This petition was started by Occupy for Animals on 4th of October, 2013. It is addressed to the Intergroup, the European Parliament, the European Commission, and it aims to have Madame Daciana Sarbu, one of the Vice President's of the European Parliament's Intergroup on the Welfare and Conservation of Animals and wife of Romania's Prime Minister Victor Ponta, removed from her position.
The letter that is being send when you sign this petition, as well as the content compiled on our website, at: http://www.occupyforanimals.org/romania---daciana-sarbu-a-head-with-two-faces---one-face-smiling-at-the-death-bringers-the-other-face-smiling-at-the-protectors.html will explain why we believe that Madame Sarbu is not fit for office.
Thank you, in advance, for signing our petition.
TO: The European Parliament's Intergroup on the Welfare and Conservation of Animals
The European Parliament
The European Commission
SUBJECT: Madame Daciana Sarbu's totally misinformed and erroneous statements self-declared her as being unfit for office as either a member of the Intergroup, let alone as Vice President and we would suggest you remove her from her position.
Dear Sir / Madam,
The sun is slowly setting on the public's respect for THE institution of Europe...
A horrified civilized world looks on as the country of Romania whose corrupt re-deployment of assigned public funds has consistently failed to introduce any humane strategy to control the homeless animal population such as has been achieved in every global civilized country.
The result is the legitimization of an 'eradication' policy which will result in the destruction of many hundreds of thousands of street animals. Destruction by traditional Romanian methods which include injection of substances, such as injecting with anti-freeze, battering with shovels, ADD TO LIST - like practiced in the past. Since the new "legislation", the following methods - although not acceptable in any other European country - are now totally legal and even encouraged, such as the use of carbon dioxide, carbon oxide, potassium chloride, nitrogen, electric shocks, penetrating captive gun.
This policy was rapidly implemented due to the EMOTIONAL response of the population because of the death of a child ALLEGEDLY caused by homeless animals.
The civilized world watched in horror as this draconian policy passed through the Romanian parliamentary system. Appeals were made to the EU.
BUT the major body of Europe, whilst disagreeing with the policy... could do NOTHING. But society demands a better response than.... NOTHING!
Not only did the two press releases from the Intergroup on the subject not impress or inspire anyone, but we listened in abject horror as a Vice-President of the European Parliament's Intergroup on the Welfare and Conservation of Animals, Daciana Sârbu, during a recent exchange during an Intergroup meeting from 12th of September, 2013, identifies to the world that she is totally misinformed about policies and events over which her position demands knowledge.
The public now questions the expertise of those who represent them in the European Arena. Questions are now asked about what is 'suitability for purpose' of these non-elected representatives? Madame Sarbu's delivery was profoundly unprofessionally uninformed. What qualifications does she have to command respect? In Romania there is an understanding that qualifications can be achieved by corrupt means. Was this the foundation of her acquiring such an elevated position?
There are also things that just do not go well together, like being a Vice President of the Intergroup, a co-initiator of the Written Declaration on Dog Population Management 0026/2011, the wife of Romania's Prime Minister Victor Ponta;
- and do NOTHING in her own country to promote and implement a humane management of the stray animals populations like she has so brightly described in the WD 0026/2011;
- and keep a very neutral position when her input is most needed. Her neutral position being probably inspired by the attitude of her husband who also, throughout the scandal caused by the 'slaughter law', kept a very neutral position and refrained from openly telling if he was in favor of the euthanasia of stray dogs, or against. It was only in the 13th hour, October 3, 2013 that Mr Ponta made an 'impressive' statement: "There are two phases before the euthanasia: the adoption phase and the sterilization and keeping the dogs in the shelters. I would like, if we consider ourselves a civilized country, to use more the first two. This is my message and my signal":
- and just stand by and watch as the tragedy is unfolding, bringing unnecessary suffering and death not only to animals but also to their protectors. In case you have missed it: three people have died so far and it's only beginning. One can only stand and watch now and wait while the death count gets higher! We are waiting for the day that we will read with deep sorrow that a Romanian child has died of Carbofuran ingestion, which - as you know best is banned in the EU - but widespread in Romania. Daily are the reports of dogs found poisoned with Carbofuran and there are many necropsy reports that confirm this.
