As a vegetarian animal lover, I would like to see something positive in the uproar over the killing of Cecil the lion, shot with a crossbow bolt by an American dentist for hunting thrills in Zimbabwe’s Hwange national park.
However, I’m not sure how I feel about what appears to be hordes of self-glorifying mourners wailing over the fate of one beautiful animal.
Is this really about Cecil or about what could be termed selective compassion – one animal’s death chosen to illustrate just how kind, sensitive and wonderful humans can be?
Let’s be clear, I’m disgusted by this killing. What an inadequate, loser-subspecies hunters must be. However, this goes beyond hunters, to the mawkish, censorious droves mourning celebrity lion Cecil, seemingly above all other screwed-over animals.
Are most of these people aware – do they even care – that there are innumerable incidents of perfectly legal animal cruelty, systemic exploitation and botched slaughter going on all the time?
Or doesn’t that count because the animals involved aren’t much loved, or Oxbridge-researched, with big fluffy manes that remind you of Simba’s dad in The Lion King?
Not so long ago, the RSPCA reported that cruelty to animals in Britain was becoming more vicious and inventive – one dog was shot with a crossbow bolt, just like Cecil.
Elsewhere, the food and leather industries are just two zones for ongoing industrial-level abuse of animals. Where are the anguished grieving hordes – where are the Cecil sobbers – when you need them?
In another story last week, Jane Birkin said that she did not want Hermès to name its Birkin “Croco” bags after her any longer, because of the cruelty involved in their production. A sincere bravo to Ms Birkin, but what about the leather Birkin bags? Or are animals treated so much better in abattoirs than crocodiles being skinned?
It has long perplexed me: who makes these decisions about which animals are beautiful or valued enough to be afforded dignity in life and death? In some ways, my attitude could be viewed as unreasonable, militant (or just bloody typical of a vegetarian). A more forgiving take would be that some people are just more drawn to exotic wildlife and universal grief for Cecil could aid conservation; so it’s good that lots of people cared (better than no one caring).
Fair enough, and obviously some people are genuine – I noticed Ricky Gervais joining in, but he has form for sticking up for animals.
With too many others, it seemed to be a classic case of people fixating on one element of animal abuse or, in this case, one animal, not because of animals, but because displaying how much they care – the sheer intoxication of caring – makes them look and feel good, not to mention virtuous and active. Delusional codswallop.
While I’m sad about Cecil, I’m even sadder that this is how many people “do” animal welfare: singly, from afar, a sprinkle of stardust, much noise and bluster, job done, dab the eyes, blow the nose, quietly return to a blinkered world of battery eggs, hunting ban repeals and cheap farmed leather.
While I agree with the people noisily mourning Cecil, I’m not impressed by what appears in many cases to be self-serving, monocular, ultimately pointless dramatics. He and other animals deserve more than easy tears.
The obese need support, not hatred
How dismaying to watch the obesity campaign gathering force. An airline is being sued by a passenger complaining he suffered health problems because he was seated next to an obese man. Then there’s Britain’s obesity welfare legislation, where people are at risk of losing their benefits if they refuse treatment.
Not only is this legislation spiteful and morally indefensible, but it doesn’t even seem workable – not when treatment for food addictions reputedly receives markedly less funding than say drug or alcohol addiction. If people agreed to treatment, one presumes they would have to join a lengthy waiting list. How long would they be allowed to stay on this list before they were deemed unmotivated and uncooperative and had their benefits cut?
Clearly, the true intention of this legislation is to intimidate the obese. All of which is allowed because it plays to the cheap seats – those who simplistically brand very overweight people as greedy and idle.
This is why such legislation and commentary always comes from such a negative derogatory place – the obese have been declared guilty of greed and laziness by a scornful, judgmental nation and therefore deserve no sympathy. In truth, the reasons for being very overweight can be extremely complex, physically, emotionally and culturally, never mind the ever-changing nature of food itself. However, the “fat equals lazy” stereotype is much easier to stick with, so idiots and bullies are loath to give it up.
All this going on and still people don’t think that those suffering obesity deserve legal protection against the outrageous mounting prejudice they face. Perhaps it’s other people who need treatment – to counteract their own prejudice and finally realise that obesity doesn’t automatically equate with greed and laziness.
Don’t be shy about manscara, Andy
Poor Andy Burnham savaged by Mumsnet, aka “The ladies who lunch… on politicians”. Not only was Burnham brutally labelled “underwhelming”, he was also questioned with forensic skill about his beautiful sooty eyelashes and enduringly strong hair colour.
Burnham had to rebuff the accusations, stating for the record that he did not wear mascara and had never purchased a bottle of Just For Men. Good job, Mumsnetters.
If anything, I feel that Burnham could go further with his personal grooming – perhaps a little dab of lip balm, for those dry-mouthed moments when he looks at the polls? If he does wear mascara, let’s hope it’s the waterproof sort – for when he cries at the results. Mind you, Jeremy Corbyn needn’t laugh – if ever a man was screaming out for a decent moisturiser and primer combo. Chuka Umunna should have a discreet word.
More seriously, there was a point in the Labour party leadership when both Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall rightly voiced their irritation about the covert, and sometimes overt, sexism of the contest.
With this in mind, it’s really quite wonderful to see Burnham put on the spot about his “beauty secrets”.