On March 23, 2023, the court case for the incident that happened about 4.5 years ago, on December 26, 2018, in Evia, concerning a dispute with a hunter, will be heard at the Single-Member Court of Appeal for Felony Cases in Chalkida. The persons brought on trial are two. For reasons not at hand, however, both this text and the political opening of the case is now being done only by the signator.

What happened in December 2018 was a spontaneous attempt to prevent a hunter from pursuing his killing hobby and kill an animal. After being asked repeatedly to stop to no avail, tension ensued, the result of which was that his shotgun was thrown somewhere in the woods. With the hunter in a furious state the end of the incident came with our departure from the scene. The hunter called the police and as a result we were stopped on the route by a number of their vehicles and arrested us. The charges held against us were robbery (for the shotgun) which is a felony and theft (of a cell phone) which is a misdemeanor. At the same time, a restrictive condition to leave the country was imposed, which is still in force today. More about the incident and the statements, role and attitude of the hunting clubs on the case can be found in the previous text published in english translation here.

These accusations only serve to depoliticise a spontaneous but political action in favour of non-human animals and against killer hunters. Depoliticizing actions that disrupt law and order, jeopardize normality and challenge the power and privilege of some is something that is done overwhelmingly by civil justice. With the law as a tool of civil democracy, power camouflages the characteristics of our actions and judges them on the basis of their inclusion or not in its legal code. Laws, however, are nothing more than the written ratification of vertical and horizontal powers. This is why the war against powers often lies outside the context of a legal life.

Having said this, the conclusion is not that the action in Evia was illegal. It is that actions against authority can often either be illegal or, with the proper management of the criminal code, they can become. In short, this text is not an attempt to prove innocence nor a call to support the signator in the face of two unjust and false charges brought by the state’s judicial system. It is a call for solidarity in the struggle against the authorities.

In this case, power was embodied by an individual who, carrying his privileged position as a member of the human species, went out to have fun by killing free non-human creatures moving in their natural environment. Hunting as a symptom of anthropocentrism and speciesism exists to confirm the latter. Killing at will other sentient beings (whether they move on land, sea or air) on the basis of superiority over them is one piece in the chain of the polymorphous exploitation of non-human animals. Next to this is the snatching and imprisonment of animals in structures of confinement, exploitation, torture and murder. Some examples of these are zoos, marine parks, pet shops, fish farms, factories in the meat, milk, cheese, egg, leather and fur industries.

The same claim to the superiority of the human species arms the hands of science and drives non-human animals into experimental laboratories in the name of finding a cure for human diseases and the cause of financial grants for experiments, promotion and academic advancement through the publication of experimental research and the profitability of pharmaceutical companies from the production and sale of medicines. The life and existence of animals is considered so inferior that experimentation on them for the production of cosmetics, detergents and other grooming and household products does not, for the most part, arouse any social reflex.

On the other hand, the more fortunate of them are legally protected according to the culture and laws of each country, as is the case in Greece mainly with cats and dogs. Even in this case, however, these animals are named as “companion animals” (editor’s note: otherwise called “pets”) since their existence could not fail to serve people in some way. At the same time, the culture of speciesism, embracing eugenics and purity logics, arms the hands of the state and all kinds of ‘animal lovers’ with the tools of sterilisation, chipping and confinement in apartments on the grounds of “saving” non-human animals. But this too is nothing more than a camouflaged mentality of speciesism which again places humans in the position of deciding for non-human animals, this time as their superior protectors. But let these “animal lovers” answer whether they would choose the same for homeless people. Or if they understand the term “aanimal welfarist” in the same way they understand the term “philanthropist”. I assume they wouldn’t neuter, chip and jail a human friend due to weather conditions.

All of these authoritarian practices and the corresponding structures can and do exist only because they serve the construct of anthropocentrism and the culture of speciesism on which the majority of human society is built. The two together strip non-human animals of their characteristics and allow them to be transformed from subjects with intrinsic value in life into profit-making machines, objects of entertainment, consumer products, experimental tools and stuffed teddy bears for humans. And hunting is nothing more than a part of all this.