In light of the surprisingly misinformed content of Madame Sarbu's speech from 12th of September, 2013, and her totally erroneous statements, as well as her continued absence from Intergroup involvement especially when a serious focus is placed on her country, we believe that Madame Sarbu is not fit for office as either a member of the Intergroup, let alone as Vice President and we would suggest you remove her from her position.
We, as the public who are represented, have challenged the ignorance within this exchange. And we would hope that you, who, of course, only want officials who exemplify the highest quality in seeking the best of interest for the animals and people of Europe, would agree with us that, after listening to her historic speech and reading our reflections, Madame Sarbu has no place in the Intergroup.
Madame Sarbu's speech as well as other interesting information is compiled on our website, at:
We thank you, in advance, for the time taken to read our message and for taking the necessary steps regarding Madame Sarbu's unsuitability for purpose.
Below our reflections regarding her delivery from 12th of September, 2013:
1) Sarbu critisizes the text sent by the Intergroup on Sept. 09, 2013
Why? She comes to that point later.
2) She says that: „4 year old child was killed by a dog in a public park at noon.“
This is misleading. The child was found dead on private land more than 1 km away from his caregiver who was in the park. Significant controversy surrounds this death with an emphasis on how a 4 year old child could traverse the rough land to arrive at the location of his death. It is known that paedophiles, drug addicts, and other shady figures, operate in this area.
3) „Following this death, unprecedented media hysteria was used to generate an emotive response from the population against street dogs. One day after the death, the President of Romania made a public statement saying we should kill all dogs and then there started a debate at the media with the people it was actually a very emotional debate - nobody cares about was is good to do or what is normal to do, it was just an emotional reaction.“
There was no consultation or consideration of effectiveness of the strategy to 'eradicate' all the street dogs. Significant manipulation of the media occurred, inciting popular opinion against the street dogs.
4) „...after all these facts the parliament discussed a law (...) which is almost similar to the law in Germany and France.“
Which facts? An ill explored, ill informed law was implemented based on an emotional reaction. No consultation took place, simply a President took 24 hours to announce HIS intention.
Regarding the Animal Welfare Law in Germany:
§ 17: Mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu drei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe wird bestraft, wer 1. ein Wirbeltier ohne vernünftigen Grund tötet oder 2. einem Wirbeltier a) aus Rohheit erhebliche Schmerzen oder Leiden oder b) länger anhaltende oder sich wiederholende erhebliche Schmerzen oder Leiden zufügt.
Germany only allows euthanizing animals if there is a good reason for euthanasia. That could be: un-curable illness, old animals that suffer from pain or very aggressive animals - which has to be seen from case to case and approved by the veterinary services.
Germany has a lot of stray cats and although a mandatory national castration program is discussed at the moment, there are regional funds for castration programs and a lot of cities and communities have already implemented their own mandatory castration programs.
How about France? Below the text taken from the French law regarding domestic animals, stray animals, and lost/found animals:
Il est interdit de laisser errer les animaux domestiques et de façon générale tout animal domestique quel qu’il soit, de les abandonner ou d’attirer des animaux errants avec de la nourriture.
La divagation des animaux peut occasionner des troubles importants de la tranquillité et de la sécurité publiques.
Refuge - Les maires s’assurent de l’existence d’un service de fourrière, service public destiné à accueillir et à garder les animaux trouvés errants, au niveau communal ou intercommunal.
La fourrière accueille les animaux capturés et les garde pendant un délai franc de 8 jours ouvrés, au terme duquel, si l’animal n’est pas réclamé, il est considéré comme abandonné et devient la propriété de la fourrière. Il peut alors être cédé gratuitement à une association de protection des animaux qui dispose d’un refuge afin de permettre son adoption par un nouveau propriétaire. L’euthanasie ne peut intervenir que si l’animal est considéré par un vétérinaire comme non adoptable, dangereux, ou trop malade.
Un guide a été élaboré à l’attention des maires. Il a pour objectif de proposer une aide à la compréhension de la réglementation relative aux animaux errants ainsi qu’un appui pratique pour la mise en place et la gestion de fourrières destinées à l’accueil des chiens et chats errants sur les territoires communaux.
The French law says that, after 8 days in a public (communal) shelter, and if not claimed, the animal becomes the property of the French state and can be given without fee (for free) to a private shelter in order to facilitate his/her adoption.
