London Indymedia

Animal rights Campaigners to sue Ken Livingstone

Save The Trafalgar Square Pigeons | 05.01.2007 09:48 | Animal Liberation | London

The Mayor is trying to starve the Square’s pigeons. Hawks are being deployed to terrify and kill them and new legislation is being planned to ban our feeding programme. The birds urgently need your help. Here we explain what you can do and introduce our “action alert” scheme.


Campaigners issued legal proceedings against the Mayor in an attempt to force him to allow the feeding of the 1800 birds. The Save The Trafalgar Square Pigeons action group fed the birds daily at 7.30am, with Mr Livingstone's agreement, since 2002. Under the programme, which was designed to ensure a humane reduction in pigeon numbers, the amount of food was abruptly stopped in June.

Ann Mann, the group's spokesperson, said campaigners had been reassured that the feeding programme would be reduced without starving the birds. "It's unacceptable that the birds should starve to death," she said.

 http://www.savethepigeons.org/help.html

Save The Trafalgar Square Pigeons
- Homepage: http://www.savethepigeons.org/

Comments

Hide the following 6 comments

WTF

05.01.2007 11:18

Err, I would be against a cull of pigeons, but allowing them to reduce numbers through reduced food (not necessarily starving but making them less likely to breed successfully) seems like a good idea. Nice joke campaign though.

Krop


MORE to the point

05.01.2007 14:11

You object to "deploying hawks to kill and terrorize them"

A clear indication of the reality that there is in many cases a WIDE gulf between "animal rights" and "environmentalism".

Whether or not it is immoral for YOU to kill and eat a pigeon is a very separate matter from whether there is anything wrong with a hawk doing so! Apparently you object to the natural world with all its diversity and splendor.

Worse, this indication that you disapprove of the hawk (or presumably any other predator) casts doubt upon your real reasons for objecting to humans eating meat. At LEAST when you argue that we humans are in some way "superior" to the other animals, some sort of higher non-animal form of life that doesn't HAVE to eat meat and so is behaving better by abstaining you make some sort of sense --- even though I might disagree with this "religion" (in quotes, but we are in the realm of discourse of religions). But when you express that feeling with regard to the hawks that's a very different sort of "religion" -- one which I not only diusagree with but would oppose.

I am an animal. I accept that reality. I eat, "sh*t, and will die. I am no better than the pigeon, no better tha than the hawk. You are also, but if that is too uncomfortable a thought, believe what you want. Just don't try to ram your religion down my throat and PLEASE -- stop saying that we are for the same things. Any person expressing views you just have I classiffy as ANTIenvironmental.

Mike Novack
mail e-mail: stepbystpefarem mtdata.com


even more to the point

05.01.2007 18:30

I thought the article was about Ken Livingston vs pigeons, not hawks vs pigeons... hello??? wakey wakey...

d


Flying rats

05.01.2007 21:18

all power to the hawks,except livingstone

carnivore


Hawks and religion

06.01.2007 21:32

Introducing hawks to a man made environment like Trafalgar Square is no more "natural" than poisoning pigeons, it is a form of anthropogenically-induced animal suffering. I would be prepared to debate the ethics of allowing hawks or other predators kill pigeons in a truly natural setting, but in the present context it is irrelevent.

Some AR people consider that we should not harm animals because humans are just animals ourselves. Personally I disagree. I do consider that in one way at least, humans are a superior species (discounting marginal cases such as the very young and the mentally impaired), in that we do not have to kill other animals to survive, and we know good from evil and can choose good. Whether some other animals also have the same ability is a moot point; there is some evidence that dolphins also show the same sort of freedom of choice, and altruism is well documented in domestic dogs. But whether or not that is the case, this does not take away the fact that as members of the moral community we have a moral duty to do what is right.

If you think that is ramming anything down your throat, then you are doing the same. The commandment "thou shalt not ram anything down anybody's throat" seems just as much part of your "religion" as decent treatment of animals is part of my "religion". And by preaching non throat ramming to the unwashed masses on indymedia you are guilty of throat ramming yourself. So the statement "you should not tell anyone else what to do" is self contradictory and therefore nonsense.

If you are convinced that your particular beliefs about animals are right then by all means ram as hard as you like to convince us, you have a right, and indeed a duty to do so. But do not then scream "unfair" or accuse us of throat ramming when we then do the same back.


Michael Morris
mail e-mail: michael.morris@slingshot.co.nz
- Homepage: http://www.epf.org.nz


Pricks

07.01.2007 18:25

Why interfere with animals on any level? They're a different tribe from you. Leave them alone. You're not any fucking 'master-race'. Pricks.

Stupid fucking human


Kollektives

Birmingham
Cambridge
Liverpool
London
Oxford
Sheffield
South Coast
Wales
World

Other UK IMCs
Bristol/South West
London
Northern Indymedia
Scotland

London Topics

Afghanistan
Analysis
Animal Liberation
Anti-Nuclear
Anti-militarism
Anti-racism
Bio-technology
Climate Chaos
Culture
Ecology
Education
Energy Crisis
Fracking
Free Spaces
Gender
Globalisation
Health
History
Indymedia
Iraq
Migration
Ocean Defence
Other Press
Palestine
Policing
Public sector cuts
Repression
Social Struggles
Technology
Terror War
Workers' Movements
Zapatista

London IMC

Desktop

About | Contact
Mission Statement
Editorial Guidelines
Publish | Help

Search :