The president of the local hunting club – of Istriea – said that the whole “hunting family” is being harmed and threatened by the action in Evia. This action, however, carries behind it the opposition not only to this particular hunter, not only to the hunters, but to all those who embody the authority of speciesism. The liberation of non-human animals from the shackles of human domination is the cornerstone of antispeciesism, just as the liberation of all from the shackles of all powers is the core of total iberation.

All forms of power coexist, interact and feed off each other. Patriarchy challenges the equal value of femininities over masculinities just as speciesism challenges the self-worth of non-human animals over human animals. The war against the self-determination of the bodies of human females, their violation and non-consensual treatment as mechanisms of reproduction, means of producing entertainment, pleasure and as tools for the validation of masculine domination stands side by side with the corresponding treatment of the female bodies of non-human animals. Cows in the context of the industry, stacked side by side, imprisoned and immobilized, are subjected to repeated rapes in order to produce babies that will never grow up with their mothers since they will end up in a slaughterhouse to become meat for humans. And their mother’s milk will never end up with them as it will again be turned into a product for humans. Probably the supermarket shelf that will adorn what should be food for their babies will be near a refrigerator that will contain their own butchered bodies packaged and frozen. Women trafficking is not so different from trucking cows to some facility for confinement, oppression, torture and rape.

To conceive of “liberation” as something that only fits the human species is the same as conceiving of “classless society” as a society of white supremacists and dark-skinned slaves. Or as a society where patriarchy will still exist and/or children and the elderly will continue to be oppressed by the “productive” age and people of different abilities and ways of thinking will live in the shadow of the “normal” ones. Such a society cannot be liberating.

To conclude and return, the significance of the forthcoming court does not lie in its legal aspect and verdict and – as far as I am concerned – is not a process directed towards the individual on trial nor a reference – by extension – to the atomocentric view of liberation struggles. It lies in the socio-political promotion of ways of life that stand against oppression and power. And from my perspective, solidarity in this case in particular is understood as solidarity first and foremost with the non-human animals themselves, such as some rabbits that may have been saved that day. With this as a starting point, I invite people who share these issues to express their solidarity in whatever way they wish. For until all are free, none is free.

ANIMALS ARE NOT OBJECTS, THEY HAVE SELF LIFE VALUE

HUNTING IS NOT A HOBBY, IT’S MURDER

Athens, 04/02/2023

Dimitra

“About the upcoming trial regarding the incident of 2018 with the hunter in Evia

On May 26, 2022, the court case for the incident that happened about 3.5 years ago, on December 26, 2018, in Evia, concerning a dispute with a hunter, will be heard at the Single-Member Court of Appeal for Felony Cases in Chalkida. The persons brought on trial are two. For reasons not at hand, however, both this text and the political opening of the case is now being done only by the signator.

What happened in December 2018 was a spontaneous attempt to prevent a hunter from pursuing his killing hobby and kill an animal. After being asked repeatedly to stop to no avail, tension ensued, the result of which was that his shotgun was thrown somewhere in the woods. With the hunter in a furious state the end of the incident came with our departure from the scene. The hunter called the police and as a result we were stopped on the route by a number of their vehicles and arrested us. The charges held against us were robbery (for the shotgun) which is a felony and theft (of a cell phone) which is a misdemeanor. At the same time, a restrictive condition to leave the country was imposed, which is still in force today. More about the incident and the statements, role and attitude of the hunting clubs on the case can be found in the previous text published here (editor’s note: this text can be found translated inside the blog here).

These accusations only serve to depoliticise a spontaneous but political action in favour of non-human animals and against killer hunters. Depoliticizing actions that disrupt law and order, jeopardize normality and challenge the power and privilege of some is something that is done overwhelmingly by civil justice. With the law as a tool of civil democracy, power camouflages the characteristics of our actions and judges them on the basis of their inclusion or not in its legal code. Laws, however, are nothing more than the written ratification of vertical and horizontal powers. This is why the war against powers often lies outside the context of a legal life.

Having said this, the conclusion is not that the action in Evia was illegal. It is that actions against authority can often either be illegal or, with the proper management of the criminal code, they can become. In short, this text is not an attempt to prove innocence nor a call to support the signator in the face of two unjust and false charges brought by the state’s judicial system. It is a call for solidarity in the struggle against the authorities.