Euthanasia of an animal can only be performed if a veterinarian determines that the animal is NOT adoptable, too sick, or aggressive.
5) „We should focus on observing what is happening in these shelters and how they will do the procedure.“
This has never been a practice in Romania. An enormous volume of evidence exists describing the inhumane conduct in the shelters. Please advise as to how this monitoring will take place?
AND we can tell Madame Sarbu (and the Intergroup) already now, how the euthanasia will be performed given that the new "legislation" has been modified and contains now the following mentions:
"The Veterinary College has introduced in the law, the fact that 'euthanasia' must be done in compliance with the 'Euthanasia Code' which was drafted and issued by the Veterinary College! Thus dogs may be “euthanized” now also using carbon dioxide, carbon oxide, potassium chloride, nitrogen, electric shocks, penetrating captive gun – which are all cruel methods non-acceptable in the EU!
The Sanitary Veterinary National Authority has excluded from the law, the right of the NGOs to assist at the 'euthanasia' of the dogs in the shelters!"
6) „We cannot do anything but respect the law and watch if everybody is doing their job correctly and that will not assist of mass killing of dogs in the streets which the general population is asking for.“
With some astonishing naivity, this expression ignores the fact that a 'Slaughter Law' would polarize a society with some aggressing and some defending the animals. People have died and will continue to do so. Because this is emotive in the public arena, animal deaths are occurring and will continue to occur in public places. Exposure to animal abuse impacts on children's health and IS within the competence of European Law.
7) „...60.000 stray dogs on the streets and this is not normal. 20 years we just spoke on what to do or not, a lot of money was spent but there are no results. Now the President is giving us advice what to do. He was mayor of Bucharest, he had a lot of money to manage the stray animals population and he did nothing“
This is: An intriguing admission of funds not being used for allocated purpose! This is suggestive of corrupt practices with no desire to create a succinct solution!
8) „Now it’s difficult politically and in the public to manage this in a normal way when everybody is saying to kill the dogs because watching a child dying on a normal day in a park is something terrible.“
Is it really the opinion of the population? In a democratic society, would not such a health and security affecting issue not invite an evaluation of public opinion?
9) „We should not choose between dogs and people... we should just manage this according to the law and ... in a normal way not emotional. So these are the facts. Of course my position is difficult being a member here so that's why I wanted to discuss before the letter was sent because....“
10) Regarding the letter sent by the Intergroup: „I wanted to be more strong on the reaction of the President of Romania, because he is the president of Romania and he cannot say: Let’s kill the dogs. This is wrong. This I wanted to condemn and be more stronger. This was wrong. The law I will send it to you ... But now with the law it’s almost the same as in France and Germany, of course there are counties that do not allow euthanasia, it’s the Parliament who decided so I don't think we can say something against it.“
The speaker says: "What we are focused on in our criticism is the uncontrolled killing of dogs. We are concerned with the way it's happening...... If they want to solve the stray dog problem, who are we to say that they cannot do it. BUT, of course, we can demand that is done in a humane way, a controlled way"
Demand without monitoring is futile, cosmetic and profoundly ineffective. How will response to these demands be assured? Would this monitoring also include an assurance that any deaths are not only conducted humanely but also NOT on the streets as the social polarization and alegiance divisiveness would appear to have promoted? Remote evidence of this could be invited to ensure that this slaughter is controlled within the public arena because of its impact on human health and security.
Sarbu doesn’t want a volunteer from Vier Pfoten to talk about the actual situation in Romania. She says the animal activists just want to solve the problem on the streets The volunteer makes clear that Sarbu is the wife of the Prime Minister of Romania so of course she has to defeat her party's votes.
Volunteer identifies that children suffer through seeing abuse on the streets. Did you know that Mme Sarbu?
After that Sarbu demands to invite some official representatives from a NGO next time this issue is discussed and the speeker says: "Well I hope that you know your colleagues very well that they know who they can talk to or not."
Sarbu should listen to all opinion from European people. She is a representative of the EU!
Not only did they invite someone from an NGO but a representative who was far better informed than one of the Vice Presidents of the Intergroup. Two minutes allocated and deliberately eroded by Sarbu!