mutual dependence with different animals. Legal and scientific differentiations exist among domestic, wild, and domesticated animals.
In addressing the critique of prioritising dogs over human welfare, let's explore the concept of One Welfare. This recognizes the interconnectedness of animal welfare, human wellbeing, and environmental health. By advocating for animal welfare, we're not undermining human welfare; instead, we underscore their interdependency.
Exceptional circumstances of survival might blur these ethical lines, but these are not the norm. While we continue our plea against routine consumption of dogs, we must also focus on the underlying systemic issue of food insecurity and strive for sustainable solutions.
Hence, let's steer the narrative towards mutual respect for all living beings. Our goal is not to place dogs above humans or vice versa but to seek a harmonious existence where everyone - human or non-human - can live with dignity and freedom from suffering.
Onward together in the spirit of animal welfare,
Adv Ronel Lewies
Chairperson: Justice for Animals Trust