In this case, power was embodied by an individual who, carrying his privileged position as a member of the human species, went out to have fun by killing free non-human creatures moving in their natural environment. Hunting as a symptom of anthropocentrism and speciesism exists to confirm the latter. Killing at will other sentient beings (whether they move on land, sea or air) on the basis of superiority over them is one piece in the chain of the polymorphous exploitation of non-human animals. Next to this is the snatching and imprisonment of animals in structures of confinement, exploitation, torture and murder. Some examples of these are zoos, marine parks, pet shops, fish farms, factories in the meat, milk, cheese, egg, leather and fur industries.

The same claim to the superiority of the human species arms the hands of science and drives non-human animals into experimental laboratories in the name of finding a cure for human diseases and the cause of financial grants for experiments, promotion and academic advancement through the publication of experimental research and the profitability of pharmaceutical companies from the production and sale of medicines. The life and existence of animals is considered so inferior that experimentation on them for the production of cosmetics, detergents and other grooming and household products does not, for the most part, arouse any social reflex.

On the other hand, the more fortunate of them are legally protected according to the culture and laws of each country, as is the case in Greece mainly with cats and dogs. Even in this case, however, these animals are named as “companion animals” (editor’s note: otherwise called “pets”) since their existence could not fail to serve people in some way. At the same time, the culture of speciesism, embracing eugenics and purity logics, arms the hands of the state and all kinds of ‘animal lovers’ with the tools of sterilisation, chipping and confinement in apartments on the grounds of “saving” non-human animals. But this too is nothing more than a camouflaged mentality of speciesism which again places humans in the position of deciding for non-human animals, this time as their superior protectors. But let these “animal lovers” answer whether they would choose the same for homeless people. Or if they understand the term “aanimal welfarist” in the same way they understand the term “philanthropist”. I assume they wouldn’t neuter, chip and jail a human friend due to weather conditions.

All of these authoritarian practices and the corresponding structures can and do exist only because they serve the construct of anthropocentrism and the culture of speciesism on which the majority of human society is built. The two together strip non-human animals of their characteristics and allow them to be transformed from subjects with intrinsic value in life into profit-making machines, objects of entertainment, consumer products, experimental tools and stuffed teddy bears for humans. And hunting is nothing more than a part of all this.

The president of the local hunting club – of Istriea – said that the whole “hunting family” is being harmed and threatened by the action in Evia. This action, however, carries behind it the opposition not only to this particular hunter, not only to the hunters, but to all those who embody the authority of speciesism. The liberation of non-human animals from the shackles of human domination is the cornerstone of antispeciesism, just as the liberation of all from the shackles of all powers is the core of total iberation.

All forms of power coexist, interact and feed off each other. Patriarchy challenges the equal value of femininities over masculinities just as speciesism challenges the self-worth of non-human animals over human animals. The war against the self-determination of the bodies of human females, their violation and non-consensual treatment as mechanisms of reproduction, means of producing entertainment, pleasure and as tools for the validation of masculine domination stands side by side with the corresponding treatment of the female bodies of non-human animals. Cows in the context of the industry, stacked side by side, imprisoned and immobilized, are subjected to repeated rapes in order to produce babies that will never grow up with their mothers since they will end up in a slaughterhouse to become meat for humans. And their mother’s milk will never end up with them as it will again be turned into a product for humans. Probably the supermarket shelf that will adorn what should be food for their babies will be near a refrigerator that will contain their own butchered bodies packaged and frozen. Women trafficking  is not so different from trucking cows to some facility for confinement, oppression, torture and rape.

To conceive of “liberation” as something that only fits the human species is the same as conceiving of “classless society” as a society of white supremacists and dark-skinned slaves. Or as a society where patriarchy will still exist and/or children and the elderly will continue to be oppressed by the “productive” age and people of different abilities and ways of thinking will live in the shadow of the “normal” ones. Such a society cannot be liberating.

To conclude and return, the significance of the forthcoming court does not lie in its legal aspect and verdict and – as far as I am concerned – is not a process directed towards the individual on trial nor a reference – by extension – to the atomocentric view of liberation struggles. It lies in the socio-political promotion of ways of life that stand against oppression and power. And from my perspective, solidarity in this case in particular is understood as solidarity first and foremost with the non-human animals themselves, such as some rabbits that may have been saved that day. With this as a starting point, I invite people who share these issues to express their solidarity in whatever way they wish. For until all are free, none is free.

