EDITORIAL - Anti-cruelty advocacies need consistency

Protests are mounting over a pending bill that seeks to introduce dog racing in Mandaue City, with the main opposition to the proposal coming from animal rights activists and other concerned citizens, and centering on the notion that it is cruel to the canines.

We noted, however, that the noise generated by something that is still up in the air is disproportionate to the virtual silence that has attended an established cruelty on the ground to the same animals — the wire-stringing of stray dogs and their disposal by toxic fumes.

We hope the concern or lack of it has nothing to do with the fact that the dogs right now being caught by the neck with lengths of wire and killed by gassing are but "askals" while those whose “fall to cruelty” is still within the realm of possibility are greyhounds.

Cruelty to animals is cruelty regardless of the kind of animal it befalls. If it is cruel to make dogs race and cruel to destroy them once they get hurt, it should also be cruel to string dogs by the neck with lengths of wire and gas them to death with toxic fumes.

It is not our intention to make distinctions between any advocacy against cruelty because any cruelty to whichever of God's creatures is always and unequivocably condemnable and should have no place in modern society.

Nevertheless, it is our wish that more consistency is applied on such advocacies. Applying consistency on advocacies strengthens them and affords them greater chances of success in attaining their defined goals.

Consistency also affords better chances of successfully whipping up public support for an advocacy. And it goes without saying that public support is very crucial and essential in attaining goals.

We suggest, therefore, that we broaden the advocacy to include cruelty against all dogs, or all animals, for that matter. Maybe by being less cruel to animals, we can all learn to be less violent toward humans.