Repost from counter-information webpage.
]]>“Intervention at hunting associations”
On Monday the 1st of February we staged an intervention with spray paint, stencils and flyers at the 2nd Hunting Association of Athens in Kipseli and the 2nd Hunting Association of Kallithea as a gesture of solidarity with D. and Th. that are prosecuted for their anti-hunting action in Evia.
For every, hunter, butcher and fisherman, there will be a knife stuck in their guts.
Nobody left alone at the hands of the state.
Anarchists.
Repost from counter-information webpage.
]]>Solidarity to D. and Th., prosecuted for their anti-hunting action.
In the area of Evia on 26/12/18, D. and Th. confronted a hunter, in order to try to prevent the murder of animals and by extension the exercise of his sadistic hobby. As a result of the confrontation, the hunters hunting rifle was thrown into the forest and D. and Th. got trapped by police vehicles. The charges they are facing after their arrest are the felony of theft (due to the missing hunting rifle) and theft of a phone. Their trial is scheduled for the 28/1/21 at the Court of Felony Appeals in Halkida.
A key role in the pressing of the charges was played by several hunting associations from the whole of Greece, that demanded the condemnation of the actions of D. and Th. The hunting associations in question have been and still are fields of canvassing. This becomes apparent nowadays, in the midst of Covid 19 and government policies concerning the banning or permission of hunting.
Hunting is effectively a hobby with a specific purpose; to act as a proof of the domination of the ‘powerful’ over the ‘weak’. The goal is the satisfaction of violent and dominative complexes and in parallel, a murderous distraction from the sad and miserable everyday life of the ones that practice it. In the modern western world this practice is exercised in order to gain ‘likes’ on social media platforms. Additionally hunting is exercised in order to build a certain profile that encompasses all of the stereotypes that come in conflict and are antithetical to the libertarian ideals that we live and aspire by.
For power to be legalised, it is necessary for it to be dissipated from state mechanisms, to be normalised and reproduced from dominated subjects. To the various forms of exploitation that are produced and reproduced through discrimination (based on class, gender, race etc) hunting is also included. This is because this practice could not be exercised without the impression that humans have the right to exercise power through destroying the natural word in a variety of ways, either in order to satisfy their sadistic tendencies or to gain a financial profit.
We stand in solidarity with D. and Th. Their stance and their choice shall be a catalyst of wider struggles and resistances towards this direction.
Constant struggle for the subversion of the ‘existing’, till the creation of world based on solidarity, equality and freedom.
SOLIDAIRTY WITH D. AND TH.
Anarchist Collective Acte
]]>“Solidarity with D. and Th. who are being prosecuted for the anti-hunting action in Euboea
With regard to the upcoming trial in the case of the defendents who intervened in the prevention of the murder of non human animals by a hunter in Euboea two years ago see (https://parasita.espivblogs.net/2019/03/11/gia-ton-afoplismo-kynigoy-stin-eyvoia/), we feel the need to voice our unreserved support for these persecuted individuals, and to stress once again that in this dismal world we occupy we have no choice but to fight for the absolute freedom of human and non human animals. We won’t go into the details of the incident as it is documented clearly here (https://athens.indymedia.org/post/1609553/) by the involved individuals, but what interests us more is to point out the act of resistance against the hunter, which is not only just but also necessary.
Globally hunting constitutes a dispicable activity through which countless non human animals are murdered. Even so officially and to a large extent in society it is considered and catagorised as a “sport” and treated as such. The reason is simply because as in all sports in it’s participation the individual draws pleasure from this, an act which for them is legitimately ethical. This legitimacy is based on speciesism, in other words on doctrine that allows us to view animals as inferior entities and as a resource for our use to eat or exploit in the production of wealth, for entertainment or in the context of some “sports” and much more. Based on this doctrine the non human animals have no independent value but are viewed purely as a commodity that is meant solely as usable asset. Having this perspective of animals there is no doubt why many end up murdering them and if hunting is considered a sport it can only be a sport of murderers.
Setting aside the lawful and social construct of hunting as a sport, another justification expressed is that it is done as a means for hunters to feed themselves. They support that hunting constitutes a more “natural” way of obtaining food comparing to buying dead flesh from super markets and meat markets. However, except for the fact that for most of them their diet is not entirely based on hunting, they seem to forget that their hyper-modern weapons which most of them use are coming from a well-established international trade market, which of course is based upon an equally huge production system for all the necessary for their construction metals. Similar conditions are true also for the additional equipment that plenty of them use in hunting, such as the special cameras that detect animals’ movements even at night, as well as the devices which imitate animals’ voices in order to attract them. In any case, it is widely known that human’s nutritional needs can be completely covered by non-animal products, so either with shotguns or with bows and narrows, real dilemma does not exist. What exists, though, is nothing more than an effort to a brutal practice exercised on animals for the pleasure of worthless bipods with a use of totally feeble and hypocritical excuses.
At the same time hunting is used for commercial purposes as in the sale of non human animals to third parties as well as to organizations of oppression such as circuses, zoos and pet shops where they are sold alive after being captured and taken from their natural habitat during hunting. Similarly, hunter believing that they are superior from the non-human animals and that they belong to them, they behave as their owners and after they kidnap them they use them as commodities for economical profit. Their actions moreover constitute the first stage in a life-chain for the animals which is completely stripped of their freedom and consists solely of captivity, brutality and torture.
The belief of the hunters that non human animals are inferior to them, that they are not living subjects and thus, they have no inherent value reminds us bygone times when slaves were considered a inferior human and were equated to other non-human animals and treated much like them, that is, with their bosses marked them, castrated them and kept them chained. What we must not overlook, though, is the fact that this degrading use of slaves mimicked the already established practice exercised by humans on animals, which were the first to be treated like that, exactly because they were regarded as an “inferior form of life” made for every kind of exploitation.
Modern civilization putting human being and its needs in the center of everything, brings as in a situation to face an inconvenient truth, that this civilization is constructed based on the slaughter of non human animals. The realization that its foundation is mostly based on this brutality enforced on these creatures, but also on the nature that generally surround us, leaves us no choice but to oppose this culture and it’s values. Today especially the exploitation of non-human animals has reached extreme levels and the examples are endless, hunting and fishing for example -which themselves support a huge production of the relevant equipment- and of course the meat, dairy, egg, fur and fish industries as well as the circuses, zoos, wildlife trade, animal testing for cosmetics, pharmacy, detergents, poisons and many more.
All forms of exploitation of non human animals are totally disgusting to us and we will never stop fighting until they stop. We therefore stand in solidarity with any act that prevents hunters , fishermen and other animal murderers and torturers of carrying out their plans, and we will put forward the total liberation fights for a world that will understand and be sensitive to everyone’s needs, be they human or non-human animals.
We support the call of the open antispeceisist assembly which has been scheduled for Wednesday 27.1.2021 at FEPA and will be focused on organizing actions for solidarity to the antispeceisists D. and Th.
IT’S TIME TO HUNT THE HUNTERS
SOLIDARITY WITH D. and Th.
NO ONE ALONE AT THE STATE’S HANDS
PARASITA – Anarchical Collective for the Total Liberation
]]>” 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 “