 

ANIMALS ARE NOT OBJECTS, THEY HAVE SELF LIFE VALUE

HUNTING IS NOT A HOBBY,  IT’S MURDER

Athens, 23/04/2022

Dimitra”

” Update for the legal battle regarding the incident that happened on 26/12/2018 in Evia, between us and a hunter, which was spread by the media under the title: “a couple of ecologists attacked a hunter and took his shotgun”.

The incident concerns a conflict with a hunter who was exercising his favorite “hobby”. In our  attempt to prevent him from murdering an animal, and after repeatedly asking him to stop and  leave, tension followed and the result was a shotgun thrown somewhere in the woods. After leaving the spot asap, trying to get away from the furious hunter, we got pulled over by several police vehicles and we were arrested. At the police department they announced us that we were  charged with robbery which is a felony and cell phone theft that is a misdemeanor. O f course, if  someone looks at the legal definition of robbery, he/she will understand that this accusation has nothing to do with our action as we had no intention of appropriating the shotgun. The hunter himself admitted that the whole dispute focused on his “fun activity” and that our motives were  “ecological”. In addition, the gun was later found at the place it was thrown away. The theft accusation makes no sense as well. Not only the mobile phone wasn’t found on us, but it’s also obvious that the last thing we wanted to do at that moment would be to steal the hunter’s phone.

It must be noted that an important role in the legal case has been played by the local hunting club, of Istiaia and the D’ Hunting Federation of Central Greece (D’ KOSE), as they pay for the legal costs, as well as provide the legal representation for the case. This is obviously not a surprise as it  is not a surprise either that, as stated by the D ‘ KOSE in their announcement, “they will do everything possible for the exemplary punishment of the perpetrators”. The same also states the president of the local hunting club of Istiaia, who published an announcement full of lies about the case. In addition, indicative is the passion of the hunting press, both the printed and the digital ones, which rushed to escalate the issue from the first moment, posting articles and photos of the hunter and congratulating him on his “calm” attitude. Moreover, they tried to victimize him using even his age and presenting him as a lovely old man who, while out for his usual walk, at which he happens to carry a gun and murder, fell the “absurd” victim to two violent and ruthless perpetrators. Clearly, if we’re going to talk about victims and perpetrators, the only victims in this particular case are the animals and we don’t understand how is preventing a murder making us “extremists” and turns the killer from a perpetrator into a victim.

Furthermore, we don’t consider neither the absurd accusations proposed by the police against us  nor the fact that they were accepted by the prosecutor to be a random incident as we clearly deal with vengeful charges that have nothing to do with what actually happened. After all, the general affectionate relationship between the state and the hunters is not hidden. This relationship between hunters and state, ministries and party mechanisms is also evident by the close  connection between hunting clubs and the state with examples like that of the cooperation  between the Ministry of Environment and Energy & Climate Change and the D ‘ KOSE, the VI  Hunting Federation Macedonia – Thrace, the ST’ Hunting Federation of Peloponnese and others. This relationship is sometimes expressed by the presence of parliament members and party representatives at the various events organized by hunting clubs, a fact that they make sure to  spread by posting articles and photos on their websites. Finally, the influence of hunting clubs in  parliament–passed laws on hunting, such as on the annual regulatory authority, is widely known.  In addition, hunters also threaten political parties sometimes by stating that they will not vote in elections as hunting clubs have as members a significant number of voters. It is also indicative that during Christmas while the state had imposed a strict lockdown that banned most human public
activity, it allowed the hunters to go hunting.

Of course, to be fair, we must say that hunters don’t seem to behave abhorrently just to – and  devalue the lives of only – non–human animals, as we don’t forget that they were on the front line at the greek borders where they exercised their favorite sport hunting immigrants. A fact that also doesn’t surprise us, considering that the logic of underestimating a life as inferior and –based on that– justifying the violence against it is not limited to non–human animals but instead it can easily be used against humans as well, as we can see repeatedly in history.

