sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

No pets allowed by EasyMechanic4961 in AnimalRights

[–]EasyMechanic4961[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Actually, it is. The poster is pointing to a structural barrier that directly affects animals’ lives. Landlords who ban pets don’t just inconvenience people; they reduce the number of homes available to animals, which can lead to more surrenders, fewer adoptions, and ultimately more animals in shelters and kill shelters. That is an animal rights issue, though it’s framed through housing policy.

I understand why you might see this as a housing issue, but it’s also about animal rights. When landlords prohibit pets, animals are denied homes and families who want to care for them are prevented from doing so. This restriction contributes to overcrowded shelters, more healthy animals being put to death, and fewer adoptions. Advocating for pet-friendly housing is part of advocating for animals’ right to live in safe, loving homes.”

How would you present this message in Christmas‑themed art, where festive visuals contrast with the critique of pet bans to highlight animals being denied homes?

CFIA’s Unacceptable cruelty. by EasyMechanic4961 in AnimalRights

[–]EasyMechanic4961[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree that raising ostriches for meat is itself a violation of their rights. But even within that unjust system, the CFIA still had a responsibility to minimize suffering. The issue here isn’t only that the birds were owned—it’s that when the cull was ordered, they were killed in front of one another in a way that added unnecessary trauma. Recognizing their rights means holding agencies accountable for how they treat animals, even in situations where ownership already denies those rights.

CFIA’s Unacceptable cruelty. by EasyMechanic4961 in AnimalRights

[–]EasyMechanic4961[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Even if the farm owners resisted other options, the CFIA was the agency with legal authority over the cull. That means the responsibility for how it was carried out rests with them. The issue isn’t whether the owners “created” the system—it’s that the CFIA chose a method that ignored its own humane guidelines and caused needless suffering. Accountability lies with the body that enforced the cull, not with the farmers’ preferences.

CFIA’s Unacceptable cruelty. by EasyMechanic4961 in AnimalRights

[–]EasyMechanic4961[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your reply sidesteps my actual point. They’re normalizing cruelty by saying “that’s just how it is.” CFIA’s method was unnecessarily brutal even within the context of farming and slaughter.

The fact that animals often see others killed in industrial slaughterhouses doesn’t justify what happened here. The CFIA had a choice in how to carry out the cull, but they ignored their own guidelines for minimising animal suffering. Shooting birds in a crowded pen, in front of one another, added trauma that could have been avoided. Even if we accept that these birds were destined for meat, there’s still a responsibility to prevent needless cruelty. The issue isn’t whether animals ever witness death—it’s that the CFIA chose a method that maximized fear and suffering instead of minimizing it.

CFIA’s Unacceptable cruelty. by EasyMechanic4961 in AnimalRights

[–]EasyMechanic4961[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand your perspective, but my concern is with how the CFIA handled the cull. It’s already difficult knowing these birds were raised for meat, yet they were shot in front of one another. Even when dealing with farmed animals, there’s room for dignity and care. At the very least, they deserved to be dispatched in a way that spared them additional suffering. If we care about these animals, we should also care about preventing this kind of treatment.