More specifically about our trial, which was set two years later on 28.01.2021 at the Single Felony Court of Appeal in Chalkida, what we want to make clear is that in this trial we are not primarily judged as people who committed the lies that they accuse us of. We are judged as individuals who opposed the murder of animals and thus challenged the right of hunters and their associations to kill. This is why they ask for our exemplary punishment. Evident is the fact that the statements of the local hunting club president contradict each other as he first implies that we staged the whole incident in order to extract a hunting shotgun for “other uses” and then he admits that the incident is not only a concern for the specific hunter but for the whole “hunting family” who is under attack by “absurd” people.

So, clarifing our position in relation to the incident, we state that what we did, that is, our attempt to protect an animal from being murdered, was an instinctive move that in our opinion should be the obvious thing to do for everyone. However, unfortunately we live in a society with laws that allow animal killing and on the contrary criminalize actions which are trying to protect lives. But something being legal doesn’t make it also fair or moral. In the same way that even though slavery was legal in the past, this does not mean that slavery is fair and ethical.

We ask from people and groups who share our views and want to, to express their solidarity with us in any way they like. We hope that someday hunting, but also all the brutal actions animals are subjected to, will stop being socially acceptable and the laws allowing them will be thrown in the trash. Until then, let’s all of us stand, individually and collectively against hunting, the sport of murderers.

NO LIFE, HUMAN OR NOT IS EXPENDABLE HUNTING IS NOT A HOBBY, IT IS MURDER

Dimitra and Thodoris, 08/01/2021 “

“ Some words from the “perpetrators” concerning the case in Evia that was released in the media entitled “Ecologists attacked a hunter“

Several things were reported online for the incident on 26/12/2018 in Evia, where “a couple of ecologists attacked a hunter and took his gun”. Opinions varied from positive, condemning hunting in general, to macho and sexist like “had to shoot the man and rape the woman”. Although we do not intend, of course, to respond to any small or large comment which was in social media, this incident instigated a public debate which we believe that escapes our cause and for this reason we believe that it is worthwhile to talk about it too.

However, let us mention that the accusations we face are co-operative robbery and theft. In particular, we are accused of hitting the hunter on the head and removing the shotgun and that one of us stole his mobile phone. First of all, we deny that we have practiced physical violence. Violence, however, is practiced by hunters who systematically kill creatures who have done nothing at all. We know, of course, that shooting and taking lives, especially for entertainment, is not something that troubles them. Concerning the robbery, the charge attributed to us by the judicial authorities is fraudulent as we have never attempted to appropriate the shotgun. Besides, we neither have the same hobbies, nor are we gangsters, nor are we involved in arms trade! We suppose, actually, that those who belong to such circuits use less imaginative ways to secure their merchandise! Equally fraudulent is the charge for theft. Besides, the reason why the confrontation happened in the first place is obvious to him – as he states himself- and us. Moreover, the details of the incident as it actually happened have already been reported by us to the interrogator through our apology.

In the present text, however, our purpose is not to analyze the incident, in order to build our defense for the courts in which we will be brought. Our goal is to place ourselves publicly regarding the point of the issue that for us has to do only with what is called the sovereignty of man over the other animals and is called speciesism. Because, ultimately, in the face of the treaty that wants non-human animals to be objects for human use rather than sentient beings of intrinsic value in life, the way in which a confrontation with a hunter ends in the removal of the killing weapon is of little concern.

For starters, we consider it crucial to mention that historically, the depreciation of the value of the condition of life has not only targeted the remaining animals but has been applied to humans too. The prevalence of the rhetoric that wants some to be superior to others using racial, gendered, sexual orientation, social class, cultural and biological criteria has been a temporal basis for countless cruelties. As our minds are trained to treat the lives of non-human animals as of lower value and consumable, so it has happened and still happens today and with groups/populations of people.

Indicatively, the “superiority” of Europeans justify the extermination of indigenous people of America and taking away their land, which is also happening today, the “superiority” of white justified kidnapping people from Africa, the slave market and owning other people, creating “ethnical attractions” where the exhibits were shackled indigenous people from various parts of the world. The “inferiority” of those labeled as ”crazy “and as people of a lower category, justifies hellish type prisons like psychiatric hospital of Leros, the “inferiority “of women justifies their trafficking, for the purpose of sexually satisfying men, daily feminicide from men next door, as well as the countless rapes that are daily subject to the patriarchal condition of social life. The most striking example, perhaps, for the level of violence on non-human creatures that concerns people, is the theory of “aryans” and “sub-humans” adopted and enforced as a treatment model of “inferior” people by the Nazis. This theory formed the basis for the extermination of Jews, Gypsies and people with special needs, the experiments on their bodies for the benefit of the “aryan” race, the forced labour for the German army inside concentration camps, as well as the extermination of people with special needs as “defective”, who not only did not deserve their lives but, on the contrary, “threatened” the health of the German nation. Today, we see something similar going on with migrants. Their stigmatization by the nations and the media as cultural “inferior” and ”irrational/fanatics” makes the violence they receive indifferent to many ” first world ” consciences. . So, the bombing on their countries from the Western States, the army patrols on the borders and the drownings from the manhunt carried out there, as well as their imprisonment in detention centers, without having committed some kind of – not even with legal terms- ”crime”, becomes easier.

Finally, the conclusion is that in human history there have been recorded and still being recorded myriad periods, where arbitrary criteria were imposed by those with power, on the ones without and ended up condemning millions of lives on planet earth in a more or less short life full of pain. Today, however, the majority of human society condemns most of the above. Despite that, i.e., the complicity/tolerance of the society in earlier times – but also nowadays – contributed to the intolerable life various people were forced to experience, now, so many years later, most of us have come to the point of understanding the obvious. We got to the point, i.e., of understanding that there is no moral justification to apply such atrocities on sentient people who have just a different phenotype or different culture.

What is it, then, that prevents us from seeing the obvious absence of moral dilemma in our choices, when the time comes to put in the place of people with different color, origin and ”intelligence”, those who speak a different language, bleating, roaring, hissing or making ultrasounds instead of speaking Greek, English and Arabic, that are swimming, jumping around or flying instead of walking, or walking on four legs instead of two, which have developed fins and tail? In the end, what is it that makes the capture, incarceration, rape, torture and murder of these sentient beings moral? The answer once again is in the social legitimization of an ideology, which in this case, is about the theory of “human superiority”, spiecism. This denudes the non- human animals from their individual characteristics and makes them consumable objects to every kind of exploitation by humans, thus depriving them of every right to life and freedom.

We therefore advocate that killing, imprisoning, trading and exploiting animals in any other way, are neither moral nor obvious. On the contrary, we think that it should be obvious, that every sentient being, like humans, has the right to exist, taste freedom, play, joy, communication. Furthermore (we hope), everyone recognizes the right to a human, a cat or a dog, to live a good life until their old age and enjoy their freedom. For us, the same applies for all other animals whether they are cows, oxes, goats, lambs, hens, hares, rabbits, or birds, fish or insects. The selective sensitivity of people who love their ”pets” or ”companion animals” and feel horrified by the abuse, of a puppy for instance, while, at the same time, consider the existence of hunters of other animals and fishermen to be moral, is shockingly enlightening. Similarly enlightening, is the ease with which a large part of Western society consumes meat and other products derived from killing and exploitation of other animals, while it seems unthinkable that in other societies they eat murdered dogs and cats. Unfortunately, the list is endless. Undoubtedly, in this selective sensitivity we believe that an important role has been played from the life in modern cities and the alienation of human from other animals and nature. Above all, however, we believe that this selective sensitivity is the result of the societies in which we are born, grow and live. We are taught from childhood to perceive the rest of the animals not as people with self-worth, but as commodities on super markets shelves and shops, as objects whose sole reason of existence is the satisfaction of human desires.

However, we consider it extreme that in a society where it is largely known that people can fully meet their nutritional needs in non-animal derived products, millions of animal killings are committed daily. We consider it extreme that the right to freedom and joy is not recognized in an animal and millions of sentient creatures are kidnapped and captured in smaller or larger cages and fences for human exploitation instead. We consider it extreme that mothers are raped to “produce” as much babies as possible to become meat for humans, that sentient creatures are detached from their mothers as soon as they are born and are transformed from individuals into milk-producing machines and / or goods for sale. We consider it extreme that they are flayed to become bags and clothes. We consider it extreme that they are subjected to torture and experimentation to create “safe” products for humans. We consider it extreme that they are deprived of their freedom and being tortured to be exhibited as a sight in zoos and circuses. We consider it extreme that they are hunted and murdered for food let alone for hobby and entertainment.

After all, what else can speciesism be other than an ideology that allows humans to treat other animals as objects in the most horrific ways? For us, murder remains murder, whether the victim are human or non-human animals. Moreover, the arguments in favor of “human superiority” stumble upon their own contradiction. And this, because if “intelligence” and the verbal language code are criteria of life or death, torture or freedom, the same abhorrent behavior should also be applicable to a human baby or a person with a diagnosis of “mental retardation”. Or is a calf able to defend itself more effectively? Or has it hurt anyone more than a human infant? We imagine that no one will need to second guess about whether they should prevent a murderer from killing a baby or not. Nobody would ever get in the process of thinking whether or not we should eat human babies or people diagnosed with “mental retardation” and we certainly would not conclude that the problem lies in whether we need to grind or slice them alive instead of killing them painlessly. None of us – except the Nazis – would be wondering if it would be right to kill people who have been diagnosed with a “mental retardation” as a hobby, to put them in cages and expose them for entertainment or experiment on them to produce cosmetics, house cleaners and colognes. When has someone agonized to decide over whether it is moral or not to immobilize human babies in electrical machinery in order to pour acidic substances in their eyes or to test the resilience of their system in swallowing bleach? When was someone torned on whether or not it belonged to the moral code of medical science to experiment on human babies with risk of irreversible damage and/or of their own lives, in order to produce medicines? Which woman thinks that she oughts to get into position to defend her right of getting the baby in her arms after giving birth instead of it being taken from her hands to be slaughtered? Who would wonder how morale is for thousands of human babies to be buried alive as trashy merchandise and/or because they became ill from the experiments on their bodies and the miserable conditions of their incarceration? We can keep on writing nonstop about such “absurd” moral dilemmas, but we will not do so. We think that what has already been said is enough.

Before closing, we would like to answer both to hate-filled arguments and sincere concerns expressed particularly with regard to nutrition- like “Yes, but the plants have feelings too”. Here we must, in principle, say that this has not been proven. That does not mean, of course, that we accept the omnipotence of science and the authority that precedes it, nor that we always trust its motives. Nevertheless, although such researches have been made, the absence of scientific evidence is a fact. However, anyone who thinks it likely -that plants feel joy, pain, etc.- , which neither we exclude with certainty, and wants to avoid the slightest possibility of unwillingly causing pain or death in another organism may, regarding the diet part, follow alternative ways such as a nut/ fruit diet. Otherwise, the above arguments are an excuse. It is worth mentioning, moreover, that by eating meat the harm that is done is double and greater, as the land used for the breeding of livestock leads to the death of many more plants than would have died if we were feeding people directly with them. That is, besides the killing of the animals corresponding to them, each person that consumes meat, is consuming through this far greater quantity than the plants that a person who doesn’t eat meat consumes. In any case, to rely on such arguments to justify the atrocities at the expense of non-human animals is like supporting that since the Jews and women feel pain, to make no distinction, we will behave brutally to both. We believe that we have become understood.

Finally, we cannot not comment on the issue of the exploitation of non-human animals on the legal side, especially since our views and our respective attitude at the specific incident has resulted in us facing criminal charges. In our opinion, something being legal does not mean that it is moral, nor do we believe the laws generally and vaguely are just and right. For this reason, we believe that the point of the issue is not judged on court but within society. In a society, then, where hunting and killing for pleasure and entertainment, even if you point to a fantastic “need”, is socially acceptable the problem is not law but primarily the consciences. However, we believe that consciences can change. They can change not by themselves, but if we begin to think about and review everyday terms such as “self-evident”, “natural” and “normal”. They change if we really want a world with less pain and oppression. And if this is indeed what we want, then we have to rethink our moral code and include those creatures that, ultimately, are the most oppressed of all. Those with whom we share this planet. We believe the time has come to “get uncomfortable”. Besides, nobody ever said that acting morally is easy.

D. and T.
Athens,
2/17/2019 “